APPROACH 4: COST OF PRODUCTION VALUATION
The “cost of production” valuation thesis was first proposed by Adam Hayes in 2015 and has been expanded upon by multiple researchers since. The theory holds that crypto, just like any commodity, is subject to traditional pricing challenges on the supply side. Crypto miners the computers that process transactions and are rewarded with the underlying cryptoasset spend fiat money to produce each marginal cryptoasset, through both energy and hardware expenditures.
Hayes and others suggest that, viewing bitcoin as a commodity and according to traditional microeconomic theory, the cost of producing each marginal bitcoin should align with the price of that bitcoin. After all, if bitcoin mining were to become unprofitable, miners could simply turn their attention to another cryptoasset or exit the market altogether. As a result, the value of each bitcoin can be estimated by examining the marginal cost of mining (specifically, the electricity burned in running the computations as part of mining) versus the expected yield of new bitcoin.Empirical backtesting shows a relatively strong alignment between bitcoin’s price and the marginal cost of production, lending some credence (thought no directional causality) to this approach.
The “cost of production” analysis, however, involves some significant challenges. For one, it is circular in its reasoning because the decision made by miners to enter or exit the market is driven by the cryptoasset’s price. Using two necessarily cointegrated variables to value one another has very little predictive or explanatory power. The model also fails to account for or explain the massive short-term volatility of bitcoin’s price or the fact that bitcoin’s mining difficulty is programmatically adjusted on a biweekly
basis depending on the level of effort miners have focused on it.
Beyond that, many cryptoassets use a consensus mechanism different from that of bitcoin, one that does not lend itself to this kind of analysis. In proof-of-stake systems, for instance, little or no energy is consumed in mining; instead, miners lock up assets in escrow in exchange for securing the network. For these markets, no direct concept of the cost of production exists.In the end, although cost of production has aligned roughly with prices for some cryptoassets in the past, the cause-and-effect relationship is not clear and its predictive value for the future is very much in question.
the cost of production is not circular. and market price is not a primer.. value and premium is simply based on asic hardware + electricity the VALUE as oppose to premium explains that taking the cheapest mining cost on planet becomes the value bottom line... the premium as oppose to value explains that taking the expensive mining cost on planet becomes the premium bottom line... the market price is an after effect not the primer. the market price speculates between value and premium value sits below the market price so once you calculate the value and then look at the market price that sits above the value. you can see how inflated the speculation is.. compare that with the cost of minting PoS which is negligible value compared to its inflated speculated price. and you soon see why bitcoin is a better store of value |
|
|
|
traders read The inaugural Cristiano Ronaldo NFT collection will drop on November 18 (09:00 UTC) and feature seven animated statues with four rarity levels: Super Super Rare (SSR), Super Rare (SR), Rare (R), and Normal (N). Each NFT statue depicts Ronaldo in an iconic moment from his life, from career-defining bicycle kicks to his childhood in Portugal.
On November 18, at 09:00 (UTC),45 of the highest value CR7 NFTs (5 SSR and 40 SR) will be held for auction on the Binance NFT marketplace. The auction will remain open for 24 hours, with NFTs awarded to the highest bidder. Bidding prices will start at 10,000 BUSD for SSR and 1,700 BUSD for SR.
An additional 6,600 NFTs (600 R and 6,000 N) will be offered via our Subscription Mechanism Launchpad, starting at 77 BUSD for the Normal rarity.
where they are paying for a picture of a footballer for prices between $77-$10k .. and the buyers could not then find other buyers to sell to.. so want to sue the guy in the photo for not being as valuable as face value first thought.. well the buyers should not have accepted the offer so hastly if what they bought was a true NFT then they own copyright of the picture they hold.. the 5 guys with 5 unique super rare photos. can easily each print 2,000 posters of their property and resell the posters for $5 each to tourists and football fans to break even.. guess they dont know all the capabilities of ownership proof(copyright) of NFT and how they can turn it into real money that said i never looked at what technology/protocol the NFT were minted on to see if they were even true NFT.. so it could be that what they bought was not a true NFT to allow copyright claim to legally then sell reprints also lets do the math 5 * 10,000 =50,000 40 * 1,700 =68,000 6000 * 77 =462,000 seems less the $600k offer.. no where near $1b on offer |
|
|
|
Shelter from market downturns is necessary. However, long-term bonds carry risk. A minor interest rate increase can depreciate capital significantly. If interest rates fall, you're good, but that's a huge if, right? Predicting interest rates is like gambling.
a bond does not lose value if you intend to hold for the full duration. the only risk is if YOU hold the bond and YOU decide to sell it early to cash out before expiry on a market that favours a better bond. then you have to sell yours at a lower amount to get some one to buy it off you again if and when you have used all your other investment strategies and maxed out the allowed yearly limits of investing. then if you fill your normal bank spending account to the FDIC limit(presuming your normal account has interest) then you would put the excess into a bond knowing you wont need to touch a bond for its full duration and the interest on it is better then you bank account just dont drawdown/sell/exit a bond before expiry if you want to ensure you dont lose valuable benefit of bond yield this is why after doing IRA 401k and mutuals. then people invest in bond index funds. so they can tap in and out whenever without losing main capital value. then they also fill bank account for emergency fund to prevent needing to tap into investments.. then due to a FDIC risk of not all spending account being insured. then and only then do they put the excess into direct holding bonds making sure they never tap into any of the investments/bonds where the capital would sell at a loss the most after they spent their basic spending account amount |
|
|
|
Is it necessary though?
~snip
this seems as most important question is it necessary, and what existing problem will this solve competition in mining business is certainly a good thing, and decentralized providers should be encouraged to join, but they should find a way to offer better options for existing miners that are joining pools, rather than to seek support just because they have decentralized in name having 0% commission for 2 months is a good start, but more is needed to have meaningful mining power routed in their direction 0% fee for two months is meaningless 250PH out of 500,000ph is 0.05% or in block terms. for every 2000blocks ocean may solve 1 2000 blocks is a fortnight.. so basically only 4 rewards are fee free |
|
|
|
Well, with the recent events with Sinbad mixer, we've got a statement of the Fiscal Information and Investigation Service of the Netherlands in which they supported what is written in a topic title: Bitcoin mixing is not a criminal activity per se: Cryptocurrency mixing
A cryptocurrency mixing service is not necessarily illegal. It is an online service that allows users to disguise the origin and destination of cryptocurrencies. With this service, cryptocurrencies are mixed with other users' cryptocurrencies for a fee. Because these transactions are kept in a public record (known as a blockchain), without using a mixer, the origin of the cryptocurrency can be traced using blockchain analytics. For this reason, some users, including criminals, choose to employ a mixer to disguise the origin of their cryptocurrency. Mixing criminal assets and concealing the origin of criminal funds is a criminal offense. In the case of Sinbad.io, more than 50 percent of all mixed cryptocurrencies were found to have a criminal origin. In the case of Sinbad. io, there are no measures in place to implement and enforce a Know Your Customer (KYC) or Know Your Transaction (KYT) policy. So we can suppose that the government of the Netherlands sees the difference between mixing bitcoins for own security and safety and mixing bitcoins for some criminal purposes. you quoted a section to make it look like mixing is fine.. but you missed a crucial part they also said Dutch investigative agencies such as the FIOD will continue to crack down on this. This action aimed at Sinbad.io is a heavy blow to organized crime and also also serves as an example and warning to founders and users of users similar services.
|
|
|
|
The shorter the duration, the smaller the interest rate.
The longer the duration, the higher the interest rate.
You're using an example where taking a mortgage for 15 years and 30 years has a same interest rate, this is unrealistic you will not find this in reality since they've calculate it.
There's no trick to save money except using an old school strategy where the house is used for rent, making money etc.
actually there were interest rates higher for people with bad credit, but there is a limit of "smaller" interest for good credit so someone with great credit wont see much of a difference changing duration (yea i looked into that before prepping numbers) funny part is a HSBC 2 year fix standard is 5.39% in the uk funny part is a HSBC 5 year fix standard is 4.89% in the uk so we brits have things opposite to 'inthelongrun' country other searches According to our mortgage partner Better.co.uk,
the average two-year fixed rate deal across all borrower types* stands at 5.28%,
with three-year deals averaging 5.20%.
The average cost of a five-year fixed rate today has fallen to 4.98% from 5.05% yesterday. |
|
|
|
According to the Halving Events, The first Halving event was November 28, 2012, and the Block number was 210,000 and Minner was Slush Pool,
and now 4th Halving event expected is of April 2024 and block expected is around 840,000.
fixed that for you
first halving was block 210,000 4th halving will be 2024 these days getting stuff right becomes more important. else if idiots start quoting mistakes to social groups, trolls and ai tools start to believe it |
|
|
|
|
i call BS too
binance did not do the same things FTX done.
ronaldo is being sued for over pricing an NFT...technically all NFT are over priced and everyone should have buyers remorse
after all toilet paper was sold on the streets between neighbours at 5X retail price in 2020
|
|
|
|
this will become less and less as the rewards to fee ratios make it dumber and dumber after each ½ ing.
the shorts become stupid as fuck when the rewards are 0.39 vs fees of 0.50 around 2036
4000000bytes with 50,000,000sats is 12500sat/kbyte just wait for bitcoin spot market to multiply and people start paying 1250sat/kbyte and total fee become 0.05btc total just wait for bitcoin spot market to multiply and people start paying 125sat/kbyte and total fee become 0.005btc total |
|
|
|
while it may seem surprising to someone who doesn't know much about the subject, it shouldn't be surprising to someone who registered on the forum in 2013.
by the fact that someone from 2013 should be self sustainably wealthy after 2 reward halving events and 3 ATH events.. by the OP doing sig-spamming for small sat amounts.. i think it must be a newbie that bought an old account |
|
|
|
ok update appears they dont want to payout dust to individual miners(onchain and immediately to avoid pool manager custodian centralisation of funds).. they instead now want to avoid the dust by taking the blockreward. locking it up and then using.. wait for it "lightning" .. i am laughing so miners wont transparently see their rewards on the blockchain and instead the rewards are locked up in jackdorseys channel(s) half a step forward 21m steps backwards gotta love the catchy headline https://www.nobsbitcoin.com/ocean-pool-launch-6-2m-seed-round/The seed funding will support the launch of OCEAN Pool - a non-custodial Bitcoin mining pool where miners are paid directly by the Bitcoin network. The pool also offers complete transparency into its operations, particularly in the areas of block template creation and reward distribution.
but digging deeper into quotes "Over the next year, I will be redesigning the process of block template construction, leveraging and improving Stratum V2 where possible, to truly decentralize mining."
"We also plan to incorporate Lightning payouts which will solve the dust problem for small miners. This will also serve the dual benefit of bringing more liquidity to Lightning."
|
|
|
|
|
who wants to see a coinreward output that no longer says
(ADDRESSES NOT EXACT JUST RANDOM NAMESPACE FOR DEMO)
coinbasereward -> bc1qPoolmanager 6.25
opreturn 0
opreturn 0
opreturn 0
and instead says
(ADDRESSES NOT EXACT JUST RANDOM NAMESPACE FOR DEMO)
coinbasereward -> bc1qPoolmanager 0.25
opreturn 0
opreturn 0
opreturn 0
bc1qworkerAAA 0.00146484
bc1qworkerAAB 0.00146484
bc1qworkerAAC 0.00146484
bc1qworkerAAD 0.00146484
bc1qworkerAAE 0.00146484
bc1qworkerAAF 0.00146484
bc1qworkerAA0 0.00146484
bc1qworkerAA1 0.00146484
bc1qworkerAA2 0.00146484
bc1qworkerAA3 0.00146484
bc1qworkerAA4 0.00146484
bc1qworkerAA5 0.00146484
bc1qworkerAA6 0.00146484
bc1qworkerAA7 0.00146484
bc1qworkerAA8 0.00146484
bc1qworkerAA9 0.00146484
bc1qworkerABA 0.00146484
bc1qworkerABB 0.00146484
bc1qworkerABC 0.00146484
bc1qworkerABD 0.00146484
[and so on for 4000 outputs]
|
|
|
|
full empty 819055 >15 secs > 819056 819044 >05 secs > 819045 Yes, just a couple of weeks ago, ViaBTC mined a empty block as well: Block 817214.full empty 818959 >09 secs > 818960 817213 >35 secs > 817214 |
|
|
|
-cut-
But is this necessary? I am thinking it is a good idea, but what about you people. Is it a good ideas?
Not only a good idea, it's a brilliant idea, at least for credibility of proof of work consensus mechanism. For a long time i've seen giant centralized pools as a biggest threat to bitcoin. And centralization of them was undermining the whole idea of centralization, so i am glad that someone is rethinking how we should approach idea of pools. Only potential problem i see in this is someone will find an exploit and steals one block of rewards. And that's something i can live with. Also as i am not an expert i don't know where the fud will come towards this but i am prepared to read critique against this with a grain of salt. its not a great idea.. both "ocean" and ckpool are still pools .. where one manager is the one deciding which transactions do or dont get into a block. its still one manager deciding if he wants to flag support for a protocol upgrade proposal.. the asics still dont have a say in it.. the protocol and block content decisions is still pool centralised and decided by the pool manager.. nothing has changed.. all that changes is how the workers are paid.. analogy its still a factory producing the same product. all thats changed is users salary method. getting paid per 10 minutes instead of per month for ocean and the guy that made the billionth target product id for the year gets paid all salaries of all workers for being the lucky worker in the production line for CKpool but in both cases the factory is still managed by the same factory owner who still has control of whats produced |
|
|
|
I think that the successful people have the growth mindsets because someone who's stagnant will never grow and successful like them.
i wouldnt say never. i would say they need a kick up the ass/trigger event to push them. they wont evolve naturally without some impact event of fear of extinction |
|
|
|
|
other examples of comfort zone fixed mindsets are those that eat for pleasure. not caring about the long term health risk. they dont just wake up one morning and want to join the gym and change their diet. there needs some trigger.. maybe the prospects of dating a glamour model that smiled at them.. maybe they had a health scare. but people with fixed mindsets dont change their minds unprovoked
another example are those on a low income. no savings but complaining tht their life is not one of luxury.. but years later they are in the same job with no savings still.. it ends up being a trigger that kicks them into action to change their job or look at their spending habits to truly economise their life in a positive way
before getting feedback, before getting out of comfort zone, before rewarding the process. fixed minded people need a trigger event to wake them out of their zombie state
|
|
|
|
|
what if i told you the total is not 13 nor 12 but less..
what if i told you applicants like franklin want to remove themselves from the SEC lineup for nasdaq securities ETF listing.. and instead jump into the CFTC regulatory permit of CME commodity ETF listing
what if i told you franklin is not the only one that wants to do 'in-kind' basket settlement and jump ship over to CFTC regulatory permit
what if i told you my mentioning of blackrock, greyscale, ark21 was not an endorsement of whom is going to get gold silver and bronze of the approval olympic race. but instead just 3 well known applications where grayscale has most collateral and ark21 has least collateral.. just as a collateral comparison of scenarios of which would recruit agent/brokers or not
as for the 4.. well anything can happen but it sure as hell isnt going to be all 12 at once. nor 10
as for which single might win gold.. my odd are on blackrock
i was looking at genslers personal financial disclosers and blackrock and vanguard are his prefered investment managers. and im sure there has been alot of push to get vanguard to apply.. but vanguard just weeks ago announced no interest.. so im sure that might have given gensler one less excuse to delay things hoping his buddy vanguard might step in.. now they are not. this adds more points towards blackrock.
my reasoning for favouring blackrock is summarised as:
a. blackrock has a long history of running successful ETF and know what they are doing
b. blackrock already got their ticker listed on DTCC meaning traders new software update will have blackrock ready to pick (other applicants are not part of the traders software update)
c. blackrock (not others) were in talks with SEC about how they propose to secure value of share->fiat settlements of dissolving baskets
d. blackrock settled all legal issues and paid all fines to appease the SEC. other applicants stil have some legal issues holding hem back
the others are not yet having these key steps finalised so they still have a few steps to go to catch up with blackrocks progress
im not saying blackrock will definitely get accepted. gensler can veto them all for many many many months using delays.. but blackrock appears to be a few steps ahead of the game
|
|
|
|
|
it doesnt cost anything to be a pool manager. all the computational work is just a validation node plus a script that sends a head to asic workers.. its the asic workers that do the main churn and those asics belong to different people in different locations.. so the cost of being a mining pool manager is nothing..
however just starting a pool that does what other pools do is not impressive advert to make people want to use it. so they need to fluffy cloud utopian dream of getting rich incite greed to make asic miner owners to jump over to his pool.. again no big expense on advertising..
its just a fluff piece of advertising trying to get people to jump to his pool. thats it.
practically though users with an asic will end up with dust amounts they cant spend and due to having many utxo's they would have to join together but each having a byte cost that eats into the dust amounts of each utxo. thus when moving their rewards after receiving them in dorseys scheme. the workers are losing XX% of value
the reason asic owners use a pool as a custodian is to wait X blocksolves of earnings to accumulate, for min earnings total worthy of withdrawing
either dorsey knows this and doesnt care about the impact on his future customers.. or he doesnt know this aspect of bitcoin mining economics and doesnt deserve to be a mining pool owner.
im pretty sure dorsey just asked Luke_Jr for any SCHEME that makes a pool look different to sound like its doing something special in the hopes people move to it purely for being different, hoping they dont do the math of their earnings vs spending bytes
|
|
|
|
Does it take THAT long to add a few Transactions to a Block? Are a few seconds not enough for at least one of them to be included? The mining pool still has to validate the entire previous block before adding even a single transaction to a new candidate block. Let's say I validate the first 10% of the previous block. I then decide to add Transaction X to my new candidate block. How do I know Transaction X hasn't already been mined in the remaining 90% of the previous block? I don't. Is it worth risking the 6.25 BTC block reward for the few thousand extra sats I would gain from mining Transaction X, versus invalidating my entire block because Transaction X has already been mined? Before adding a single transaction to my new candidate block I need to verify the entire previous block. It only takes a few seconds (or even less), but on occasion this is all that is needed to successfully mine an empty block. not quite most pools already validated most transactions to even get into the mempool. to already get into a block. so they dont need to do any validation on their own block.. its actually 2 other things a. the exclusion of spent UTXO inputs of the UTXOSET and the inclusion of outputs into the UTXOSET b. its also then ordering the mempool in feerate order and chosing candidate transactions which add upto the block limit of a candidate block whats also happening is the asics dont sit idle waiting for a full block header to hash. they have been given a empty block blockheader which gives them a nonce+extra nonce range to work on before asking for extra work via a update of a blockheader. its those few seconds of mining a nonce+extra nonce range that takes longer then the pool making a full block template header to then send to asics |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
