Bitcoin in a hyperbolic bubble

Status
Not open for further replies.

WolfeTone

Registered User
Messages
1,074
@Dublinbay12 I appreciate your efforts on your new thread to introduce a neutral discussion on btc as an investment option.
I am however somewhat reluctant to accept your invite to critique and provide feedback on that that thread given its neutral stance. Instead I will offer some feedback here in case such feedback descend into a blood and guts affair - nobody will notice any difference in these pages and your new thread shall remain pristine.

Personally speaking, it comes across like a ground zero moment. A "let's start all over again with the condition that I will dictate the terms of the discussion and should I perceive that anyone has stepped out of those terms then I can call them out as being wrong" moment.

Now I accept my perception may be off the mark, or not agreeable with you, but it is my critique and my feedback as you requested.

As far as investing/speculating etc in bitcoin I will offer you a brief summary of my affairs with bitcoin over the last couple of years, all of which is recorded somewhere in the pages of AAM.

I first bought btc at around $2500 in 2017 purely as a speculative punt. Its price went to $20k. It crashed, and as it did so I bailed out 80% of my holding at around $10k price mark.
I subsequently started to buy btc again at around $3,500 (having given it more consideration other than a speculative asset). Further to that, as part of the taunting rituals in these discussions, I challenged anyone to short bitcoin at around the $10k mark last year, its price subsequently going 'hyperbolic'.
My own modeling for bitcoin price reckoned, last November, that

I value it at $34,500 per coin

when it's market price was roughly half that.
You may want to take a look out your window today and check what price it is today?

Of course I am no seer nor proclaim to be, just a small time independent investor who determines his own decisions on his own modeling. For example, I didn't forsee the Musk intervention and the subsequent drive to $60K. The price being way over what my own prediction was I tended to agree that it had overshot itself and I duly cash in some more @ $54k.
The price as you can see has reverted back to around my previously stated position of around $34k.

Now I appreciate you are willing to disperse some nuggets of wisdom that helps with investment decisions and perhaps you may enlighten me to where it is that I am going wrong?
 

Dublinbay12

Registered User
Messages
532
@WolfeTone, You've got your perception wrong. Given that I clearly state it is a 'neutral' stance, there will be no calling people out. You should note I already told one of the harshest critics from this forum to not mention Roubini. The objective is to keep updating the main post as feedback comes in from those like yourself so that it can benefit all users of this forum. We can keep the debate and discussion on topics like this. I've already received a number of positive PMs that the information is helpful.

Do you have any specific feedback or suggestion on the content? I think you could provide some great content given your assertations above.

It sounds like you have a good method of valuing Bitcoin, can you provide your approach for valuation and I will include it? Did you refine your approach from your earlier predictions?
31.12.19 $16,000
1625142545719.png



The challenge I have had for the last 8 years and in particularly since 'crypto twitter' and FUD from late 2016, is that you can't statistically model the impact of a tweet. It is very popular especially on Crypto Twitter to use technical analysis as an indication of a breakout or case for an investment, however it can't factor in the impact of news stories or government announcements.
 

tecate

Registered User
Messages
1,482
I appreciate your efforts on your new thread to introduce a neutral discussion on btc as an investment option.
There is no such thing as a 'neutral' discussion. The moment someone forms an opinion, inherent bias exists. That's not to say that there isn't value in having a post that provides a view in summary - but it is someone's 'take' or a group of people's view on the subject. The same goes for commercial and social media. There is no media without bias on the very same basis.

Personally speaking, it comes across like a ground zero moment. A "let's start all over again with the condition that I will dictate the terms of the discussion and should I perceive that anyone has stepped out of those terms then I can call them out as being wrong" moment.
ALL . DAY . LONG .

Otherwise, in terms of reaching conclusions, each individual reaches their own conclusions on this subject. There is no one oracle. Additionally, the consideration of future developments is incredibly important. For anyone to suggest otherwise is wayward. Ask any macro investor just how important it is to continually contemplate how things are most likely to unfold.

@WolfeTone - I'm going to tell you who you can and can't mention on here because I'm neutral but feel free to engage in open discussion. Lastly, well done on your ventures with the 'imaginary internet money'. At least yours is 'imaginary internet money' and not imaginary - imaginary internet money. ;)
 

Dublinbay12

Registered User
Messages
532
Over the course of 3 years @tecate has pointed to the lightning network roughly 60 times as the solution to scaling issues. The mention of LN delivery is often to reject criticism tabled, and support the case for BTC. However, by Tecates own admission it is only as of June 2021 that the LN is beginning to "make some impact". In those three years we have seen BTC rise from $18,000 to $60,000 without Lightning Network. Thus, BTC price movements can and have moved independently to enhancements of the underlying network.

In my investment analysis thread, I suggest that to make an investment decision on Bitcoin an investor does not to put much emphasis on future enhancements. What I mean and will clarify is that an investor should not base their decision on information / price predictions based on potential future enhancements of BTC that are guaranteed.

This is evidenced below that the price movement of BTC over the last 3 years has been independent of the Lightning network as an example.


Bitcoin Price
1625154311716.png


Feb 2018
Lightning Network is on the way - and so, it's hoped that it will once again be a functional transactional currency.

Jun 2021
Lightning Network is only just beginning to make some sort of impact (despite not being a completed project itself - its still being developed).
 

tecate

Registered User
Messages
1,482
Over the course of 3 years @tecate has pointed to the lightning network roughly 60 times as the solution to scaling issues. The mention of LN delivery is often to reject criticism tabled, and support the case for BTC. However, by Tecates own admission it is only as of June 2021 that the LN is beginning to "make some impact".
Fact Check: I referred to LN on an ongoing basis and over most of that time, I referred to it being in development. I didn't say that it was a solution to scaling - I referred to it repeatedly as having potential to resolve the issues of excessive transaction cost, excessive transaction time and restricted transaction through-put. Despite the potential that I believed it had/has, throughout those years, I acknowledged that bitcoin had limitations with regard to its use as a medium of exchange.
The motivation of El Salvador - and its plans surrounding bitcoin center entirely around the use of lightning network. It's still early days - LN is still in development - and I expect that there are and there will be technological challenges and difficulties it has to overcome yet. However, the view I expressed early on - when nobody else ever mentioned LN or layer 2 solutions - has been vindicated. I'm not just talking about LN but the use of layer 2 solutions generally - across the sector.
On the other hand, we've had one of the 'approved media' that you direct people towards over and above all other sources - outline recently that the use of bitcoin as a medium of exchange is farcical because of scaling issues - completely ignoring LN. We've had other naysayers do exactly the same here - including you. You're so diligent in pointing out my reference to the LN (even if there's literally nothing related to me and my input here you can possibly present in a factually correct manner ). Lets talk of your own lack of knowledge on the subject. Had you spent two minutes investigating the El Salvador project you would have known that LN is central to it. You didn't because you had no clue.

In those three years we have seen BTC rise from $18,000 to $60,000 without Lightning Network. Thus, BTC price movements can and have moved independently to enhancements of the underlying network.
I was here during the depths of the 2018 bear market. There was practically no other folk positive about bitcoin/crypto knocking around back then ( there were a few that preceded me - but they'd long since been chased off ). I saw with my own two eyes what was happening in terms of real development in the space - and I posted on that basis. These are the posts that you claimed to be rhetoric when you dropped-by much, much later. They were real life examples of tangible development. Now they're coming so fast that its practically impossible to keep up with what's going on in the space. People that I pay heed to in this space - who I could only dream of having a fraction of their knowledge - have said themselves - pick certain projects and know them. Even they can't possibly keep on top of what's being developed.
The price during that bear market had no correlation to fundamentally sound developments that were going on back then - just like someone sneezing on twitter is over-exaggerated to the upside in this and previous bull markets.
LN has taken an age to develop and it's far from finished (even though it is in effect a live and workable solution that is being used this very day). If you're saying that it's not 'priced-in', that may very well be. That in no way surprises me given its only starting to show its promise right now.

In my investment analysis thread, I suggest that to make an investment decision on Bitcoin an investor does not to put much emphasis on future enhancements. What I mean and will clarify is that an investor should not base their decision on information / price predictions based on potential future enhancements of BTC that are guaranteed.

You're free to use whatever parameters you want for your thread. I have no intention or desire to stand in your way. However, I do have an opinion and I'm free to express it should I choose to do so. Over the course of the 3-4 years that you referred to above, time and time again I listened to the argument that bitcoin doesn't do jack - it's been around for donkeys years - ergo...I'm calling it as bs and a waste of time. You and anyone else are entitled to take that view - entirely up to yourself. However, I believe it to be completely wayward with regard to the innovation that's in front of us. The point that you make with regard to LN completely underscores my own point. Development within the space as a whole - validates my view. Whilst you have repeatedly reminded us of your expertise in this area, I have repeatedly pointed out that I have none. However of the little that I do know, I respect people that do detailed analysis as macro investors. I respect their thesis - which is that anticipating how this is all going to unfold is incredibly powerful from an investment viewpoint should someone get it right.

Seeing as we're having a look at what I've posted going back years, another line item for you is that I have always maintained that every individual is responsible for their own choices and arriving at their own conclusions. That's first and foremost. Secondly, over the course of those years, anything I've posted here has been my opinion - and solely my opinion. It wasn't advice. In the few instances where we got close to that line, I repeatedly made the case for the existence of merit in taking a btc position of no more than a few percent of an overall portfolio. NO-ONE from the naysayer or (alleged) neutral side of the fence agreed with me on that point.
 

Dublinbay12

Registered User
Messages
532
. Had you spent two minutes investigating the El Salvador project you would have known that LN is central to it. You didn't because you had no clue.

For somebody claiming to have no expertise, you've done a great job at fooling me! You know more than I do!

I'm not sure the relevance of El Salvador has to the comment I made. However, as we are on Hot on factchecks please see my reference from earlier this week regarding LNs importance in the success of the El Salv project.

I know it surprises you given you've classified me as a 'naysayer', but I'm involved in crypto. I read a wide range of content on crypto from various sources daily. Though as you've pointed out, I must be reading the wrong sources.

$30 is not great when fees can hit $60+. Given the average GDP of EL Salvador residents is $4,000 per annum, anything other than extremely cheap transactions is too expensive for them. For this to be any kind of success it requires the rollout of the lightning network.

Interestingly given that BTC fees can be bid up during periods of volatility to allow those who want to sell or buy get their transactions to the front of the line. This pits the relatively poor El Salvadorians against those with large holdings or deep pockets (Wall Street Institutional Investors).

View attachment 5666

So just to be clear, when you said the below. You didn't think that LN was the solution to scaling? I understand you caveated back then that it may not work but you were still clearly off the belief it would be the solution given the amount of times you mentioned it. What's your stance now after 3 years? You seemed to be bullish the other day on LN. If not, what's the potential solution (layer 2 or otherwise)?

If LN doesn't work by your own admission (previous quote) BTC will struggle as a transactional currency? Thus that farcical article isn't really farcical?

It had made modest in-roads in this regard...but the momentum has gone into reverse as bitcoin hit scaling issues (resulting in prohibitive tx fees and times). If that gets resolved by Lightning Network, then it can move forward again in this respect.

What I've really struggled with Tecate is that you come out with, "I'm not an expert, this is just my opinion" but then you are so incredibly quick to discount experts who criticise Bitcoin. I would think if you've no expertise you'd be more open to listen to opinions.

For example I referenced 2 crypto news sources and the FT, and you've said they've no credibility. I apologize, I mean you didn't say it directly, you inferred it but kept it vague enough to claim you've been misquoted.
 
Last edited:

tecate

Registered User
Messages
1,482
I'm not sure the relevance of El Salvador has to the comment I made. However, as we are on Hot on factchecks please see my reference from earlier this week regarding LNs importance in the success of the El Salv project.

The post where you bemoan the cost of main-net fees in the context of the Salvadoran project? On that basis, you suggest that bitcoin isn't an appropriate solution for your average Salvadoran - that it requires the roll-out of the lightning network. Salvadorans have been using LN for months already. Lightning Dev's went there and developed the Bitcoin Beach LN wallet app. Jack Mallers' Strike app is LN-based and its in use.

I know it surprises you given you've classified me as a 'naysayer', but I'm involved in crypto. I read a wide range of content on crypto from various sources daily. Though as you've pointed out, I must be reading the wrong sources.
Why would I be surprised - you've volunteered that info on a number of occasions. As regards reading the wrong sources, if you need book recommendations, there's a few that I think would be suitable for you - albeit that none of them are related in any way to crypto/blockchain.


If LN doesn't work by your own admission (previous quote) BTC will struggle as a transactional currency? Thus that farcical article isn't really farcical?
It's completely farcical. LN exists today - it can and is being used today for micropayments. The entire Salvadoran project is LN based. Mallers' strike app is LN based. Bottlepay is LN based. A number of exchanges have enabled LN. Now it could be reasonable if this appeared in the article somewhere - but it didn't even get a mention.


What I've really struggled with Tecate is that you come out with, "I'm not an expert, this is just my opinion" but then you are so incredibly quick to discount experts who criticise Bitcoin. I would think if you've no expertise you'd be more open to listen to opinions.
You have no basis for said comment (your 'example' doesn't qualify - I'll get to that in a second). It's very much in my interests to seek out criticism of BTC - and that's precisely what I do. My decision to participate here was made in that vein. It's understating things to say that this isn't a crypto-positive space.


For example I referenced 2 crypto news sources and the FT, and you've said they've no credibility. I apologize, I mean you didn't say it directly, you inferred it but kept it vague enough to claim you've been misquoted.

Firstly, you're making an assumption that someone writing for the FT is an expert. That's a mistake. They may or may not be. And even if they are - an expert in what? Discussion of bitcoin implicates finance, tech, monetary policy, regulation, etc. etc. Ask the Duke what my go-to example of a renowned economist not staying in his lane (keynesian economics) and making big fat (wayward) claims on tech is.
Secondly, this is not the 1970s. Any professional worth their salt would not be insecure about having any idea challenged. In fact, they would actively encourage it. Last but not least, any opinion expressed comes with an inherent bias.
You work in some way with crypto. Then this should resonate with you. I can't remember if its the WSJ or the FT but one or other of them - when someone checked it, the word 'DeFi' had appeared in that publication less times than I have fingers. It's not something that's been discussed here at all but we're talking about something that's going to disrupt the hell out of traditional finance and that's how much attention they've been paying to it.

Dublinbay12 said:
Ask your friend Tecate, as he is often posting examples of market manipulation in support of BTC adoption.
You've made the big fat claim - now lets see what you'll concoct. I say concoct as there's no earthly way I've done such a thing. Lets here it.


Dublinbay12 said:
Ok so any reporting that dares criticise or present a negative opinion is FUD? What a load of rubbish. If that were true then it seems some people on here have authoritarian views when it comes to bitcoin. It's such a weak defence to just call a news story FUD, especially when said reporting comes from respected crypto news outlets.

I guess I should just come to this forum for the truth*.


*Truth according to Tecate
And there's your error. If you can't think in first principles, then you're at a distinct disadvantage. See above on your 'respected news outlets'. Secondly, nobody has claimed anything to be FUD here without giving their complete rationale as to why.
 
Last edited:

Dublinbay12

Registered User
Messages
532
The post where you bemoan the cost of main-net fees in the context of the Salvadoran project? On that basis, you suggest that bitcoin isn't an appropriate solution

Simple Question.....Can El Salvadors usage of Bitcoin as a legal tender work without Lightning Network?

My statement was that it will not be successful without the rollout of Lightning Network. As you should be aware the Lightning Network is still being rolled out and developed, correct me if this is incorrect.


Firstly, you're making an assumption that someone writing for the FT is an expert. That's a mistake. They may or may not be. And even if they are - an expert in what? Discussion of bitcoin implicates finance, tech, monetary policy, regulation, etc. etc. Ask the Duke what my go-to example of a renowned economist not staying in his lane (keynesian economics) and making big fat (wayward) claims on tech is.
Secondly, this is not the 1970s. Any professional worth their salt would not be insecure about having any idea challenged. In fact, they would actively encourage it. Last but not least, any opinion expressed comes with an inherent bias.
You work in some way with crypto. Then this should resonate with you. I can't remember if its the WSJ or the FT but one or other of them - when someone checked it, the word 'DeFi' had appeared in that publication less times than I have fingers. It's not something that's been discussed here at all but we're talking about something that's going to disrupt the hell out of traditional finance and that's how much attention they've been paying to it.

Firstly, given you claim to have no expertise in the area but have formed an opinion. I assume you have used various news sources / crypto sources to form your opinion?

Secondly, I did not claim the FT to be an expert, but I do believe they have credibility. As you point discussion in Bitcoin requires knowledge or expertise in a wide range of topics, so unless you've found a news story for BTC with articles written by only an expert in finance, tech, monetary policy and regulation, you have also made choices on what news sources have credibility? It is pretty clear you stray on the side of mainstream media having no credibility in writing about BTC, why? Why can't a good journalist write about a topic they are not an expert in? I am pretty sure this happens everyday in journalism hence why journalist do research, seek out sources etc etc.

Lastly, this is where you are misguided "Any professional worth their salt would not be insecure about having any idea challenged". You have not challenged, you have simply inferred the FT is 'farcical'. You now introduce DeFi, good timing the FT just had an excellent article at the weekend regarding Regulators grappling with DeFi, so not really sure where you got that mainstream media aren't paying attention to DeFi, similarly the most recent development in El Salvador has been covered thoroughly in mainstream media.

Are you saying that I should ignore articles about crypto written in the Financial Times?
 

Dublinbay12

Registered User
Messages
532
@WolfeTone, You've got your perception wrong. Given that I clearly state it is a 'neutral' stance, there will be no calling people out. You should note I already told one of the harshest critics from this forum to not mention Roubini. The objective is to keep updating the main post as feedback comes in from those like yourself so that it can benefit all users of this forum. We can keep the debate and discussion on topics like this. I've already received a number of positive PMs that the information is helpful.

Do you have any specific feedback or suggestion on the content? I think you could provide some great content given your assertations above.

It sounds like you have a good method of valuing Bitcoin, can you provide your approach for valuation and I will include it? Did you refine your approach from your earlier predictions?

View attachment 5676


The challenge I have had for the last 8 years and in particularly since 'crypto twitter' and FUD from late 2016, is that you can't statistically model the impact of a tweet. It is very popular especially on Crypto Twitter to use technical analysis as an indication of a breakout or case for an investment, however it can't factor in the impact of news stories or government announcements.

I guess that valuation method needs some work.
 

WolfeTone

Registered User
Messages
1,074
I guess that valuation method needs some work.

Eh, yes of course it does. While I can point to a series of successes in valuing bitcoin including a near bullseye price prediction of $34,500 I can also point to a series of price predictions that where I was way off the mark also.
What I didn't include in my previous quote predicting $34,500 was the rest of the sentence which continued "its impossible to time the market".
If someone thinks they have a fool-proof way of doing this then they are deluded.

There is no fixed, set, mathematical equation that I apply to valuing bitcoin. I determine it from a number of observable and variable sources and then I make my own determination as whether or not to buy or sell.
I'm of the view that bitcoin price has scope to go alot higher than previous ATH's albeit I do not think that is going to happen anytime in the short-term (1yr).
I could of course be totally wrong in that, time will tell.
 

Dublinbay12

Registered User
Messages
532
Eh, yes of course it does. While I can point to a series of successes in valuing bitcoin including a near bullseye price prediction of $34,500 I can also point to a series of

Can you point to them? I don't see any evidence of you making a bullseye prediction, you guessed $34,500 without saying the time. In fact the only evidence I see of you predicting the value of Bitcoin with an associated time you got it wrong.


I determine it from a number of observable and variable sources
Such as?
 

WolfeTone

Registered User
Messages
1,074
In fact the only evidence I see of you predicting the value of Bitcoin with an associated time you got it wrong.

So why would you request that I post my valuation method?

can you provide your approach for valuation and I will include it?

If I am getting it wrong, can you point out to me where? I have asked you this already.

It is my understanding that timing the market is impossible, however, realizing profitable gains is generally considered to be getting things right.
 

Dublinbay12

Registered User
Messages
532
So why would you request that I post my valuation method?

Because you brought up the topic of having a modelling approach for making 'near bullseye' price predictions. Why would I not request something that can make 'bullseye predictions'?! I requested your model before clarified that it doesn't time the market, it is not mathematical but based on observation. I don't think you have a modelling approach at all.

My own modeling for bitcoin price reckoned, last November, that




If I am getting it wrong, can you point out to me where? I have asked you this already.

I have already posted this, but I will post it again. Your Prediction below, actual price ~$7,000
31.12.19 $16,000


Can you provide what observable and variable sources you use to make bullseye predictions? Further, given you have the ability to make near bullseyes prediction, based on your opinion today, what is your price prediction for 6 months from now? Don't be shy, you were willing to make time stamp predictions previously.
 

WolfeTone

Registered User
Messages
1,074
Because you brought up the topic of having a modelling approach for making 'near bullseye' price predictions.

Except I never did any such thing. This is another one of your distortions of the English language. Here is exactly what I said

While I can point to a series of successes in valuing bitcoin including a near bullseye price prediction of $34,500 I can also point to a series of price predictions that where I was way off the mark also

Any rational understanding of the English language would take from that, that as much as I claim to have got one near precise 'bullseye' price prediction, my modelling for price predicting has also been quite wrong on several occasions. As you mentioned,

I guess that valuation method needs some work.

and to which I agreed.

Eh, yes of course it does

So rather than the impartial, neutral topic you claim to want to generate, you rather create the topic on your terms, your own interpretation and to jump on anything you think you can call out as being wrong.

Can you provide what observable and variable sources you use?

I could, but I choose not to because there is a considerable amount of variable sources, always in a state of flux....upon which I make my own interpretation of the substance of the data and come to my own determination if something (anything) is undervalued or overvalued.
But at a broad level I follow monetary policy decisions of ECB, Federal Reserve and other major Central Banks, I think this is pertinent to any investment decision about buying or selling bitcoin. I make my own critical interpretation of monetary policy and what impact I think it may have on the price of bitcoin. As mentioned earlier, I remain somewhat bearish over the short term (1yr at least) on bitcoin price, albeit over the long-term I am very bullish.

Basically, I live and die on my own sword. I don't need help in making investment decisions in bitcoin, and I don't pretend to be offering help to others make investment decisions in bitcoin.
 

Dublinbay12

Registered User
Messages
532
Wolfetone, your approach of claiming I am misquoting is getting tiresome and tedious. See below were you say you first introduced that you used a model to predict a price of $34,500 that you then referenced as your own 'near bullseye' prediction.

My own modeling for bitcoin price reckoned, last November, that


Honestly, I give up, it is impossible to have any logical discussion with you.

I'm glad your model has allowed you to be somewhat bearish in the short term whilst also long term very bullish. We all know you have no model, and you are just making an educated guess. Case in point, you weren't able to use your broad macroeconomic model across multiple variable sources that are in flux examing Central Bank Monetary policy to predict the rise to $60k.

In fact you should know that monetary policy of the ECB and FRB has largely been unchanged for the last 10 years, and specifically the last 2 years during Covid. It is only in the last 2 weeks the FRB has made a major announcement around monetary policy, so I would have thought your 'model' would have given you a new price prediction.

I honestly can't believe you are claiming a 'bullseye prediction'

I bid you well Wolfetone.

Goodbye
 

WolfeTone

Registered User
Messages
1,074
We all know you have no model, and you are just making an educated guess

I prefer to call to it "an informed estimate", sounds more pro, like you!

I work off the maxim that all models are wrong, some are useful. My model (sorry, educated guess/informed estimates) in at first speculating, then learning, then investing, then profiting in bitcoin has been useful to me.

In fact you should know that monetary policy of the ECB and FRB has largely been unchanged for the last 10 years

That is your interpretation of policy decisions made by ECB and Fed Res, and that is why your claims to be interested in

simply providing information to help others form an opinion

is pure codology.

If you think monetary policy has been largely unchanged then here is brief history of Fed Reserve QE monetary policy changes since 2008.


- In late November 2008, the Federal Reserve started buying $600 billion in mortgage-backed securities.

- In November 2010, the Fed announced a second round of quantitative easing, buying $600 billion of Treasury securities by the end of the second quarter of 2011

- A third round of quantitative easing, "QE3", was announced on 13 September 2012.

- On 19 June 2013, Ben Bernanke announced a "tapering" of some of the Fed's QE policies contingent upon continued positive economic data. Specifically, he said that the Fed could scale back its bond purchases from $85 billion to $65 billion a month during the upcoming September 2013 policy meeting. He also suggested that the bond-buying program could wrap up by mid-2014.

- On 18 September 2013, the Fed decided to hold off on scaling back its bond-buying program and announced in December 2013 that it would begin to taper its purchases in January 2014.

- Purchases were halted on 29 October 2014 after accumulating $4.5 trillion in assets.

- In September 2019, the Federal Reserve began conducting its fourth quantitative easing operation since the 2008 financial crisis


Now perhaps you read that as a continuation of the same policy throughout, with some tinkering? Good luck with that.
In my view, the repeated additional announcements of extending QE amount to a change of the policy direction that was intended at outset of the previous announcement.
That is my interpretation, which clearly will differ from yours. As such we are likely to take different courses of action in investment strategy.


I feel sorry for people who bought BTC at current high prices ($30k to $60k)

Why would you feel sorry for people who bought BTC at current high prices? Perhaps you can reveal your own 'model' that invokes this concern from you?
 
Last edited:

Dublinbay12

Registered User
Messages
532
If you think monetary policy has been largely unchanged then here is brief history of Fed Reserve QE monetary policy changes since 2008.


- In late November 2008, the Federal Reserve started buying $600 billion in mortgage-backed securities.

- In November 2010, the Fed announced a second round of quantitative easing, buying $600 billion of Treasury securities by the end of the second quarter of 2011

- A third round of quantitative easing, "QE3", was announced on 13 September 2012.

- On 19 June 2013, Ben Bernanke announced a "tapering" of some of the Fed's QE policies contingent upon continued positive economic data. Specifically, he said that the Fed could scale back its bond purchases from $85 billion to $65 billion a month during the upcoming September 2013 policy meeting. He also suggested that the bond-buying program could wrap up by mid-2014.

- On 18 September 2013, the Fed decided to hold off on scaling back its bond-buying program and announced in December 2013 that it would begin to taper its purchases in January 2014.

- Purchases were halted on 29 October 2014 after accumulating $4.5 trillion in assets.

- In September 2019, the Federal Reserve began conducting its fourth quantitative easing operation since the 2008 financial crisis


Now perhaps you read that as a continuation of the same policy throughout, with some tinkering? Good luck with that.
In my view, the repeated additional announcements of extending QE amount to a change of the policy direction that was intended at outset of the previous announcement.
That is my interpretation, which clearly will differ from yours. As such we are likely to take different courses of action in investment strategy.

Wolfetone, what are you talking about?!?! Do you know what monetary policy tools are? How can a continuation of Quantitative easing be interpreted as a change of policy direction?????????? You continually contradict yourself in your own sentences responses.

But I will entertain your train your interpretation for a second. Can you explain how these 'changes of policy direction' have impacted the price of Bitcoin over the last 10 years?

P.s you also misquoted me, are you now doing that on purpose? To reiterate I said that Monetary Policy has been unchanged for the last 10 years.

I note you chose to ignore my question around the latest development from the FRB, if you watch what they do so closely. Why can't you comment on an announcement of policy change from a few weeks ago?


You win, I can't handle your illogical reasoning any longer.
 

Dublinbay12

Registered User
Messages
532
Why would you feel sorry for people who bought BTC at current high prices? Perhaps you can reveal your own 'model' that invokes this concern from you?

Because your bullseye model values BTC currently at $34k with a somewhat bearish view in the shortterm. Thus people buying at higher prices based on advise in this forum, are losing money. They should have all listened to your model.

P.s, if you haven't named your model yet maybe you can name it Bullseye
 

DazedInPontoon

Registered User
Messages
143
My two cents: the short term price might be influenced by a Musk tweet, or even more likely a tweet might be the catalyst for a movement that was on the cards anyway, but the long term average price is a function of long term demand.

If you think the long term demand of bitcoin will increase at a rate higher than the supply increases then it is logical to also think that the long term average price will increase.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top