Como he dicho muchas veces, lo que dicen los bancos de inversion hay que traducirlo. Si dicen que vale menos de lo que marca el mercado, lo cual en el caso de una commodity es ya conceptualmente imposible, es que quieren que se venda para poder volver a subirse al carro a menor precio. Cualquier recomendacion de cualquier agente del mercado en estos temas es basura.

Me explico, uno puede valorar una empresa en funcion de los flujos de caja previsibles o calculados, pero el arroz vale exactamente lo que alguien pague por el.

Excellent initiative. I would certainly like the option of getting some of my salary in bitcoin directly as opposed to buying it. Another matter would be to actually set that salary in bitcoin in the contract so that you get paid, eg. 2 bitcoin a year instead of 80 or 100k per year. That would really be impossible to assume as the government gets the income in USD and would not take the exchange risk.

The reference we have is the Prohibition in the USA. When it finished, gangsters moved to other activities or simply became legal businessmen - arguably, some of them very successful politicians.

The key here is that even if they move to some other activity, or even if they choose to keep selling illegally, the massive amount of money and power that is currently distorting the society of many countries in Latin America would be much less and that would give a chance to people. It is the scale of the business that is massacring countries.

I would rather not invest through Microstrategy, but it may be a great vehicle for people that can have that type of company included into a tax wrapper. Bitcoin as itself could not be used in these fiscal instruments until recentlyand even now many of the ETF or ETCs are not considered valid in certain jurisdictions, so there is an use for MS but best to avoid if you can.

Good, all adoption is good for Hodlers. It really depends for the rest of people. If you trade, you may not want too many professional traders hanging around as it may become a fiery competition. If you believe in decentralisation and being your own bank, you probably want them out. Else, you probably are happy about it and about being able to get your stuff in a bank.

Economics is an immense subject and something that sometimes is confused with investing, which is just a tiny little part of the picture. When speaking about Economics academically, it is mostly about economic theories and philosophies. The classics such as Adam Smith, Carl Marx, ... should give you a view of the history behind, while if you read the newer guys such as Piketty you will get a glimpse of the latest tendencies.

You may also wish to learn about technical models for macro and micro economics, accounting, financial theory,...

So I have to send the question back to you: What would you like to learn about?

#
The answer is nothing peculiar. That is how bitcoin and crypto in general move - volatility at large in the short term, that tends to equally encourage, deter and cause dismay for the newcomers while there is a clear growth tendency in the long term that frequently draws investors back into the arena. Your choice: stress yourself and ask yourself about the short term movements or ... HODL

Stability and finance are words that simply do not match. The world moves, the economy moves and you cannot just sit on your assets and think that all is going to be fine if you are conservative enough about it. I guess that for me there is not such a thing as financial stability as life has taught me that it is the moment that you think you have achieved stability, something unexpected happens and changes the game.

Betting has historically been a well known use of bitcoin and crypto in general. There is something about the first people that adopted crypto in the early stages that hints to an interest for taking risks and betting. Apart from that, betting is a way of laundering money and, again, there is no point in denying that some crypto users really want that type of thing.

Bluffing is great if done correctly. I would argue that you need to bluff in at least one of every twelve full rounds, if not you will become too predictable and will deter others to bet when you do so. However that needs to be tuned to the game in question and with the understanding of the level of the players involved. Bluff at the wrong moment and with the wrong people at the table and it will bite you back hard.

After what happened to barca with rayo, I think that the odds are looking better to bet against barca, not so much into thinking that el Rayo may actually repeat - it is the kind of team that typically would present a hard battle against the theoretically superior teams but then returns to its usual mediocrity. It is going to be an interesting Liga anyway, much more open than other times.

You never know if a mistake is a mistake... in La Liga Rayo vs Barca was clearly a easy win and the odds were kind of good to bet on a barca win... and it did not happen. Anyway, as a direct answer to your question, not often and not by much. People in the know told me that mistakes happen in games between teams of regional level, not that well known to the bookies and that they include just for completeness and little people bet on.

No, it takes much less. Enough to buy a few billion condoms. It does not matter how much you invest in agriculture, clean water, means of production or infrastructure - in the end, there is a limit to the number of people any system may support and the reason for hunger is not as much too little food as it is too much people.

It is a cultural issue I think, many people associate having many children to wealth and prosperity or they are used to loosing quite a few before they are old and, on top, do not have the means or the education to plan their family size. Once that happens, we can start talking about giving aid in the form of food.


Teach a man to wear a condom and he will not need to fish that much.

I am not aware of the politics in Thailand but this news is not that surprising. The countries in the region present an inordinate amount of unbanked people and, at the same time, a few with good access to foreign currency but mostly all the rest having to deal with their local coin, which in essence tend to be quite shitty. 

But, probably the main thing here is how the local regulator has allowed this purchase. Risky business tend to go with greasing hands.

I recently learned that Taiwan Semiconductors is planning to become much less Taiwan and more Semiconductors. In fact is more in the line of becoming US Semiconductors as the management is planning to reduce the obvious geopolitical risks they currently have with a progressively more militarised  China altering the balance of the region to the point of having companies based in Taiwan willing to relocate at a huge expense.

As they say, past return do not guarantee future returns. I like to extend this say to forecasting models, "predictions in the past do not guarantee predictions in the future". I have to admit that anyway, due to the unpredictability of bitcoin demand, this model does reasonably well. If I had to use something or would really care about the price in the mid-term, I would be my choice as of now. The fact remains that bitcoin is expected, by most people, to grow at a slower pace than in the past, but I am betting on an exceptional long term growth to which this model seems to agree.

The rebranding corresponds to more than one factor. Firstly, the inevitable slowdown in growth - social networks have an element of fashion and novelty and Facebook's got nothing left of that. Secondly, the damage dealt to their image by yearly scandals and whistle blowers. Thirdly, a real intent of the company to transform itself to be able to grow further.

This third element is not a distraction, Facebook and other companies are considering seriously the "metalifes" or "metaverses" (think of second life as example) as their future and they are very serious about it. Facebook routinely tests products and changes and my take is that they are going to throw weight behind the metaverse idea.

Most of the proposed sources of income are pretty much free markets, with little barrier to the entrance of new business or people, except perhaps working in the forum which done properly, requires a seasoned user. This means that getting to have a profitable youtube channel or earn socially requires an investment of time or to have somehow an unique point of view or perspective that makes people interested in what you publish.

Staking and farming are also free markets, rarely with exceptional profitability. None of these sources are for all and many are nearly impossible to use.

An another ATH this week, I am always amazed about how even relatively small projects or ETF ro funds getting into bitcoin cause massive increases in price. This leads me to think that there is still some short of golden age in terms of price for bitcoin - contrary to my previous belief of a slow decline in interest and more movement towards others that are more to the like of newcommers.

Be aware of the buzzwords little grasshopper. Life extension, blockchain, fund,... Red alerts flashing all over. Should anyone wish to invest in real research on human life extension, feel free to have an in-depth look at a side of Google that is not that well know to the general public: "Google Other Projects", this includes research in AI, self driving cars and... medical research in life extension.

Not that many people know that eh?