Well, it looks like we have another new player. I don't know how this would end but the project sounds interesting. It sort of reminded me of what Piratebay did. https://cointelegraph.com/news/bittorrent-creators-chia-could-fix-bitcoin-with-own-altcoin-by-late-2018BitTorrent creator Bram Cohen has debuted his “solution” to Bitcoin which he says resolves “centralization problems” with the virtual currency.
Speaking to TechCrunch Wednesday, Cohen explained his Chia Network would offer more reliable, eco-friendly mining and security measures.
The developer has been famously critical of Bitcoin this year as the network suffers slow and expensive transaction processing.
“The idea is to make a better Bitcoin, to fix the centralization problems,” Cohen told the publication.
Employing a concept called proof-of-time, as opposed to proof-of-work, Chia relies on a two-step block authentication method.
The three “weightiest histories” found by full nodes are relayed to “farmers,” not miners. These find “the best proof of space they have,” after which proof-of-time servers begin validation and publish a verified block to the network.
This procedure should take away mining power from a select few miners, as occurs with Bitcoin, Cohen says.
“It’s technically ambitious and there’s a big meaty chunk of work to do. I’ve done enough raising money and recruiting. Now for the real work,” he added.
While Bitcoin continues to find stability after its latest hard fork was canceled by developers this week, Cohen maintains a late-2018 or later release for his altcoin will still be timely.
He is not alone in his plans, with MegaUpload creator Kim Dotcom likely to beat him to issuing a cryptocurrency, this time for his own decentralized file sharing network. Dotcom’s Bitcache will be 100 percent Bitcoin-supportive, however, having an integrated wallet for users.
Bitcoin has a centralization problem? It has a congestion problem, but not a centralization problem that I'm aware of. I'm not sure how proof-of-time differs from proof-of-stake, but it sounds like PoS also uses what would be termed "farmers" instead of miners, so I'm not entirely certain why PoT would differ or be an improvement, or what the incentive is to use PoT over PoS if PoW leads you to be concerned about large miners controlling too much of the mining market. So far PoW has not scaled very well for mass adoption, which is where the congestion problem comes in. I think any public ledger like bitcoin this is destined to become far too memory intensive to be very effective over the long term, and this leads me to question whether some centralization in payment processing isn't required in order to function fast and securely enough to be useful. |
|
|
|
It is crazy as that was a very huge risk to take honestly. I almost laughed off my chair when I was reading the comments recently dropped by those who read it and I am impressed he still responded. According to him, in response to a comment, he said; Thanks for the support, but I’m good… I don’t risk money I’m not happy to lose… But let's face it, that is a whole lot of money to lose, but it is one of those things. I wonder what I would have been doing right now, if I had lose that kind of money. I believe the segwit2x would have really been a stumbling block to bitcoin's growth which I am happy that was seen pretty fast. I hope the scaling issue is solved but I am still happy this did not pull through as it started getting scary at some point. Guy took it well, it was a huge gamble and he seems to have understood that going in. He's kind of nonchalant about it, so I'm guessing that if he 1) had the funds to sink $85k into b2x futures and 2) doesn't think the sky is falling now that that has become almost worthless, that he's done well enough and is a sophisticated enough investor to understand the risk/reward here. His lesson is the crypto lesson at large: don't hold anything you aren't prepared to lose entirely. No one seems to acknowledge it, but bitcoin itself could undergo a rapid fall the same way b2x futures did, and for not discernible reason too since it's an asset whose price is based solely on speculation. |
|
|
|
Adams Smith wrote that the price of all things are equivalent to the human labor involved in their exploitation. The price of gold is determined by the cost in human labor to mine it. It can then be exchanged for another commodity which takes an equal amount of labor to create it.
Over time I have been able to find ways to place a price on stocks which I can use to evaluate what their value is to me. I can then buy and sell based on what I determine as value at any time.
I’m not a currency speculator but I also believe the US dollar is being killed. I don’t like having much of a cash position but would rather be fully invested. At this time what I see is a highly inflated value of the S&P 500. Any bonds other the very short term bonds come with too much risk tied to the Feds low interest rate policy and the increasing money supply along with quantitative easing which is placing too much fake money on the Feds balance sheet.
After many years I have developed a feel or intuition to tell me when prices are out of line. When it comes to bitcoin I am at a loss. I like the core concept of bitcoin and long term it seem like it will all work out but it’s value is another issue. I just don’t have a feel for what it’s worth in exchange for food, a house, a car, gold equivalent. It seem that it should be relatively close in value to the cost incurred by the bitcoin miners. How do I find out what the current cost is to mine bitcoins. It cost to mine a well know number kind of like the PE for a stork or index?
I have started to buy small amounts which I plan to hold but I really don’t like the volatility. It is also difficult to invest in something when I don’t really have any history to give me a clue of somethings value. I doubt I would hold if bitcoin went over 5000. It seems to be moving a bit too fast.
The problem is there aren't a lot of way to analyze the appropriate price for bitcoin, or to determine what valuation should be. People can make arguments about technical indicators and levels of support, but that still doesn't really get at the core of what the value should be, or what is an appropriate way to value it. At the time you wrote this, you indicated you would have been uncomfortable with btc over $5000, and now we're over $7000. I've held for a long time, and even as I've increasingly grown less convinced this isn't a bubble, I've still resisted selling out of any position. But today was the day that changed. The SegWit2x fiasco combined with the prices above $7000 have me taking risk off the table now. |
|
|
|
global disaster mean this is happened to almost all of the countries in the world and i think yes possibly it will decrease the value of cryptocurrency because when global disaster happened most of people only concern how to save their own life without care for their wealth and if it is so then bitcoin will being worthless and lack of interest also the damage effect is there's no internet connections which being the main thing to use bitcoin
In a global disaster, people flee risk to safer assets. There isn't much riskier than crypto, since it's price is comprised of pure speculation. Compare crypto assets to the stock market. Shares of a company have an inherent value, in that shares of a company represent proportional ownership, and if the company were to be liquidated, the shares would be worth a proportional share of all the assets they represent ownership in. Further, shares generally trade above this value because they represent future profit the company will generate. Contrast this with bitcoin which doesn't represent ownership of a business or anything the generates profit. The only way to profit from owning a crypto asset is to sell it someone else for more than what you bought it for. This is a crapshoot of a proposition, and requires everyone to continue to value an inherently valueless asset. In times of global strife, stocks dive because people flee risk for safer assets (cash, treasury bills, etc.). We haven't had a period of global strife since the implementation of crypto assets yet, but my prediction is you would see a bigger pull back than you see in the stock market because crypto represents more risk than even those types of assets. |
|
|
|
I'm guessing this news has something to do with the volatile spikes today. Bitcoin dropped from 7800 to 7100 in about an hour earlier today. SegWit2x is being suspended by organizers for lack of consensus. The organizers of a controversial bitcoin software update are suspending their attempt to increase the block size by way of a hard fork.
Known for its strong early support from bitcoin startups and mining pools, the plan, called Segwit2x, or simply '2x,' was to trigger a block size increase at block 494,784, expected to occur on or around November 16th. The goal of the project, according to those involved, was to use the measure to increase bitcoin's transaction capacity, which is today constrained by the nature of the software's rules.
The suspension was announced today in an email written by Mike Belshe, CEO and co-founder of bitcoin wallet software provider BitGo. One of the leaders of the Segwit2x project, he argued that the scaling proposal is too controversial to move forward.
He wrote:
"Unfortunately, it is clear that we have not built sufficient consensus for a clean block size upgrade at this time. Continuing on the current path could divide the community and be a setback to Bitcoin’s growth. This was never the goal of Segwit2x."
"Until then, we are suspending our plans for the upcoming 2MB upgrade," he added.
The note is also signed by companies that originally supported the plan, forged at an in-person meeting in May, including Xapo CEO Wences Casares, Bitmain co-founder Jihan Wu, Bloq CEO and co-founder Jeff Garzik, Blockchain CEO and co-founder Peter Smith and Shapeshift CEO and founder Erik Voorhees.
The group said that it still hopes the block size will be increased further down the line, once there is more agreement from stakeholders.
In statements to the BTC1 Slack group, developer Jeff Garzik said the alternative software would continue to be developed, and that it may support "other chains such as bitcoin cash, litecoin and other bitcoin-family chains."
I was initially pro-SegWit2x, but seeing how it was being implemented and the plan to intentionally refuse to implement replay attack protection as a means to force itself into the dominant chain, I have to say that I'm glad this is being called off. As planned, I don't think this was going to go well and would have likely lead to a dramatic price crash in the ensuing battle. I have seen some people arguing that BCH was a beneficiary of the SegWit2x fork, but I wonder if this dims the prospect of BCH now for them. The price of that coin has been holding up better than I would have expected. |
|
|
|
I am not convinced that buying something with the intention to sell at a higher price is greater fool theory, perhaps buying something with no idea what is a good entry and exit point could fall under that category. If you buy rice in China and know you can sell it in the UK for a profit, that is not greater fool theory, that is good sound logic.
Everyone who buys an asset does so with the intention of it being more valuable in the future; the intention has no impact on whether or not it's a sound decision. In your analogy, you present it as a given that rice can be bought in China and sold profitably in the UK, but in the real world, anywhere there is a known profit margin, there is intense competition that eliminates it except for the biggest, best run operators. There is no such thing as gauranteed profit in the real world. The point is that nobody buying bitcoin at $7000 has a reasonable expectation what the price should be or whether they should expect to be able to sell it at a profit later. Of course everyone intends for it to be worth more later, but the blind assumption that you will be able to flip it to someone who will value it more in the future than what you do now is what proves the basis of the greater fool theory. Everyone buying right now is only doing so because everyone is sharing the same delusion that the price can't go down, or if it does go down, it'll recover quickly. The base assumption is "as long as I don't sell for less than what I bought for, I'll make a profit." Nothing in the world works that way, and the scary part is people are treating bitcoin like it's a risk-less asset. |
|
|
|
Looking at their free shipping policy, amazon appears to operate mainly in the united states. Their shipping network isn't equipped to function well on an international basis. If north america represents amazon's largest consumer demographic, I think they'll wait for international expansion to grow before including widespread support for crypto currencies. The large majority of americans have access to debit/credit cards/paypal/gift cards & including support for crypto likely won't make a difference in their domestic US markets. Internationally however the percentage of consumers with access to electronic payment can decline. Crypto having a lower bar to entry for consumers could make it an attractive method of digital payment in areas like africa which are prone towards having unstable currencies and perhaps not the most cost effective methods of electronic payment. What amazon's precise business plans are is anyone's guess. Business is going very well for them atm. Their key thing is efficiency. Eliminating "brick and mortar" stores gives them an efficiency advantage over traditional stores. Whether amazon expands and includes support for crypto may depend upon regulation. Tariffs, taxes, fees on shipping. Import/export regulations from US based businesses to foreign countries. Whether amazon can establish distribution centers in other countries who will be open to them operating there. I don't think amazon will include support for crypto in 2018. But there is https://purse.io/ (which I have never used btw and can't comment on) it could make direct crypto support redundant to a degree. Paying for things on amazon with crypto may not be that difficult. What might be hard is finding shipping support, especially for international residents. It's likely that if Amazon does accept crypto, they will merely outsource that to an intermediary who processes crypto transactions and immediately converts to the local currency where they are shipping to or operating at. I don't see Amazon as being too interested in holding crypto, but only using it as a means to appeal to anyone who might not otherwise buy something from Amazon, and with the amount of sales they presently do, it's not likely to be meaningful. As for Amazon's efficiency, they're actually acquiring brick and mortar stores now (there have been multiple acquisitions recently designed to give them a physical footprint, Whole Foods being the largest), and they're generally doing so because a purely online presence presents particular obstacles they haven't been able to solve. And Amazon already has large scale operations outside of the US, recently announcing they were expanding their operations in Mexico and breaking in to Brazil in a more meaningful way. I don't particularly think crypto will play a meaningful role in foreign markets as much as the US, if they ever decide to go that route, and even then, I don't see it ever being a meaningful needle mover for the company. |
|
|
|
Idk, do you feel like your stack is big enough? Do you feel like we're going to go higher over the long term? Buys every two weeks or months (dollar cost averaging) is the smartest thing you can do to mitigate your risk. It's a good investment strategy.
This is the best advice I've seen, and it doesn't just apply to bitcoin. Any long term, significant investment is best made through dollar cost averaging so as to even out the price variance of buying assets at any one time. That said, it doesn't do anything to address the OP's question about what to do now that bitcoin is so expensive, but that's just the nature of the beast. Bitcoin is worth a lot more than it was last year, your $100 investment isn't going to move the needle much any more. There's no remedy for that. At this point, I'm not even dollar cost averaging new bitcoin purchases, because this price level doesn't seem to me to be sustainable. |
|
|
|
Yes it would definately be popular
pherphaps even more popular as we could focus more on the underlying blockchain technology and less on the volatility of the price
I don’t think so that it will be possible for bitcoin to maintain its fame and popularity once it will have a very stable market price. It is because of the fact that the only thing which is grabbing the attention of the investors in the significant increase in the market price of bitcoin. If bitcoin will have a stable market price, then it will lose its importance like that of gold and people will look for some other investment. The headlines bring the attention and bring more people in. Bitcoin probably doesn't lose importance with a stable price, but it sure does lose it's most important recruiting tool, and that's mainstream media attention. Before anyone knew what cryptocurrency was, nobody had an incentive to learn because it had no applicability to them. It was a foreign concept, and pretty technical system. The only reason people took note was because of the growing number of stories of people making a lot of money. Bitcoin is far more useful as a currency and store of value with a stable price, but an alternative to cash isn't very interesting, especially since digital cash is easier to use and retains value. |
|
|
|
I just always wonder if those billionaires still invest in btc. Do they even know btc exist?
Yeah billionaires are one of the people who are updated about news, so for sure they already know about bitcoin and its better for them if they invest in bitcoin. Almost billionaires are inrested on investing. I think they are invest on bitcoin to earn more money. And even not billionaires they can invest on bitcoin because they know how much they can get profit once the bitcoin rise up. They can even invest and forget about it in their cold storage and then go about their normal lives as time goes on. The thing is that they have a great edge and if anyone is willing to drop theirs at the value they have presently, they will be so willing to take it. Why do you think the value of BTC is soaring right now, if you think it is the upcoming fork alone, then you are wrong cause so many investors are already declaring their intentions and wall street is going to get huge on this. So anyone who does not have much and could afford no matter how little should better do that now and not end up complaining later on in the future.I think partially it's fork-related. Any time you have a snapshot of your holdings and a fork that will replicate the holdings for a new currency that branches off, there is going to be some increased demand to acquire btc before the snapshot occurs. I don't know how big of a factor that is, but I would expect that shortly after fork there will be a medium to large pullback in the price of btc. The rest of the reason the price is soaring right now is a fairly large delusion that the community holds that you can't lose money buying bitcoin. That's a dangerous sentiment, and it's so widely held that it leads me to believe we're more likely in a bubble than not. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin is not a magic wand which will end world poverty. It simply doesn't have the power to end such a massive thing. Also bitcoin is not a payment system anymore. We have moved to a different goal long back, when the confirmation time increased and transaction fees hiked. These confirmation time and transaction fees is going to be increased again and again. So we will move from the initial goal further.
Bitcoin has now purely became an investment asset. IT can provide a huge return which any other conventional investment will never be able to offer ever. So I take bitcoin purely as an investment and a trading asset. I earn profit and keep it for the future.
Rather reckless statement. First, it depends entirely on your entry point. If you're buying bitcoin for the first time now at $7000, there are plenty of investments that are likely to outperform bitcoin from this point on. Second, bitcoin doesn't create profit or value, it only reflects the price people are willing to pay for it, and anyone buying at any particular time must hold the opinion that there will be someone willing to pay more for it in the future, otherwise they wouldn't be buying. In that regard, there's no guarantee bitcoin will be worth more in the future, and it's rise resembles more of a bubble than anything else as everyone holds the opinion that no matter what price you buy at, there's always going to be someone in the future who will want to pay more for it than you did. That particular poor logic is how the housing bubble was created. It's how all bubbles are created. |
|
|
|
you can read up on the POS (proof of stake) algorithm.
It is designed to reward people that hold (stake) a certain amount of altcoins for a certain time.
This way, you can create passive income, however, it's only a limited number of altcoins that use POS, if you pick an altcoin to stake, and you gain 10% in one year, but in the same time, the altcoin's price goes down 50%, you end up with more altcoins but with less actual value.
Theoretically, the POS interest you receive should make up for the inflationary loss of the value due to an increasing number of coins. Whether it's POS or POW, inflationary increases in the number of coins should decrease the value of the coin over time, UNLESS demand for the coins rises faster than the inflation. But viewing the PoS interest as free money doesn't make economic sense. Over long periods of time, it the total value of your holdings should be constant, even if you had more coins than before as the coins are worth less due to inflation. |
|
|
|
Yeah,I think it is possible for the Bitcoin to lose it's value anytime.Bitcoin is a business. Although Bitcoin is a profitable business, it lose it's value sometime.Because, it is not so much popular like gold,computer etc.For this reason,it is possible to lose bitcoin's value
Bitcoin is not a business. Bitcoin is a commodity. But other than that distinction, I agree that Bitcoin can lose its value. Its value is arbitrary, and seems to be a bubble to me. There's no large scale underlying utility supporting these prices increases, everyone just seems to be buying because everyone else is, and because everyone is buying, everyone is under the delusion that the price will always go up. Nothing in the world works that way, and Bitcoin is not an exception. |
|
|
|
Peter Thiel – PayPal co-founder and billionaire venture capitalist, for a long time now has been a backer of the virtual currency Bitcoin. Thiel did again indicate out the ‘real potential’ of BTC at the Investment Initiative in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, pointing out that people are truly underestimating it.
Peter Thiel has long been one of the early proponents of Bitcoin. As early as 2013, he stated that Bitcoin has the potential to change the world. As one of the co-founders of PayPal, he recognized the ability of Bitcoin to revolutionize the monetary space. He had long held the view that monetary sovereignty’s time is limited and encrypted money would be the future. Earlier Peter Thiel did comment on how Bitcoin unlike PayPal, was really able to create a currency.
Bitcoin BTC could very well be the virtual gold of our time and replace it as a reserve currency – according to Peter Thiel. Many ‘similarities’ were compared between the two by Thiel like it is mineable and its limited supply.
“It’s like a reserve form of money, it’s like gold and it’s just a store of value. If Bitcoin ends up being the cyber equivalent of gold, it has a great potential left.”
On the other hand, Peter did not really have any enthusiastic feel about the other virtual assets and altcoins which could be discouraging for altcoin followers which have put their hopes for most part of the year on them.
While Peter Thiel is pretty bullish on the potential of Bitcoin, in Riyadh, a certain Saudi prince has a different view. Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, the richest Arab in the world, believes that Bitcoin will implode like Enron. While Bitcoin trading is allowed in Saudi Arabia, the Saudi Arabian Monetary Authority has warned people about the risks of investing in Bitcoin. The Middle East is a region teeming with billionaires and if Peter Thiel has managed to convince a few people to invest their oil-dollars in Bitcoin, the price of Bitcoin could receive a boost. http://ethereumworldnews.com/gold-yesterday-comes-bitcoin-reserve-currency/Tired of "is bitcoin is a bubble"? Now you can enjoy the wonders of "is bitcoin a reserve currency"? On a serious note, it is possible bitcoin could eventually become a reserve currency to replace gold. This paradigm could represent the natural evolution of cryptocoins with limited supply if it is established that limited supply and algorithmic based regulation are best methods to promote stability and long term value. Would be interested to know public opinion on this. Would people feel safer having bitcoin as a reserve currency than they would having fiat like the dollar or euro as reserve? Another label to argue over! Haha, I share your facetious take on this. I think a legitimate hindrance to trusting Bitcoin as a reserve currency is the arbitrariness with which it currently operates. We are about to have our third hardfork in very recent memory where some group of people who think they have the answer to bitcoin's problems will be splitting off and attempting to claim the mantle Bitcoin has built. That type of instability and uncertainty about the future makes it impossible for Bitcoin to become a reserve currency. |
|
|
|
Cryptocurrency has been widely criticised for lack of regulation. Do you think it is possible to come up with a regulatory framework around Bitcoin?
Not only is it possible, it's necessary. Regulation needs to take place at the points of exchange between Bitcoin and fiat, so basically businesses that operate as exchanges. Regulation, especially around KYC and AML, will bring credibility to those operating in this space, and provide legal recourse in the event they are negligent or fraudulent. |
|
|
|
As an investor I want to have both gold and Bitcoin, since both are gaining value in time, the longer you invest in them, the more you can make profit, however if I were to choose which is the best investment among the two, it we don't have Bitcoin, I would go for gold, but since we have Bitcoin, I'll go for Bitcoin, though both Bitcoin and gold have the same traits when it comes to being an asset and as a currency, Bitcoin is still above gold, and now at the current time we have, we are already in the digital age, and information is precious, Bitcoin will surely be more valuable than gold, not because it is much easy to have, it is because is the future, and for sure, a lot of people will be into crypto currency and soon the generation after us, would more likely to have digital currency than Fiat. Gold was good back then, but Bitcoin had proven itself to be much more better investment.
When you look at the price of gold over very long stretches of time (decades, at least), the price change isn't so much that gold is getting more valuable but that it's remaining constant while the assets it is priced in (dollars, yen, euro) depreciate. There may be volatility in shorter time frames where profitable trading can be had, but longer time frames generally hold to this rule I think. It would be interesting to see if gold in 1900 in terms of purchasing power is really any more valuable than today, or if the price appreciation has merely tracked the devaluation of the dollar due to inflation. |
|
|
|
Metcalfe’s Law : if this law is true then I’m donating this guy 100 BTC,  I mean you put forth everything based on the maths perspective and there seems bigger chances of bitcoin going to that much heights. But there is also very little glitch in this journey that no one can predict. What if there are sudden drops in user base due to legal authorities pressure or may be because of no more trust on bitcoin due to legal restriction on its use. We saw what happen after china ban, we saw the downward movement too. So though I believe in your speculation completely but there is always little downside to everything. Now we have to watch what happens with that one. For sure this is something to consider, but it wouldn't prove Metcalfe's Law wrong. The premise is that even taking into account attrition of the user base, there is such a significantly small portion of people using bitcoin out of the total potential that the user base is likely to continue to see rapid growth that will more than make up for any losses due to government actions. Take it with a grain of salt though. First, you have to accept that bitcoin is not merely correlated with Metcalfe's Law, but the price rise is caused by it, and then further accept that the user base and the price will continue to grow. As I said earlier, I find the Metcalfe aspect interesting, but even given that, I doubt the ultimate conclusion of a $25,000 bitcoin. (I also thought $5,000 was impossible, so do with that what you will.) |
|
|
|
First of all, this article and the alert by HSBC are over a year old. The Dow is 5,000 points higher than it was when HSBC was warning about the likelihood of a stock market crash. Even though that doesn't affect the more interesting part of your question, I find it worth pointing out. More importantly, I see far too many people proclaiming that the stock market crash will boost crypto. This is absurd to me. Crypto is the king of speculative assets, zero inherent value. The only thing propping up the price at this level is widespread optimism that it will be worth more in the future. When the stock market tanks, crypto will tank right along with it, and more likely harder. The reason is the evaporation of economic confidence. When things begin to fall, people aren't going to have the confidence that this inherently worthless digital token is going to be valued higher by someone else in the future than what you bought it for. Stocks have inherent value; each share is worth the liquidation value of the company, which makes them vastly safer than crypto. Stock market crashes are about a flight to safety and reducing risk, so if money is fleeing far safer assets than crypto, logically I would expect money to flee the riskier assets quicker. Eventally, we will see a large market correction. I'm not at all rooting for it, but I'm confident my thesis will play out as I've described. However hard the S&P falls, bitcoin will fall harder. |
|
|
|
Cash is slowly dying, it started with wide using of pay cards. Same thing could happen again, just in this case instead of pay cards it will be Bitcoin. Future of money is some kind of electronic currency, that is for sure. Bitcoin have the potential for that. But will it be? No one can know for sure, all we can do is wait and see.
Traditional electronic money is a far greater threat than bitcoin in eliminating physical cash. That doesn't mean the death of fiat, it just means physical currency. Electronic money is already conquering the world and it was nothing to do with bitcoin. The electronic cash system started decades ago. Today, Visa and Mastercard are the biggest entities pushing toward a cashless society, and there is no shortage of additional contributors: PayPal, Square, Amazon, Apple, and on and on. These are giant behemoths, and all advance us farther and farther towards a cashless society. We've been progressing towards this since people starting using checks, it's just that now it's reaching a tipping point and the growth of cashless payment options is quickening. |
|
|
|
Now, as for the future valuation, Tom Lee, Managing Partner of Fundstrat, put a $25,000 price target for Bitcoin by 2022 in a note to clients published earlier this year. However, and this is important, this view is predicated on cryptocurrencies displacing gold in portfolios with Bitcoin serving a “digital store of value.”
Why do cryptos have to displace gold for this to happen? What if some really big investors/institutions (e.g., banks, hedge funds, etc.) get involved and start buying? Tens or hundreds of millions of dollars of direct investment could take us a long way given the limited supply of bitcoins and how much people are hoarding them. It is Tom Lee's premise, so I can only hazard a guess on why he's predicating the price target on this occurrence. As you propose, hundreds of millions of dollars of direct investment could take us a long way, but in my view (and I'm guessing in Tom Lee's view), big investors and institutions are only putting hundreds of millions of dollars of direct investment into bitcoin to occupy the role that gold previously held in their investment portfolios and to serve as a digital store of value. So while I would agree that it could happen, I would say it only would happen because it had become a digital store of value for institutional investors, and I am skeptical about that because all it is right now is a speculative commodity. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
