https://cointelegraph.com/news/nobel-prize-winner-eugene-fama-on-bitcoin
Fama on Bitcoin: the value is "likely to go to zero"
-
lol
This is basically saying that it is impossible to buy undervalued stock or sell it a higher rate, making arbitrage an illusion. The EMH hypothesis is very close in conception to the mathematical random walk hypothesis, that states that prices follow a random pattern. Random patterns are unpredictable by nature, so then the arrive at the same conclusion.
-
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.
-
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.
This. It is useful to Chinese / Russian oligarchs / Middle Eastern sheiks / drug traffickers etc.
-
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.
-
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, brainlet
-
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.
You're just pissed because you're not even a paper-thousandaire.
Have fun regging y x for publishes in low-ranked journals no one reads or cares about.