I looked at WOF spins primarily, as that's what I see as the biggest perk of the program. The extra interest doesn't amount to much by comparison.  Here's what I calculated:

At 5000 Fun tokens, the cost is currently 500k sats (it was more when I did my initial calcs too).  After a month you get 3 extra WOF spins and it scales up to 6 daily WOF spins after a year. For the sake of simplicity, I'm just going to calculate 6 extra WOF spins from the start.  WOF spins are generally worth 50 sats.  Either you get 50 sats or 50 rp which given enough time you can convert to 50 sats if you make it to 100k rp.  Sometimes you get more sats on a spin, but sometimes you get lottery tickets too which in all likelihood translate to 0.  So expecting 50 sats per spin is reasonable and I would say necessary when you're calculating time to recover investment. 

At 6 extra spins a day, you're looking at 300 sats as the extra perk.  On a 500k sat investment cost, that's 1667 days, or 4.56 years.  And that's only if FUN holds the value you bought it at.  Taken that as a given, it's not a compelling investment given the risks.  I think you can get more perks at much higher investment costs, but honestly, that's even more risky in my view, so I calculated on what seemed like a reasonable test tier.

Happy to hear any input on where you think I've made an error in logic or if I'm missing something about the program.

God, how will the rich people cope having to pay a living wage to employees and pay more on taxes of investments? Imagine the horror of having all those Walmart and McDonald's employees getting off food stamps and government aid because their employer finally started paying them them a living wage! I know I'm outraged. Outraged, I say!  /s

Here's a source in case you're as clueless as you seem:  https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/19/walmart-and-mcdonalds-among-top-employers-of-medicaid-and-food-stamp-beneficiaries.html

Having the government subsidize people who have a job because their employers refuse to pay a living wage is not acceptable. This is a direct transfer of wealth to the owners of multi-billion dollar businesses by creating conditions that allow them to pay less than the cost of living for their employees and having the government pick up the difference. These businesses can afford this, and it is a moral imperative they shoulder their own responsibilities and get off the government teat. Businesses like Costco pay far over the minimum wage and are very profitable, and they do it to set an example for other businesses. Business will be fine.

Another difference that has been neglected is that being a rich white asshole is not a protected class like being gay. As for the actions of the bakery and the bank, I don't agree that either actions are wrong. I don't think a business should be be forced to do business with someone they don't want to. But you have to look at who the "left wing nuts" (as you term them) and the "right wing" (apparently not nuts?) target with their actions. The "left wing" is always acting to protect classes that have historically been marginalized, and the "right wing" is always punching down against marginalized groups. So while I don't agree the bakery should have been fined, I understand the impetus to protect a class of people that has historically been marginalized and not had equal protection under the law.

The stock market is not and never has been a good indicator of economic growth. When you look at actually growth in the economy, Trump was below average and nothing special.



Also, Biden hasn't been in office long enough to change taxes. I'm afraid your maga side is showing through.

The percentage of total addresses is pretty meaningless considering that there can be hundreds of millions of addresses created over time. Since there can only be 21 million bitcoins, this is the max amount of addresses that could potentially hold 1 btc.  A more meaningful metric would be the percent of addresses that hold 1 btc of the max possible.

Although even then, what's the point of knowing this? I don't see any valuable insight it provides.

Stocks typically return 8-10% annually in aggregate, so 15% is quite robust. You have to remember that this is an the entire asset class of all stocks, and it's weighed down by a significant number of under performers. You would see the same weighted down effect if you looked at the entire crypto asset class instead of just bitcoin, and crypto as a whole would be significantly weighed down by the vast majority of under achievers. There are plenty of individual stocks that have outperformed bitcoin in the time period shown in the graph, however the graph only shows a single asset versus a broad asset class, so it is misleading in that it's not a like comparison.

Elon's a troll who gets off manipulating people, which is why you can't take anything he says seriously. He's well-known for making aggressive targets with Tesla and failing to meet them.  He's well-known for tweeting things that aren't true (e.g., his settlement with the SEC for tweeting materially false information about Tesla). He's well-known for tweeting memes just to get attention (e.g., tweets about Doge that get endless attention). He's a narcissist and his words should be regarded as empty and self-serving because that's the history he's established for himself.  He's also ventured into Covid hoax territory when it's served him and picked fights with people on twitter (pedo lawsuit), which is just unbecoming for someone of his stature. He's not the hero the crypto community deserves, it's kind of annoying he gets as much worship as he does.

To me, the bitcoin price paradox is that the more volatile the price is, the more people it attracts trying to day trade it. And the more people trying to day trade it, the more volatile the price is.  And the more volatile the price is, the worse it is as a store of value. That's the paradox; bitcoin's success is bad for bitcoin adoption as a currency since a volatile currency is useless. The most important aspect for a currency is stability.

Demonstrably false. You may only hear about the "risk takers" who made it and not the vast majority who lose because of risky behavior. And you don't have to look far to find evidence of that. All those idiots on WSB who were still buying GME above $300 were risk takers, and now a lot of them are sitting on +75% losses. The idiots buying Doge at 8 cents were risk takers, and they're sitting on substantial losses now too. Risk taking for the sake of risk taking is stupid. It's not about risk taking, it's about intelligence somewhat but mostly about luck. The earliest investors in GME were lucky. If they got out of their positions when it was up 30,000%, they were smart.

Using a timeline far longer than any human being lives is pointless and purposefully deceptive. Nobody lives long enough to see dollars depreciate on that magnitude, so this graph is meaningless for practical purposes because not a single person in history has ever suffered anywhere near the depreciation the graph depicts. Second, people generally don't hold a significant amount of dollars for a significant amount, further diminishing the effects of the depreciation shown.  Wealth is invested into assets in search of yield.  The whole depreciation argument has always been grossly overstated.

Honestly, seems more risky than not. I've done some really rough math and the break even point on the different tiers of FUN are pretty long, and that's assuming it holds value consistently, which alts as a rule just don't do for a prolonged period of time. Could this possibly be an exception? Maybe, but this all seems a little too pumpy to my liking.

"Available data at this point is too preliminary to draw hard conclusions." Lol, what are you talking about? There's no data available to support any of this. I'd like to know what you were smoking when you had this fever dream though, because it was clearly good stuff and I need to look into if it's legal around here.

No reset has happened and Covid will not be forgotten, the same way the Spanish Flu pandemic was not forgotten.  Despite these constant CoNsPiRaCy posts, nobody is behind the magic curtain pulling strings and controlling the world. If things like that actually happened, there sure wouldn't be the ability of people to speculate about it on the internet.

The hedge funds that shorted the stock to a technically unsustainable level are getting what they deserve. However, the same goes for the idiots who are still buying the stock. GME isn't worth $400 a share and in all likelihood will never be worth $400 a share.  A collapse is all but guaranteed.  Right now there is still to much hype driving the buy side, but this will lose momentum over time for the simple fact that people sitting on huge paper gains can't realize them without selling. Just as the buildup gained momentum, eventually the opposite will happen and the collapse will build momentum.  One thing remains invariably true- anyone who loses money trading this absolutely deserves it.

This has nothing to do with competing against institutional whales. Where as GME is about sticking it to hedge funds because they shorted the stock to an unsustainable level, there is no institutional investor on the other side of the Doge pump. All it's doing is driving up the price and it's going to leave a lot of idiots holding the bag because they're chasing fast money and they think they're helping to rebel against hedge funds for some reason. This is actually much worse than what is going on in GME because this one is about pure greed and the people on the other side of the pump are other crypto believers.

Like all things science and health related, trump's opinion on bitcoin shouldn't be taken seriously. Economics in general are a weakness for him (e.g., tariff wars are easy to win, or I'll pay off the national debt before I leave office). He just says things without the slightest inkling of meaningful thought. He's not gonna move bitcoin; he's no Elon. 

All major cities have investment funds, this is not abnormal. It would be quite risky to put public funds in such a speculative investment though. I also don't want the government gambling with public funds this way. Governments have enough problems balancing their budgets under the best conditions, putting assets in speculative investments is too risky.

This is kind of a silly idea. The rich are not going to stop buying assets because they have to pay tax on appreciation. Asset appreciation is how they build wealth, you don't just stop building wealth because it's taxed. What will happen is that taxing unrealized gains will cause assets to need to be liquidated to raise cash to pay the tax, and that overall will drive asset prices down.  However, considering asset prices are largely inflated because the economy borrows money from the future to finance the US government debt (i.e., tax rates are lower than they should be so as not to slow down economic growth), this would only be a step towards reverting towards the true value of the current economy.

This was a penny stock before the price of bitcoin sent crypto mining companies through the roof. Do your homework on this, this isn't a company I'd invest in personally. The stock was up 2200% last year because of the price of bitcoin driving everything bitcoin-related insane, however the company is not profitable, they're cash flow negative, and they have a lot of debt.  One thing they did right was issuing a ton of shares when their stock price went crazy (they more than doubled outstanding shares last year), and used that to buy a ton of new miners.  They've also cut a deal with an energy provider to get very cheap power, but it remains to be seen if these two developments will drive this company to profitability.  My prediction is it will not, the underlying business is poor and the stock price will continue to mimic the price of bitcoin while the legacy business continues to struggle.  The new mining power will deliver decreasing returns over time and I doubt they'll produce enough profit to ever pay off the investment (because they've never been able to before).

Miller bought MSTR debt, not the stock.  PE ratio is not a metric relevant to valuing a bond investment.  Interesting what he said:  "So, when MicroStrategy issued the bond at par, in our assessment there was very little downside and an almost-free call option on Bitcoin."  It's about bitcoin exposure.  Also, PE ratio doesn't take into account unrealized gains, and the appreciation of the bitcoin holdings is what's driving MSTR's performance right now, not the value of its legacy business which is where the PE ratio comes from.  I'm sure if you measure price to book value you get a much more reasonable valuation growth metric than by using PE, as this metric would take into account the unrealized gains, not the profit of the legacy business.