|
This is the million dollar question and in order to predict it exactly we would have to know what events are going to happen and what influence they are going to have on the price, which is impossible.
If we are going to analyze, it doesn't seem far-fetched to me that we will still go lower than that price in the future dip, but I don't see us going much lower than that because prices under $20k are a bargain for those who have a long term vision and trigger buy orders.
|
|
|
|
|
I see two possible scenarios here:
1) We have already hit bottom for this cycle recently and we're not going down anymore. That would be logical, since less than $20k per coin seems like a bargain and hence the recent rebound. When the price goes down a lot, there are a lot of people who buy because they see it as very cheap.
2) We have some other event that takes the price suddenly down, with liquidated leverage positions, and we approach the Celsius liquidation price. In this case we could get close to $10k but I don't think the price will last long at those levels because of the above mentioned, and $10K would be an extremely strong support.
|
|
|
|
But what if you promised to pay a specific rate in bitcoin for example 0.002 BTC per week. If the price does rise than you will have to pay more than you would have planned. Same goes if you promise to pay in USD but hold BTC. And yes you can argue that you can exchange all the currency needed at the beginning of the campaign, but thats not possible if your campaign runs for a long time. Also campaigns are just one example of even more complicated examples in the real Business world.
After writing this I was thinking that you are right because normally in the capaigns funds are sent in escrow, let's see an example: This will be a long-lasting campaign with planned duration of a minimum of 6 months. To prove the company’s seriousness, 2 months’ worth of funds have already been escrowed (18k$ in current BTC price). The escrowed funds are already under our control and can be seen at the following wallet address. bc1qrajyse6qjt2w8a8qnjmetdh9fhafxf6x0fgsf5d6x6gvjgnkl3js9p2qkn As this was written on June 9, the drop in the price affects, as the campaign pays the equivalent in USD, so you were right I think. I don't know if it works this way in all cases but we see that at least in some cases it does. |
|
|
|
At the moment the S2F model is having a few difficulties, and PlanB itself is finding new narratives to keep it alive.
Hopefully, we will be able to cross that S2F line again in the future!
(it's not a gamble, it' s a strategy)
To be honest, considering how smart PlanB is, it doesn't seem to me to be a very wise decision on their part. When the facts dismantle your theory, or model, the sensible thing to do is to write it off as invalid, not to keep remodeling it constantly. Although I understand that he will have invested a lot of time and effort in this issue, and giving up all that time and effort as useless is not easy emotionally. |
|
|
|
This is not the time to start blaming...
I don't know where you see blaming, because there is none. For me to tell an anonymous nickname on the internet who claims to know Royse777 personally that his word is not credible if he can't back it up with something is independent of the facts that have made you and I, the only ones in DT, to support the flag against Royse777. Did they pay at all?
No, they didn't. No, that was not what was supposed to happen. Whoever I talked to over the chat said they will post an update to reassure the community that withdrawals are being processed and things are finally looking good. We can all see how that went...
Royse777 claims to be trying: I have only 4 users filled out the form even after PMing some of the users I found on the ANN thread. I am going to extend the form more few days before I close it since this was not the number I was expecting. If anyone is still missed it then I would request others to find them the form.
But the way of proceeding during this whole mess is not very transparent, to say the least. |
|
|
|
Price stability is the best contribution that monetary policy can make to economic growth. (1) Theory is one thing and practice is another, as the ECB's monetary policy has been more concerned with providing liquidity lately than with price stability. Now they seem to have been forced to raise rates. If you look for example now at bounty payments, campaigns that pay in usd are in a shitty position since they run out of btc quickly and vice versa.
That makes no sense. If you have to pay $1K in Bitcoin, on the day of payment you exchange the fiat or stable coin you have for Bitcoin and that's it, no matter the change in price. What would you do if you could influence the monetary policy of bitcoin?
There is no monetary policy because Bitcoin does not depend on a centralized entity that varies the Bitcoin issued according to political decisions. The theory is that going forward, as the price goes up and Bitcoin is adopted by more people, the volatility will go down, but that does not depend on the decision of certain people, as it does with the ECB's monetary policy. |
|
|
|
|
I would say that what differentiates previous cycles from this one is not so much the bear market as the bull market, at least for the time being. With the institutional investors that have come in, the price has only made a high of 3.5 times the previous ath, and all predictions fell short, including very sophisticated models like S2F.
If we have bottomed out in terms of price, this is not going to be one of the worst bear market cycles, but it is another matter if for some event we drop sharply downwards and break down the lows again.
|
|
|
|
I wonder if Saylor learned anything from Do Kwon's idiot plan to publicly telegraph giant buys of bitcoins.
Well, he certainly doesn't seem to have any kind of filter from his brain to his mouth when it comes to his love of bitcoin--and I'm not so sure it's a great idea for him to be extolling the virtues of bitcoin on Twitter, Youtube, and wherever else considering how large a position MSTR has in it. The SEC and/or MSTR's shareholders might eventually put him under the microscope for doing that. I have no idea if he's doing anything illegal by doing that, but I'll bet that his shareholders are pretty pissed right now. And the popularization of the idea that you have to borrow from anything to buy Bitcoin? He even advocates that you mortgage your house to buy Bitcoin. At the time it caught my attention and when I found him more convincing, it was something I didn't agree with, but seen today it seems like nonsense. It's one thing Frank Giustra threw in his face in the Gold vs Bitcoin debate: throwing that message out there is dangerous for the masses. Some innocent person who believed his message and mortgaged his house to buy Bitcoin when it was at $70K would have a lot of trouble sleeping today. He could be accused of trying to pump his investment with these messages to the masses, and I doubt it is illegal, but I think it is morally reprehensible. |
|
|
|
So OP, it's no wonder you got tagged.
Same here. I've been on the forums for a long time and I don't remember a single time in a case like this where it was subsequently proven that it was a legitimate business and that the accused had no bad intentions. The bad thing about scammers is that they want to convince you that they are good people with no bad intentions, otherwise they wouldn't be able to scam anyone. In the unlikely event that what the OP proposes is legitimate, let him do what The Pharmacist says: Maybe if you get people who did whatever it is you're trying to get them to do to report back that they got paid and weren't at risk of identity theft or some such thing, your red trust could be removed--but that's up to yahoo62278 and whoever else decides to tag you.
We would also have to see who is reporting and if it is a single person, etc, because a scammer could bring someone in cahoots with him here to try to convince us, but in general I agree with the idea. |
|
|
|
I would like it to have been the low of this cycle, the problem is that as the economic situation is, many events can catapult the price down, and the price of Celsius liquidation is over $14K, so getting close to that price would be very dangerous. The use of leverage has been partly responsible for the recent downturns we have seen, leverage that has been used and promoted during this cycle, both by certain authors and by the sitees that profit from it. you did not give me 13k or 15k or 16k
I personally think 15.1 to 15.5k
Are you just going by intuition? I do not dare to guess, because the price will depend on future events that we cannot predict. |
|
|
|
In bloodbath times, I tend to think to take a loan and invest in few prominent currencies and leave it for few years. Then I realize what happened to Luna and realize there is nothing surefire here.
So, there is risk in taking loan but then reward is high, and there is sense of safety in not taking loan. You would be kind of free? Yes you didn't make much/took advantage of market downturn but you are free, you have nothing to worry for?
I have been on forums for a long time and I can tell you that posts like yours when there is a market downturn are common, and they don't usually end well. You can do well, just like going to the casino can do well, which does not mean that it is a good strategy to make money. I think mk4 has got it right: Taking loans for asset investments you mostly have no control of is kinda dumb.
1. Markets can drop far further than we think it can
2. It can take longer than expected to go back up
3. Especially when talking about crypto outside of bitcoin, you're taking so much risk that it's multiples of magnitudes dumber
If I were to take a loan, it would mostly be for something like a business that I've deeply thought of and strategically planned for already.
|
|
|
|
That leads to this: the death of humor. I believe humor is a great way to make heavy subjects lighter. Yes but the humorless ones are the ones who see supposedly homophobic statements in that post written by hilarious (and don't see them in theymos' post). Neither hilarious nor theymos can be blamed for the death of humor in this case, quite the contrary. |
|
|
|
Things that are valuable are backed by the belief that they are valuable. Coins used to be backed by gold, but gold also has quite a bit of faith in the belief that it is valuable, although it can be argued that with gold you can make durable objects but to analyze this would be to enter into a long debate that would divert us from the main issue. In this case the Bitcoin is worth because many people give it value, and if you wonder why they give it value it is because of its intrinsic properties, but as I said before in value attribution there is always a part of shared belief that it is valuable. Note that in ancient Rome, salt was considered much more valuable than it is today:
Did you know the word 'salary' has nothing to do with money, and everything to do with salt?
In ancient Rome, it was salt and not money that was used for commerce or trading. The soldiers who worked for the Roman empire got a handful of salt in return as their payment each day.What was the salt backed by? On the belief that it was valuable. You could argue that it was used to salt food, as in the case of gold, which is used to make objects, but that property seems ridiculous today to give it the value it was given in ancient times. |
|
|
|
I wouldn't neg someone for it, but someone holding absurdly irrational beliefs (like one race being inferior to another) for me would seem less trustworthy to do business with. It doesn't matter if they know someone's race/ethnicity/gender etc, their absurd beliefs are not based on facts or knowledge anyway.
Too often we see ethnic/racist/sexist/etc slurs used as "arguments" in disputes (for example see the recent drama with Koil) to think that prejudice here doesn't affect business.
In my case, it's not that I wouldn't do business with someone who believes, for example, that people of a certain ethical background are inferior, it's just that I don't have any kind of relationship with those people, let alone do business with them. But I don't think you can apply the argument universally. Someone can have completely irrational beliefs and be very reliable for business. From my radical atheist point of view, belief in god would be something similar, or that praying is going to have any influence in the real world, and yet there are many believing people that pray you can do business with. |
|
|
|
I generally agree with you, but not with this: Now if hilariousetc is a transphobe or homophobe or whatever I might not want to deal with them because I disagree with their beliefs. THAT IS FEEDBACK.
The big lie that Hilarious is supposedly somethingphobe based on that post should not be reflected in a feedback. Unless you mean neutral feedback, with where almost anything fits. I don't know if it was a confusion of terms or something. |
|
|
|
There is no problem with withdrawals, they just dont want to pay, thats the only reason. When they realised they already have a bad name, they did not care about it anymore and decided to steal all the deposits.
The intention from this site was from the beginning clear, just scam people. Royse777 is the owner of the casino together with somebody. He tried he could get away with this scam site because he is a DT member.
I advice everybody to remove this muppet from DT.
Your words are worthless if you don't back them up with something else we can check. And even more thinking that there are many people who want to take revenge on Royse777 (bounty cheaters, members of the 1xCrap campaigns, etc.). |
|
|
|
|
Bump.
With the recent developments, with the price clearly dropping from the ATH of the previous cycle, I believe it is relevant to bump this thread.
To what I was saying in the OP, which was based on not making more than 3.5 the ATH of the previous cycle, add this.
I think from now on the predictions are not going to be as bullish as what we were seeing in the second half of last year.
And that technical analysis based on a repeat of the cycle pattern has been proven wrong.
|
|
|
|
$1000 btc would be a dream come true
$1K would be a disaster. I know on this forum people believe in Bitcoin almost like they believe in god, but it costs a lot more to go down than it does to go up to begin with. If going down from $10K to $1K is a 90% downside, going up from $1K to $10K is a 1000% upside. While we're at it, we could take the argument further. If $1K would be a dream come true, $100 would be even better, and $10 even better etc. No way. The lower the price, the more disastrous it will be. That said, I highly doubt it will go down to those levels. I think what is going to happen this cycle is that the predictions that were made based on the previous ones are broken and more realistic predictions for the future will have to be considered. |
|
|
|
Dear Blackjack.fun team and the manager,
I'd like to inform you that I will leave the campaign since today. I thank you all for your work and payment to me. Best wishes to Blackjack.fun team and the manager. See you all around the forum.
Good luck to all Blackjack gang members.
The same here. I will be leaving the campaign. Thanks to sujonali1819 for his professionalism in managing the campaign and to all the blackjack.fun team. |
|
|
|
From what he says here? https://archive.ph/vgDQzI didn't know that but it is along the lines of what I wrote more recently. Fluid gender garbage. Though at the risk of inciting additional drama, I am forced to admit that he is right in this particular case (something about stopped clocks). I don't trust transphobes either, which is why I excluded hilariousandco and their alts.
There is nothing transphobic about highlighting that the theory of the many genders you can constantly change is pure ideological garbage that does not hold up with a minimum of scientific rigor. And by the way, if what hilarious says is worthy of negative feedback or trust list exclusion, this should be too, because it goes along the same lines: Unfortunately, I think that you misunderstand the system. Given the trillions of different gender identities, we have adopted a coding system in which each gender identity is assigned a 64-bit number. For example, and only for illustration (I do not wish to presume your wingspan), Apache-attack-helicopter-gendered people would need to input the easy-to-remember code 0x9b68d151aeefa34f. In order to maintain compatibility with legacy systems, however, this is done by submitting the form multiple times with different genders. For example, in this case you would input Male Female Female Male Male Female Male Male Female Male Male Female Male Female Female Female Male Male Female Male Female Female Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Female Female Male Male Female Male Female Male Male Male Female Male Male Male Female Male Male Male Male Male Female Male Female Female Female Male Male Female Male Female Female Male Male Male Male. Simple! Now, it may seem discriminatory to assign Male 1 and Female 0, but not to worry! The coding is designed so that you can also input the inverse and get the same result. And to avoid left-handed bias, you can also enter it in opposite order. In fact, you can just put in whatever sequence of entries you want and the result will be the same.
So you see, bitcointalk.org is in fact the most progressive website ever, and I am ashamed to live in a world in which this system isn't yet codified into law.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
