You should try to understand Bitcoins better.
Fama on Bitcoin: the value is "likely to go to zero"
-
You're clueless. The market is illiquid, plain and simple. that's why it'll crash hard when all these neckbeard paper billionaires start to panic.
Unless Fama thinks Bitcoin is an inefficient market, presumably the price reflects the expected present value of future payoffs. Since Bitcoin doesn’t have any (cash) payoff, presumably this has something to do with its use-value. It’s not very good as money, since the money supply will eventually be invariant to money demand. However it does seem to have privacy value, and as the first mover in this space, network effects mean that people will use it even if it isn’t very convenient because other people are using it. I can’t explain the volatility except to say that there may be a great deal of uncertainty about this use-value.
"illiquid"
daily volume is a 11 figure number, brainletThe Repo market is in the order of $20trillion, or 20 with 12zeros afterwards...But according to you it is impossible to see runs or episodes of extreme illiquidity.
-
Those who are interested in bitcoin and blockchain, research it. Those who put a high likelihood on bitcoin succeeding as a store of value or medium of exchange, buy it. Those who think it's a ponzi scheme, don't buy it or short it. No need for high-level discussions. If anything, talk about the technology.
-
Those who are interested in bitcoin and blockchain, research it. Those who put a high likelihood on bitcoin succeeding as a store of value or medium of exchange, buy it. Those who think it's a ponzi scheme, don't buy it or short it. No need for high-level discussions. If anything, talk about the technology.
we need high-level discussions because this is an econ forum. Most of us take grad macro. Most of us understand why Bitcoin is destined to crash.
Please stop posting here.
-
Those who are interested in bitcoin and blockchain, research it. Those who put a high likelihood on bitcoin succeeding as a store of value or medium of exchange, buy it. Those who think it's a ponzi scheme, don't buy it or short it. No need for high-level discussions. If anything, talk about the technology.
we need high-level discussions because this is an econ forum. Most of us take grad macro. Most of us understand why Bitcoin is destined to crash.
Please stop posting here.Those who are interested in bitcoin and blockchain, research it. Those who put a high likelihood on bitcoin succeeding as a store of value or medium of exchange, buy it. Those who think it's a ponzi scheme, don't buy it or short it. No need for high-level discussions. If anything, talk about the technology.
we need high-level discussions because this is an econ forum. Most of us take grad macro. Most of us understand why Bitcoin is destined to crash.
Please stop posting here.I think you're right. High-level economic discussions are useful. But what I don't understand is the tone of the discussion. After all, this is an individual, financial choice with little externality on others.
-
One of the most convincing sign of the bitcoin being a bubble, is that its supporter often refer to "you should understand the technology" when they hear economic arguments.
I understand the technology enough to know that (i) bitcoin is not even a zero-sum game, because a lot of energy is literally wasted to mine it (ii) bitcoin is not even the best blockchain out there.
Hence, the probability that it remains in the long term as a "storage" of value, while non-zero, is pretty slim.
-
It is not a utility, it is a puzzle. People do not understand how that is possible. Understanding Amazon at 200 PE is already a problem, but bitcoin is two orders more puzzling.
What's the point in repeating 1000x that it's going to crash? What utility do you get from that? Confirmation?
Is it to educate? Then I understand and appreciate it, but for that the tone seems too aggressive. -
Someone posts this, then the next post you see that people want to forget that bubbles burst.
What's the point in repeating 1000x that it's going to crash? What utility do you get from that? Confirmation?
Is it to educate? Then I understand and appreciate it, but for that the tone seems too aggressive. -
I repeat: if you are optimistic about bitcoins, you literally don't understand 1st year grad macro. The aggressive tone is because you don't belong to this forum. You contaminate our discussion. High-quality discussion are harder when there is no common knowledge of graduate level knowledge. Please f**k off.
-
I kinda agree but "you literally don't understand 1st year grad macro" is not the greatest argument tbh. I mean, it's not as if modern macro has often been right on anything...
I repeat: if you are optimistic about bitcoins, you literally don't understand 1st year grad macro. The aggressive tone is because you don't belong to this forum. You contaminate our discussion. High-quality discussion are harder when there is no common knowledge of graduate level knowledge. Please f**k off.
-
Can someone explain to me why bitcoin is not consistent with the OLG-like models with money, in this case money being bitcoin? Increasing population, fixed supply of bitcoin, increasing supply of cash and gold, and other obvious advantages of bitcoin over gold... it should be easy to obtain an equilibrium in which bitcoin emerges as a store of value, and this equilibrium should Pareto dominate the ones in which either cash or gold serve as store of value.
-
Bitcoin’s rose coincides with Trump rise and Modi demonetisation.
There are a lot of $100 notes floating around the world. And all Trump has to reduce Us debt is demonetise it so that the source of each such note is known.
The only problem is once Trump knows China and Japan are dominating on crypto currency. So he could try to destroy it.
That is when the real correction comes.