The promising approach about the rising of Bitcoin price seemly to have emotional influence on investors which at some points triggers market sentiments.
Who has observed that the speculations and predictions of Bitcoin price has gone silence since the market went DIP after the halving?
Sentiments are a major part of markets, an integreal part. That is particularly valid when it's about complex assets like Bitcoin as nobody can truly tell what it is worth as it doesn't generate cashflows. One can only guess and the more you understand about Bitcoin, the higher you will value it and the less you will get nervous when there is trouble going on in the world. But rest assured that not a lot of people who own Bitcoin actually understand a lot about it. But with more people getting into the market and spending more time to understand it, the base layer price will only become more stable. |
|
|
|
- would it be worth more as this Einstein note over time? https://edition.cnn.com/style/article/einstein-handwritten-notes-auction/index.html*In terms of FIAT not in terms of 16 BTC ... I mean in terms of FIAT stricktly, would it be a good investment comparing with a paper like the Einstein one or compared with a Football, Pokemon card etc It seems to be a historical collectible just like the newspaper where BTC was mentioned for the first time...( I do remember an auction for the paper was held on this forum, but can't find the link anymore, if someone can add it in this thread its merit worthy imo...) Could this BTC outperform a lot of them? It could act like a cool piece on the wall, but better like some famous paintings etc?? Pieces with historical mentionings got value, but whats the correct price or how can we value a specific paper like this one and which will follow this Buy Bitcoin paper in the future? There gotta be more of them... This is an interesting discussion to have, but I doubt there are any reliable frameworks to come up with a "true and fair" value. At the end of the day, it only needs one freakish investor down the line who wants that piece of paper from you and is willing to pay 3 times the price. I am sure that most of us here have been shocked at times reading how much people are willing to pay for the weirdest items. One example: First-generation iPhone sells at auction for $190,373, or nearly 380 times its original priceIf I had ever thought that this would one day be possible, I'd have stocked up on those iPhones. I believe this things like the paper you mentioned can indeed have value. But how much? I stopped being shocked about collectible items or historical papers and how much they can make you in an auction. To anticipate values is so difficult because as a response some people will collect some electronics out of principle just to realize that those items will never be as valuable as this aforementioned iPhone generation. I think it could be dependent on the narrative that you yourself could put out in public. If there was an auction of a pokemon card, isn't there huge incentive for the pokemon inventor (company or whoever) to go there and pay an absurd price? Stuff is all over the place in the media and people start buying these cards hoping they get lucky or something. |
|
|
|
Could it be true? Is there any way to check if those companies actually have the real thing?
I don't think it could be true just because it's so easy to have your reserves checked, it seems like in China they would be putting people to death for doing this. That doesn't mean that some companies aren't trying it, but I don't think it's happening at the scale you seem to be insinuating. In the end though these games won't work. At some point someone will have to show their Bitcoin reserves and when companies are tasked with their leaders going to jail or having to spot buy BTC to the moon, they'll do what they're supposed to do and run the price up. This would be the type of event that would send BTC to a million. Don't fear it. Right and I said in this post that it depends on how regulation is set up in different countries, but I am convinced in most countries there has to be a proof of reserve and it is indeed very easy to do for Bitcoin whereas difficult to verify when it's about thin air fiat money. Numbers get checked from auditors in the case of fiat money as well, but they have other constructs and asset classes that sometimes make it difficult to come up with a true and fair view. But there could be one back door and this is when companies are allowed to secure positions in one asset class with reserves from another asset class. They would make it overly complicated again, as it is already actually. But if the exposure can clearly be calculated, proof of reserves is either on point or it is not. I hope it works that way. |
|
|
|
|
ID: 1286791
45 - Dump3er
46 - Dump3er
|
|
|
|
In this era of inflation when the price of every commodity is skyrocketing and the value of our domestic currency investments is decreasing. Desperation covers us as the damage continues to mount. In this case Bitcoin is the only hope for small investors like us. DCAing allows small investors to accumulate bitcoins at weekly or monthly basis which is a very simple process. Although I am a newbie investor here, the bitcoin price chart of the past years excites me. I'm more optimistic when I see that the impact of inflation does not affect the Bitcoin price as much.
What is your assessment and openion? How much of an impact does inflation have on Bitcoin?
No doubt, like any other asset, Bitcoin has helped to hedge against inflation in the past, but with the current status of the coin, I do not think it would be easy anymore. Take for instance, if you buy Bitcoin at $65,000 and the inflation in your country bites to the point that the goods you want to buy or the service you want to purchase has truly skyrocketed to at least 4 times as it is currently happening in my country, whereas Bitcoin could only move to $125,000. What do you do? This obviously cannot hedge the inflation, but as an investment, if it moves higher for at least a reasonable degree, it will still help the person to limit the effect of the inflation and it depends on the performance of Bitcoin at the time. And I must advise you, do not invest in Bitcoin simply because of its past history, it may fail you and a good investment warning forbids that. You should invest in it because you believe in it, that's better in case anything bad happens. Bitcoin enjoyed its low price then and the early investors were so lucky, but at this time when the price is somewhat high, extreme care is needed to avoid issues. Well explained and the question is whether Bitcoin acted like a hedge against inflation because people saw it like a hedge or whether Bitcoin had this amazing development because it was a new technology. I still think it has hedge potential because it has good chances to continue to grow. But I remember when the crisis hit in early 2020, it seemed to cause uncertainty among people as to whether or not it would be the right decision to hold Bitcoin. To put it differently, if a crisis hits really hard, would people find themselves forced to liquidate an asset like Bitcoin in order to pay for whatever they have to pay in life? Mortgages, insurances, rent, food, car repairs etc. I think for those who can afford to hold Bitcoin, it is an excellent asset to hold as a counter to inflation because of its growth potential, but there will be people who may choose to liquidate Bitcoin first when they get into trouble. |
|
|
|
If it was as simple as that  I think Bitcoin is more complex than that and speaking of a pattern when there are only less than a hand full of data points is a bit problematic. But I think that the real long term considerations do make sense. Unless the globe will be blown up by a nuclear war, Bitcoin is likely to thrive further. Every single bit can accumulatively make a difference, but one of the important pieces of the puzzle is a second layer solution that allows for Bitcoin to be more broadly used in my opinion. Big players will park their Bitcoin anyway and they don't care when the fee is 50 USD to send Bitcoin from A to B, but countless of people have their money stuck. It doesn't really allow for a Bitcoin economy to thrive. The halvings should have less of an effect over time I think. |
|
|
|
Thank you for sharing, but the market doesn't work that way and I must equally say that just as I expected this to unfold after the US SEC's ETF approval, many other people knew that many other countries would follow, so it's not a big deal for the market anymore. Even Ethereum's ETF approval in the US will no more impact the crypto market the way the Bitcoin ETF filling and the drama surrounding it made the market behave at that time. That's the market psychology, it has priced in the ETF effect in the crypto space regardless of the country or asset showing interest.
That aside, the US market is a world-renowned market that can't be taken lightly, but unfortunately, the Australian market is not, which is why the effect will be minimal. The USD is being paired with all the assets of the world which makes it so important in the financial market in relation to the country itself (the US) that is strong in everything. By virtue, anything related to the US and USD is often important to the market. But a faint of such is applicable to a few top-world countries like the UK and EU, they have a sizable impact on the market as well, but so little compared to that of the US. This is even as they are more impactful in the market than Australia's effect. Are you getting the point?
This is based on my experience with the financial market and I majorly drew this from the reaction of the US news in the financial market and how all assets react with it compared to the news of other countries. In summary, I expect little or no effect on the crypto market due to the Australian ETF news.
When it is about market psychology and whether people try to anticipate gains and buy accordingly, then yes it probably doesn't have any further effects, or at least not as significant as some would wish them to be. But if those ETFs are regulated such that the BTC bought by the people have to be held in reserve by the ETF provider, then it would mean that more ETFs in more countries mean more on-ramps for more people. I am not sure how it works in most countries, whether ETF providers have to hold 100% of their portfolio exposure in reserve, but if it works that way then it would have an impact over time. It would apply to a lot of people who want the exposure, but feel not like managing a wallet. Edit: this article addresses what I was referring to. It would then indeed make a difference over time as companies approved to provide ETFs would have to accumulate real BTC. The good thing is that even countries that are not as trustworthy could in this case provide proof pretty easily that they actually do hold what they claim to be holding in reserve. |
|
|
|
|
Total Corners + Cards: 17
|
|
|
|
|
BC.GAME ID: 27223642
Second slot: 46
Thank you!
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
