Yes, you are correct in your analysis from my perspective, Bitcoin is a mixture of those 4 themes, but so are the rest. There's no true "black" and "white" in this world, therefore there's nothing entirely driven 100% by TA, value, growth or narrative investors. However, we can generalize and simplify in order to better analyze, otherwise we couldn't even come up with a unified GDP measure or P/E




Lol, yes I noticed that we got a Buffet fanboy here Which is alright, just don't idolize someone too much, learn from the greatest about their success in their times, and apply what is suitable to the changed time which might require a different approach (if we would follow old norms and methods - we still would be riding horses and thinking electricity is sent to us by Gods from the sky).

As for drug companies and Apple, we will never reach a consensus, what is value to you or Buffet - growth for me, what is TA for me - narrative for others. In the end as they say "value of an asset depends on who is paying the valuer".

Furthermore, we could even go on for a discussion of:
- Intrinsic Value (IntV) - asset or security valuation by someone who has complete understanding of characteristics of the asset or issuing firm (used for most investment decisions); vs.
- Fair Value (FV) - the price at which a hypothetical willing, informed, and able seller would trade asset to a willing, informed, and able buyer; vs.
- Investment Value (InvV) - value of a stock to a particular buyer, depending on the buyer’s specific needs and expectations, as well as perceived synergies with existing buyer assets (usually for M&A and LBO); vs.
- Equilibrium Value (EV) - any market price that clears the market at any point in time when there are no more buyers or sellers as no market inefficiencies exist (economic term and usually unachievable condition); vs.
- Market Value (MV) - anything you observe on the market at any point in time for any asset; vs.
- Discounted Present Value (PV) - all future expected cash flows discounted to current period of time (commonly, but not always equals to IntV); vs.
- Book Value (BV) - book value of assets as per accounting records (sometimes equals to IntV).

All above will change from person to person depending on own understanding, and depending on the valuation purpose, and "... who pays the valuer". And what is IntV or InvV to Buffet, won't be same to the "average Joe" from down the street. Because the fact that Buffet invested - is a game changer to the market, moreover, he personally can affect the company, but others - not so much. And, as you correctly noted, some of the investment decisions were made by younger investment managers, which deviated from Buffet's strategy, so that means: either 1) Buffet hired not so intelligent people who don't fully understand "value investment" theory, either 2) those people don't believe in "value investment" theory so much, or in it's future, either 3) We don't fully understand "value investment" theory (Snowflake P/E ), or 4) We don't know the whole picture and truth. I believe the last reason is the most reasonable to assume. Therefore, I don't see too much point arguing around those here, as here we discuss a different thing, however, would be happy to share own opinions on that in a separate thread if you would like to

I personally don't think P/E is of great use to any of the mentioned company for several reasons:

1) P/E comprised of:
 - Price: subject to supply & demand on the market (which can be manipulated even by some articles on popular blogs)
 - Earnings: include accounting statements-based data which can be outdated ("P" of 17/01/2021 but "E" of 2020H1 for example), include items which are accounted for differently from company to company (depreciation, pensions, liabilities, intangibles, financial expenses, COGS, and even revenues)
 - from the above it's like comparing how much someone is willing to pay for a tomato NOW divided by how much I personally declare about how much pesticides I used to grow that tomato a year ago... doesn't that sound insane? And this is what you effectively do with any financial multiple (P/E, P/B, P/S, EV/EBITDA, P/CF, etc.)

2) Even with P/E of 500x or more you cannot clearly say that the stock is overvalued and you need to short it, as again with Chinese example - there are stocks with even higher P/Es which continue to delivery outstanding returns as opposed to the "fairly valued" or "undervalued stocks"

I really understand your point about why you think Buffet and Munger are value investors, but let's go point by point:

Value stocks   
•   Currently undervalued   
•   Generally low P/E ratios   
•   Generally high dividend yields
•   Expected to be appreciated by the market to the intrinsic value   

Growth stocks   
•   Currently overvalued   
•   Above-average P/E ratios   
•   Usually low or no dividend   
•   Expected to deliver outstanding growth which is not priced in current market price

I believe you won't argue on the above, as those are pretty much the main points of difference between the two strategies. Now let's take a look at the latest investments of Buffet for example:
•   AbbVie (ABBV) P/E 23.8, Pfizer P/E 23.7, Eli Lilly P/E 31.3, Merck P/E 18.4, Johnson & Johnson P/E 19.9 (yes I know he invested in several others from this list too)
•   StoneCo (STNE) P/E 132.03
•   Snowflake Inc. (SNOW) P/E negative (I'm sure you know when that happens "Since such a case is common among high-tech, high growth, or start-up companies, EPS will be negative producing an undefined P/E ratio (sometimes denoted as N/A)" source: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/price-earningsratio.asp)

These are just few examples, but you can take a look and also analyze Amazon.com (AMZN), Apple (AAPL), Biogen (BIIB), among others. Do you think Apple or Amazon for example are undervalued? Furthermore, Buffet has always saying that you shouldn't touch industries you are not familiar with, but yet, exactly in 2020 he increased % of portfolio in BioTech & Tech - 1st deviation from own principles, these two areas are especially to be known either overvalued, either being growth areas - 2nd deviation from own principles, and the examples above are just an additional evidence of that.

As I noted before, don't pay too much attention to what people say or write, but instead watch out for their real actions.

As for Bitcoin and Tesla, as you said correctly - they follow different cases, yet both might be good examples of recent shift to narrative economy. However, I don't necessarily foresee crash of Tesla (possible, but not necessary), while both can be argued to be undervalued (value investing), to have fundamentals which we don't account for with old-school metrics, and to have huge growth potential (growth investing), and be heavily driven by their pop stories (narrative investing). But those are topics for a different discussion I guess.

Did you notice that over the past 7 days, Bitcoin had -8.64% return, while with Tranched Value Securities (TVS) that could be from 0.00% to -3% or -16% all depending on what were the features of your TVS.

Bitcoin Returns


Tranched Value Securities backed by Bitcoin Returns


Feel free to share your trading experiences

I agree with you and others who note that it's "too good to be true". Yet, what they try to describe, yet, due to their limited knowledge of finance and economics, is commonly called "triangular arbitrage": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangular_arbitrage

If they would have even a basic fin education, they would know what it is and how that works, and could make up a better and more realistic story. But, we got what we got here

Okay, here we go:

Charlie Munger



Warren Buffet



Bitcoin


Tesla


Do I need to provide more comments or arguments about who is the greatest investor? While Charlie Munger and Warren Buffet surely WERE the best investors of THEIR times, for now, I am not so sure they still remain so. We must recognize when the times and leaders and "greatest investor" title changes. Otherwise it's like observing Bitcoin, but still calling U.S. Dollar the greatest currency in the world.

Well, I believe just a simple data of Charlie Munger vs Warren Buffet vs Bitcoin vs Tesla show my entire answer and argument, so I don't need to add more to that.

As for why identiffying the aforementioned two as growth investors, you can take a look at their portfolios and latest investments. Some of their assets show clear "growth-investor"-like patterns, while they don't publicly disclose that. Irrespective of that - what people say in public is not always what they actually have in mind.

And about Tesla, I gave a comprehensive explanation above why even if Tesla fails to deliver solid revenue in the near future, their narrative-driven market cap can turn the company and force it into a great business eventually. That's not something good or bad, that's just what it is.

Using your own argument about "won't keep trading at this valuation indefinitely, no matter the narrative around it.  Eventually, it's going to have to turn mega-insane profits to justify this valuation." - what would you say about Bitcoin in such context then?




I really agree with you in regard to how people tend to generalize one thing to everything else. Just an additional point to your comment is that if for example, the previous commenter would take a loot at Chinese BioTech P/Es or HighTech P/Es or some very popular companies (premium alcohol, social media, content production, new media, KOL factories) P/E of 1,000-1,500 would be very very normal. Nobody will be concerned that such stock is "overvalued". It's just the way it should be because it's the top narrative now, everyone wants it, and "tomorrow will be more expensive than today as more people will get to know it". And I personally don't know what new paradigm will come next, but I for sure don't foresee the current one changing in the nearest future - nobody is going to care about fundamentals anymore.

Wow, seriously wow... how insane someone needs to be to buy a vaccine on darknet

I saw some people commented that only stupid people would buy vaccine on darknet, and someone replied that stupid people don't know how to access darknet (which I agree with). According to market laws when there's a demand, there's gotta be supply. So if "smart people" (who know how to access darknet) really wanted to buy vaccine online, well, there are scammers who are willing to sell it to them.

However, I would also assume that some people might have preference and bias towards specific vaccine developer vs. others. For example, it's known that Russian vaccine has not passed all the necessary tests and was rolled out too quick, American vaccine is not that efficient actually, while Chinese vaccine has over 70 side-effects. Some of it might be black PR, some of it might be true, but some people might be wanting to get a vaccine developed by X, instead of the one offered by local government, therefore they could be searching for alternatives I assume.

For those of you who is interested, here's a pretty good list of all available vaccines and the ones still in clinical trials: https://www.raps.org/news-and-articles/news-articles/2020/3/covid-19-vaccine-tracker

Thank you for your kind comment. Actually that's something I recently noticed too (after writing the post and reading it again) that as we move along to the current era/times investors are less and less numbers-driven, with one extreme being TAs who rely entirely on numbers/charts, value and growth being in the middle as those metrics can be interpreted differently (even EBITDA, EV, Equity, etc. can be calculated differently depending on which accounting standards and which logic you chose to use), and narrative-investing being another extreme and we can say numbers-agnostic.

And yes, some funds still do use TA and trading data to make investment decisions, but those are mainly either arbitrage funds (thus yearn stable but super low returns), and others being high-frequency trading firms with the direct links to the exchange to get the data first in the world so they could legally "front-run" the market. But they are not that profitable usually too. But at least they don't have human error factor in

Value investing vs. any other style I think is more of a personal preference and beliefs. But you might want to look at the top funds' performance that follow value investing strategy (here: https://money.usnews.com/funds/search?category=large-value, and here: https://www.moneycontrol.com/mutual-funds/performance-tracker/annual-returns/value-fund.html).

Similar patterns would be for growth, and usually worse patterns for TA-based (yet in professional finance that's not TA-based, but arbitrage funds or quantitative funds or high-frequency trading firms).

As for Bitcoin, well only the history will show what it was and what it is. When we look at current events, we are always biased, but such things are better analyzed in retrospective historical way, once we have more data, free of short-term biases (narratives? ) and can make well informed and comprehensive analytical decisions.

Yes, you are right that those examples crashed the entire markets (same with Bernie Madoff and LTCM) But what I meant as isolated examples is that at that time okay there could be 1-2-3-5-n overhyped narrative-based overvalued stories which negatively affected markets. But now we see a great number of those all together. And the examples I gave are just among the most obvious ones, yet there are many others less obvious which I didn't mention (for example: gave investment (I know that sounds crazy ) - is a big thing in China, due to limited space available, and continuous appreciation of space for keeping the urn for ashes; luxury goods secondary market - some of the luxury bags/snickers/clothes double in price within days (and the trend persists for long time) once they are released by big brands; and there are other examples if we think of). Thus my point is that now virtually everything is either following a narrative based logic, or simply failing.

And for luck alternatives, honestly I don't really know. From one side we have all these things which we never had before - from grave investing and Amazon shops to complex financial products, derivatives and cryptos. Investment opportunities are countless (you could even just go down the street and ask for equity stake some local bakery or coffee shop). Yet, as you correctly mentioned - with these prices and overall market fuelled by insane printing (yet it's arguable if that's good or bad, as without that we all could be bankrupt by now).

Loved the quote "the markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent" - it's one of my favourite ones. As for narrative investing being not sustainable, well certainly it's not. Same with value or growth investing. Nobody can guarantee that the startup I invested will really become the next Uber or Google. Same as nobody can guarantee that if I buy a factory for less than it's NAV, it will eventually match with its NAV. Isn't that a definition of investing and trading, irrespective of which strategy or logic we follow?

From my view it doesn't necessarily make investing "gambling on Ponzi scheme". While yes, certainly it makes (potentially) unfavourable asset overvalued, there are two additional factors to consider:
1) Greater fool theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_fool_theory): it means people buy/invest based on the narrative that either the "next fool will buy it from me later" or "the narrative keeps spreading like a virus, and with greater penetration I can sell to others". With the whole concept of investment or trading, I believe that is applicable not only to narrative economy but even to TA/value/growth/etc. investing. In the end we all buy with the hope of being able to be able to sell to someone later at higher price. That buyer might be buying from us due to: 1) s/he is fool, 2) has more information than us and expects to earn more, 3) various investment strategies and investment horizons (maybe I want to invest only until end of 2020 and then retire and liquidate all holdings, but the buyer just starts investing in the end of 2020 so my asset is a perfect fit for h/im/er), or due to 4) different kinds of mismatches (liquidity, duration, rate, return, etc. mismatches (maybe I need money right now so I have to sell, but someone is able to buy it now). From this perspective, while most of the people might be selling because they think the buyer is a fool, it doesn't actually mean that we are playing ponzi or gamble.
2) Minsky moment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minsky_moment): "In economics, a Minsky moment is the moment when reality catches up with an overly-optimistic financial sector, leading to collapsing prices." - the green colored part is what I try to explain, but the rest is just FYI about what the original term means. So for example imagine a bad company X which somehow got a way to manage and promote it's narrative and spread it like a virus. If the company is publicly traded, their stock price will shoot, leading to lower cost of capital (WACC: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weighted_average_cost_of_capital), as a result of lower WACC, stock price will continue to increase. With that, banks will be more willing to lend them at lower rates and/or use those stocks as collateral. So the company can borrow cheap money if they have too. As a result, with more capital in hand, they can hire top people (ex.Google, Goldman Sachs, etc.) who could fix the product/service and operations and make it a really good company eventually. So like that "overly-optimistic financial sector" based on a good, yet untruthful narrative, made actually a good company in the end when the reality caught up with the market perception.

So based on the above two, I believe narrative economy certainly has some component of gambling and/or Ponzi (like any other regular investment/trading/speculation), but is not entirely that bad. Just another way, not better or worse than others, I think.




Yes, that's my point. Not necessarily investors though, as it can be just supporters/promoters/media/etc., but all of that will eventually translate into investors. Like if everyone in the world starts saying you must invest in X ICO and repeat it every day, even Warren Buffet will do so eventually when every single person (including his wife, kids, drivers, shop sellets, etc.) says so.




I am not entirely sure, but I believe you refer to the 2nd part of my above comment about partial Minsky Moment? And I like your reasoning on this, I believe you are correct and it fits well the new narrative economy theory, as following that way even a bad/inexistent/failing/yet-to-be-developed product/company/service/project has a potential to be great. But only if the team is good and strong and understand what it understand, and understand what they don't understand (reference to my earlier comments when I said that some of the kids doing DeFi or startups are very funny when they think they with a team of 3-5 or even 20 people can build the next Google or international bank )

Thank you guys for your kind comments and for your valuable opinions!




You are absolutely right. That's actually what I observed too while working for activist investment fund where they try to find undervalued assets (thus there's possible upside when market realizes the asset value) + try to create value for the company themselves. Yet, over the many years, if the company doesn't become popular (i.e. like Tesla and those) - no matter how good or strong its fundamentals - it will remain undervalued for decades. If you check the performance of other activist funds - they also start to struggle to earn decent returns, and I assume it's for the same reason. I think you summarized the main drivers behind that transition pretty well about expansionary monetary policy, retail investors, etc. As a good evidence of that is also the sad story about the trader of Robinhood who got a negative $730,000 balance and decided to end his life. Before at least it were professional Wall Street professionals committing suicides but now it's regular people who didn't know what and what for they trade.




It's "sad but true" that you mentioned that "Storytelling is very important in the crypto industry". Way too many people rely entirely on stories, and due to that lose their money (to the ones who exploit those stories {either project teams, either early investors ("greater fool theory": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_fool_theory)}). I agree with your opinion, except for one part only that "the main criterion for a good investment object is the developer's ambitions". Sorry, but I think this is wrong. I personally might have ambition to overtake NYSE & NASDAQ, but I might be completely ignorant and have no idea how business works. Then you are in a bad investment. But I see how other people followed the same logic, and this is what always made me smile - when literally a bunch of kids or recent grads without work experience or obvious scams / ICO-"prostitutes" (a term in Russian for people who sell their faces to different projects just to add "recognized" team members) claim that they gonna make the next CME in derivatives, or HSBC but on blockchain, or something else. From my personal perspective - of course ambition is a great thing, and if you don't have one - you shouldn't be doing own project / company / startup (as they say "The soldier who doesn't dream to be a general is a bad soldier"). But the ambitions should be reasonable. Like if some kid from Ukraine says he is gonna do next Facebook on blockchain - I definitely will turn down such project; if Elon Musk says he is gonna do next Facebook - I believe, because he has resources, money and experience; if the kid from Europe says he is gonna do some ad-on for Facebook or improve some minor area - that sounds more reasonable and doable.

As for EOS, I also invested there before, when I was engaged in investments, but luckily I bought at around $1-1.5 back in 2017, but I liquidated all of it in April, and the rest of crypto portfolio together with BTC in the end of 2018, so I can't complain about returns but as I mentioned - my opinion is that if you are able to predict the development of narrative and how it will be perceived, or can exploit it - you might be well positioned in current investment area, otherwise, it's not very good idea to base investment decision entirely on promises or ambitions (especially dev teams' cuz they are not businessmen, they are just tech guys, and developing a narrative or good and stable business requires a different skillset).




I was thinking about the same examples actually with the dotcom & South Sea yes, you are absolutely right that at those periods the reason for crashes was ultimately the narrative-based logic, but those were isolated examples within specific niches / companies / markets. But nowadays, in the past decade or so, it appears to me that this is very persistent and is now the only way to make alpha in the market. Thus, can't we mark it as investment/economic paradigm shift? As I mentioned above about my previous work experience (+ other value/growth/activist/etc. funds), and as mentioned change of global factors by Tytanowy Janusz above, it appears that this is the strategy for now.

I know that dotcom, US/Japanese/(now Chinese?) real estate markets started growing for a good reason, but ended up in the "narrative" area with the known results, but now this narrative-based logic appears to be literally in every area - from the American large caps, to Chinese small caps, Russian mid caps, cryptos, PE/VC, seed startups, DeFis, fixed-income, new tech, ... you can continue the list. Whoever is not part of the fancy "next great X" or "will change the world in Y" - is losing, whoever is in - is earning. And I believe the greatest evidence that it's not just a small market hype or craziness, but the "new normal" is again it's prolonged history of it for over a decade. Now is the only time when everyone around expects market(s) to crash, but it doesn't, while before everyone expected market to go on raising, and it eventually crashed.

Not sure who said that, but I read ones that "if everyone expects a certain thing to happen - it will not happen, when everyone isn't expecting that to happen - it eventually will", and this thing is again the market crash, which people predicted in 2010, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, and now 21... Yet, all markets which are part of the great narrative continue to hit ATHs, and the short sellers (of Tesla, Bitcoin, Zoom, cannabis stocks, tech, solar energy, ESG, real estate EFTs, etc.) keep losing.

Just wanted to share some thoughts about the recent market developments, and get feedback from the knowledgable BitcoinTalk community.

1920-1930s: we saw an emergence of technical analysis with the books of Richard W. Schabacker (even though the history began long before that in 17th centurty). At those times, if you had ability and resources just to chart data and identify visual patterns - you could make good money (read more here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technical_analysis). Effectively it was - see the chart and make investment decision based on the trend.

1930-1960s: we saw an emergence of value investing with the first attempts of John Maynard Keynes, but his approach was too high-level (macro-economy) therefore didn't see substantial success before Benjamin Graham started researching and following this approach on a company-wide scale. At those times, if you had ability and resources to analyze fundamental data (balance sheet, income statement, cash flow statement, etc.) and understand good vs. bad patterns - you could make good money (read more here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_investing). Effectively it was - see financial statements, and buy what is undervalued.

1960-2010s: we sew an emergence of growth investing with the growing popularity and success of Charlie Munger, Phil Fisher, and of course Warren Buffett. The entire idea was to buy whatever is expected to grow in the future, because it can become the next Google or Facebook. At those times, if you had ability and resources to analyze and predict future potential growth of the company - you could make good money (read more here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growth_investing). Effectively it was - even if the company is overvalued or already fairly priced, it's okay to buy-in if there's substantial growth expected.

2010-onwards: we are observing an emergence of narrative economy and narrative investing. It is well documented and currently being popularised theory by Robert J. Shiller, where charts don't matter anymore, fundamental data doesn't matter anymore, future growth doesn't matter anymore. All what matters is the narrative (i.e. story) around the particular asset / stock / etc. If it got a good story which is able to spread like a virus, no matter how good or bad the stock/(asset) is - it will deliver substantial returns (read more here: https://www.ft.com/content/5ba0adf6-ec3c-11e9-85f4-d00e5018f061). Effectively it means - if you can identify good story that would be appealing to other prospective investors, and able to invest in that story early enough, you can outperform others.

While the idea of narrative economy might sound too new or experimental, the recent market developments, with the stories surrounding such assets as Tesla, Zoom, Bitcoin, BioTech, COVID19 vaccine developers, cannabis stocks, and many others, with the success of such investors as ARK funds, there is clearly some evidence that the world has shifted to narrative-based economy, and neither charts, neither fundamentals, neither growth matters anymore.

What do you think about that?



P.S. the dates and time ranges above are just for general reference, as some people still falsefully believe that they can use TA to outperform market, or try to make investment decisions based on BS/IS/CFS. Some of the ancient approaches still might work in very specific cases or asset classes, and some people might argue that the investment school of though has changed at other dates, but overall trend and change I personally believe is okay to be marked with those dates. Of course that is by no mean an absolute and only correct idea.

Did you know, while over the past 7 days Bitcoin had a return rate of 9.76% according to CoinMarketCap (first screenshot), you could have actually earned way more than that.



Some of the traders' derivatives who already use Tranched Value Securities on as.exchange are up 28.03% over the same period and backed by the same BTC. While others, who securitized their Bitcoins and issued TVS at ATH moment, are down literally 0.00%.



Have you already tried trading Tranched Value Securities with as.exchange?

Below we are sharing 7-day performance of Bitcoin-backed Tranched Value Securities (TVS) that were issued by different traders on as.exchange. The highest return rate was +62.51% (most risky value tranche of securitized Bitcoin), while the lowest was +2.31% (least risky value tranche of securitized Bitcoin).

And how much did you earn with Bitcoin over the past 7 days?

Dear BitcoinTalk Community, we are pleased to present our explainer video about Tranched Value Securities (TVS).

We hope it will help you to understand a bit more the concept described above in the lengthy text, and hope everyone and everywhere can benefit from the financial innovation! We would highly appreciate your comments and opinion on this. Feel free to ask any questions

Link to the video: https://youtu.be/cS5xjcBhqqs

Dear BitcoinTalk Community, we are pleased to present our explainer video about Tranched Value Securities (TVS).

We work very hard to make sure everyone and everywhere can benefit from the financial innovation! We would highly appreciate your comments and opinion on this. Feel free to ask any questions

Link to the video: https://youtu.be/cS5xjcBhqqs

I am still discovering those traders you mention, but do you mean generally the ones on Twitter and Youtube?
As for the Telegram I would say you described the current situation pretty well unfortunately.

Yes, you are very correct. That's why after checking all groups I came to conclusion that there's literally 0 suitable groups in the ENG-speaking space which would satisfy the topic requirement and have real group members. Most of them are all fake unfortunately.

Really loved your comment. I would say "you cannot imagine", but I am sure you can - how many times I saw common people sharing the same feelings, but only you described it well straight to the point. Some people say this is the case in China only where people got wealthy with the rise of China 10-20y ago and now common people cannot afford to purchase real estate in first-tier cities while that's kind of mandatory based on social norms; people in Russia say the same thing but blame oligarchs and corrupt government officials who do the best to benefit only the own inner circle driving the prices higher and pushing people more to the poverty; and same with the US where people are desperately trying to figure out point of life under capitalism and with little-to-no chance or happily leaving the 9-5 / 9-6 hole and with inability to afford life in big cities.

Yet, all these people are the "average Joe" who drive BTC price higher with a hope that it will change their life once the whales controlling the market would turn their attention to constantly growing asset.

Let's hope this situation changes, but I personally don't see any big change with only monetary system change/transition to being more crypto-friendly, as currently the world is experiencing far more fundamental and structural issues when "the bottoms don't want and the tops cannot live in the old way" coupled with "high political activity of the working masses, their readiness to revolutionary actions"




Well even having trillions of dollars I don't think someone would mind having an additional couple of billions I'm not sure though, hopefully one day we all together will find that out personally.


This is just a proof that "smart money" isn't that smart after all. Ignoring promising technology and innovative asset in the early stage and then FOMOing at ATHs and entering with public announcements (to further hype the price of course). Not very smart imho.