miners pay money to give energy to asics to mine bitcoin. it has to be profitable to do this.
if there was half as many units being made. its not a simple half as many asics using energy.. because the price of the unit is also a factor, that keeps the asics competing..

other factors at play..

imagine the price 2020-2023 averaged $30k/btc.
there are some miners that mine with costs of $30k  (a)
there are some miners that mine with costs of $25k  (b)
there are some miners that mine with costs of $20k  (c)
there are some miners that mine with costs of $15k  (d)

lets for pencil demo sake use numbers of the 200exahash
abcd each have 50exa..
all getting the same amount of coin share per day (900 a day/4 = 225each)

in 2024 when coins per day drops to 450
A and B can pull out as their halved share(112.5 each) wont cover costs if the price was the same.
but now C,D continue mining and they get AB share.
so when coins per day drop to 450, that 450 is shared between only CD meaning they still get 225 coins each per day
also the competition. they could add more hash power becasue they can still afford it
after all they were mining at 225 coins where average coin was $30 but they had costs of $15k/$20k. so they can afford to increase hashrate
D can increase 2x meaning 100exa total for him
C can increase 1.5x meaning 75exa total for him
where hashrate is 175exa (seems less then the 200exa before. but now you have to factor in the next gen asics that are more efficient where they can hash more hashes for same cost.)


there are a few different factors at play
ill leave you to play around with the math of that although i gave hints in previous post about the next gen asic hash/electric rate. difference(~double)

all other things being equal..
if the asics remained the same generation.. the hashrate, difficulty remained the same.. where only the coins halved...
still does not mean asics are getting half as much money to cover their costs(work)
.. the price could double meaning the miners get paid the same.

however change one variable and the paradigm can go in any direction

even if the hashrate did not change.. asics can still get more efficient.

EG imagine a 200exahash rate.
2020 it was using 95thash asics of 3.25kwh  (29thash per kw)

in 2023 it will be ~300thash for 5.5kwh       (54thash per kw)

meaning half the cost to mine just by using better asics. so when there are half as many coins.. it still ends up the same.. cost per coin (roughly)

so its not as simple as saying half as many coins =double the cost

orange concentrate.. is different that the small bottles of "orange from concentrate".
much like the oil tanker crude oil is different to the engine oil you buy in little bottles at a gas station to lubricate an engine

by the things like "import taxes" i dont mean the small bottle retail product stuff. i mean the actual market investment/trade stuff. EG if a russian was doing a blockchain peer to peer with an american friend for small amount. nothing.. but depositing large amount from a russian source into an american exchange business for the purpose of market trade order.. might be treated differently

..
my comments were more about should we really let governments add another legal recognition to allow another regulator in.
it was about fungibility. where for instance (people doubt, but its true) money is not fungible. a $100 received from an employer(income tax) is treated for tax purposes differently than $100 received from an investment(cap gains), and different again if awarded from a lottery or friendly gift. and different again if received as a payment for goods(sales tax/corporation tax), and again differently than a commodity(import/export tax)

or

should we try to establish a whole new regime of "out of jurisdiction" for things that dont involve converting to fiat so that it limits their scope of interferance. where by americans just treat bitcoin like a euro when its swapped (like getting travel/vacation money)

in retail. the buying team and sales team of retailers. do not guage bread VALUE on middle PRICES. they gauge it on the lowest possible amount. meaning the cheapest most efficient farmer my example was not based on some middle priced farmer you can then "what about".. it was based on the bottomline cost farmers/bakers refuse to sell below because its impossible to make bread for less
yes the retail warehouse buying team may not get that rate, and may need to PAY more. but what they pay is the speculative PRICE. . the underlying value is always below price.


the PRICE(retail/market)... ill say this three times PRICE PRICE PRICE. is what people are willing to pay for it at the moment. as thats what they pay.. at that moment it is X and at another moment it is Y. its speculative, unpredictable.. thats why the PRICE is volatile ..

but the PRICE.. is not value.
ill say it three times.. the PRICE is not VALUE... the price is NOT VALUE... the price is NOT VALUE.

the concept is very simple...
FORGET THE RANDOM RATES and speculative stuff of whimsy and sentiment and profit.. of the PRICE
thats all just speculation, the foam ontop of the latte. the bubbles at the top of the bath water.. the visible part of an iceburg above water..

look for the bits beneath that floating stuff at the top. find the bottom.. and i know your hinting "what about" stuff in the middle.. well if your looking in the middle. you have not found the bottom yet.

when i say $0.50 for bread im not using that number as the middle or top. im talking about the bottom. the lowest price any farmer can farm for... there is no "what about" below it in this scenario.
so forget thinking im talking about the middle or tops when i use examples of the underlying value

like right now bitcoin mining costs between $0.03 to $0.38 per kwh in electric prices, where places like japan are the highest. and slavic nordic countries are the lowest.
this is not about you "what about japan 0.38". or "what about america 0.12 what about"..


its about finding the ultimate bottom.. the actual bottom cost they refuse and impossible to sell below.. . concentrating on the low/bottom
forget the 0.38 or the 0.12 "what abouts" of electric.. find the 0.03 of electric.. and then math out the actual bottomline cost.

the random sentiment and variance above the bottom is all the many possible factors that build speculation.. but if you just stop thinking about all that and find the bottom cost. the cost no one can go below. then you have found the underlying value.

yes if things get more efficient but the hashrate competition doesnt rise to compensate, the underlying value can go down. but not to the same volatility/extent/temporality as the speculative sentiment of variables that are above that that are the market retail price.

..
if you are finding number cheaper than other numbers.. take the bottom number.. .. its simple

yes there is some ettituete that when someone says they read something, others might want to be interested in reading it too after seeing what the poster says.. but its not a plagiaristic requirement to reference it, where there are punishments like getting sued for not quoting the source..

this is not some scholars dissertation portal
its a discussion forum

it doesnt really matter about plagiarism. most peoples posts are not individual thoughts anyway, but just repeated scripts of something they heard a friend say or read somewhere.

the amount of times i heard people repeat silly things word for word from someone else in their little boys club, or something they read that was spoonfed to them does irritate me, but at the same time its not plagiarism.

yes its good to reference stuff just for detail sake of people wanting to find out more, if they are interested in a topic.  but its not an actual requirement..

like its not plagiarism to say that bitcoin is a purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online
payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution.

yes its from the white paper of bitcoin. but thats not plagiarism even if it is word for word. no money is being made from saying it. and this forum does not require people to have to reference the bitcoin white paper every time they say it.

dont be anal about thinking plagiarism is a big thing on a discussion forum.  this is not a university.
its a discussion forum not a scholars dissertation submission portal.


there is no academic credit system that gives people a qualified degree/certificate that can change someone's life prospects by this discussion forum

not in one go...
but thats the thing. when i said run scenarios on pen or spreadsheet. you can try many idea's out without risking funds.
also before i even gave idea's of paper scenarios to run. i actually did give more realistic numbers like coinbases customerbase and bitfinex channels. heck i even linked the bitfinex nodes stats.

but i guess you dont want to run tests of limitations and problems that can occur and just want to stay in the day dream of best case.

take bitcoin.. it functions. but people actually bothered to do tests on the propagation times of the network, the average confirmation times, orphan rate, software update adoption rate. to find out what its actually capable of beyond the utopian hope.

so where are lightnings real stats.. EG the payment success rate percentage based on amounts moved.. yep the more you move in one go the less chance of a successful payment/route can be established.

and again the more hops you have the more liquidity is needed along the route just to service the payment hopping through them.
EG
A [$10:$0] B [$10:$0] C [$10:$0] D [$10:$0] E [$10:$0] F
becomes (when A moves just $10
A [$0:$10] B [$0:$10] C [$0:$10] D [$0:$10] E [$0:$10] F
only $10 moved. but required $40 liquidity from B-E to move that $10 from A to F


i understand many want to be the utopian dream sale-pitch guys that want to sell the dream.. but you are also ignoring the flaws and limitations and potential problems.

so rather then making excuses to avoid running scenarios and finding the worse case stuff and the bugs/flaws issues.. how about just give the scenarios a shot and have some lightbulb moments outside the dream

the purpose of me not giving the answer/precise numbers in scenarios is some cry they dont like to be spoonfed some cry that they cant cope with large numbers in their heads. and some just avoid even thinking about it. so by using small numbers people can possibly use their brains and run scenarios, without risking real funds because yep. pen and spreadsheet costs you nothing

a commodity is a raw material used to create other products..
oil-> car fuel & plastic
gold-> jewellery & electronics
wheat -> bread & cakes
digital things are not usually commodities (patents, IP rights, videos, games, algorithms are not commodities)



though gold sits on 2 markets.. both a commodity market and a asset market. thus depending on which market you are on its regulated by different agencies. both SEC and the CFTC have their rules and policies over gold.

i think bitcoin is more of an asset(good/product) and should be treated more as a product that gets auctioned(bought/sold) off, as it then goes back to how things were exchanged before regulators grabbed onto it.

because now its treated as a legal currency regulators get to grab onto it. heck even tax it

i secretly understand that it could be seen as a digital commodity where bitcoin is a base raw unit (mined/farmed) that is used to make other products (sidechain tokens/altnet units/digital products). but the more definitions we start to give bitcoin legally. the more regulators and more agencies get to grab on and get too involved in.
(technically its more of a derivative than a physical commodity. but now we are just playing more definition games trying to put bitcoin into a slot that fits old outdated terms)

i would say with ethereum having the NFT stuff prominently. Ethereum is more of a base commodity and NFT is the product.( but now we are just playing more definition games trying to put ethereum into a slot that fits old outdated terms)

though bitcoin acts more like an asset (a product in of itself) much like how one final product can then create other utility.
EG a car can be a work commute vehicle or a leisure vehicle or a property investment with a key....
EG flour can be cake or bread.

we need to rationalise things for the best of bitcoiners.
EG wheat is regulated by the CFTC.. but flour is not. even if flour can make a cake
EG oil is a commodity.. but after its refined into car fuel its then a product thus not on the CFTC radar

bitcoin should be treated as a refined product not a raw material(for the benefit of escaping most regulators clutch)

do we really want to call bitcoin a currency and commodity and asset (like gold(CFTC&SEC regulated)) or just a commodity where it replaces SEC with CFTC

or go full currency(like fiat) that gets treated differently in different markets. where there is certain tax on commodities like import/export duties, other taxes like capital gains on asset markets. and income/corporation tax on currency deposits from other sources to you.

or do we try to find a new definition that just treats bitcoin like a piece of art or a cake where its treated like a retail/auction product that escapes most regulation

its always afternoon somewhere in the world.. but nice try

best time to trade is when you are awake and able to see if a daily price is at its high or low. rather then just trading at any random price whilst your half asleep because someone else told you and others to

the point is if you shout to everyone to buy at a certain time, everyone does this causing a pump. where everyone stupidly buys on a high and the one shouting out the commands of time to purchase has already bought before the pump and about to sell  minutes after the time at the hype tipping point.

its called pump and dump

funny part is by others following these practices. the worse times to buy then becomes the times mentioned. as they become the new daily high moments.

as for the payday thing..
some people are gamblers. they want to spend their months money the moment it hits their account. others are smart investors. pay off their bills/debt and then a week-fortnight later use whatever disposable income is left on investing/saving.

also not everyone gets paid at the same time.
.. but trying to instigate a common time frame people should buy(pump) is too obvious to some as a opportunity to also dump at the tipping point minutes/hours later..
unsurprisingly when everyone does this, a scheduled pump becomes a dump and the whole schedule you plan goes opposite with everyone taking advantage of the opposite by selling on the pump instead of buying on the scheduled pump

just stay away from the sidechains/altnets and subnets/submarine chains that are pegged to bitcoin, pretending to be bitcoin..

their units of measure they use in their messaging system(network) are not bitcoin. bitcoin never leaves the bitcoin network. and the pegs of each unit can break. be cautious of these altnets. bitcoin is the mainnet.. stick to it and secure your keys. no one can hack the blockchain. but they can hack your house door, window and that table drawer you wrote your key in and put inside. or remotely hack your computer.

custodian services(businesses holding value pretending its your but they have it on their keys).. be cautious of that. if its not on your keys its not your bitcoin

its not about regulating bitcoin on the network or node level..(EG demand devs make back doors or give government analysts github pull/commit privileges)

its about the business gateways back and forth to and from fiat. and real world stuff like mining farm electricity quotas

matt hancock thinks there needs to be some control of the entry and exits of fiat because fiat is the jurisdiction of government. as is electric
however unlike some nations that want institutional sized businesses to pay institutional sized amounts for licences, fines, compliance and auditing. he wants a simmered down version that even small businesses can handle

im sure this will stretch to centralised projects offering ICO of stable coins where they would need to be highly regulated to ensure auditing of their pegged reserves.

im sure this will stretch to mining operations not stealing more then a fair share of excess power from power companies. but instead of over stretching to just ban mining i see him just telling power companies not to give away too much to any single business operating a farm.. which can actually help decentralise mining by having lots of mini farms instead of single massive farms

best comparison of a centralised exchange is.. a gym membership
you signed up to a gym you became their member you were given the gym rules. if you break their equipment or insult or harass their staff. your out. its their business they get that option.. they can put in any penalty clause they want about what to do if they want to ban you. so you have no recourse legally. their rules or the highway... if you dont like it go else where is their motto

but with that said.. decentralised systems are not as good either. your then playing to the whims of each individuals rules they set for a trade. things they can back out of or decide against.
decentralised systems are not immune to regulations either.

many people that done peer-to peer trading via contacting each other on local bitcoins, got caught because they were using personal bank accounts but doing alot of wire transfers to random people each day. they were not caught via any bitcoin tracking. but it was their use of their banks for doing swaps that caught them. not declaring they were a money business but doing money transfers got them caught. so even decentralised exchanges will need to register as money transfer businesses if they are doing a suspiciously lot of transfers.

but atleast if they keep the amounts(values per trade) low. they may not have to do much paperwork/monitoring/ reporting as the values are negligible. but it stil wont be a free ride-wild west scenario for DE-FI users

many people have had their bank accounts locked(account closed and asked to take money elsewhere) due to owning/operating an unlicenced exchange. or even just transferring in or out of one. (affecting both the service and the customer)

bitcoin is decoupling and moving away from old paradigms of trading. creating its own path

for instance
you cant trade 0.00001000 of a share.
but you can trade that amount of bitcoin.

in stocks if a stock was $200 each. and traders from today onwards could only afford $200 per order. they could only ever buy 1 or more shares. meaning the price stays where it is or goes down when people buy more then 1 share for $200. but they cant buy half or quarter of a stock/share. which means they are stuck/limited in growth potential

bitcoin however even if people could only afford $200.. this year they can buy 0.01btc.. next year they can buy 0.001 year after 0.0001 and the overall price per btc can go up even if the amount per order doesnt.
.. this is where bitcoin decouples from the norms of stocks/shares

this means even small holders without much money can still buy bitcoin and the price can still go up even if amounts are small.

if all orders of both stocks and bitcoin were for $200..
stocks can only go one direction 1stock per order or 2,3,4,5 lowering the price of each stock the more they give.
even if they added more supply of stocks it wont make the price go up

bitcoin however can sell percentages/decimals. it doesnt ned to add more supply. yet the price can go up even if the order amount of fiat spend per order doesnt.
...

bitcoin offers even people with just $10 opportunity to buy bitcoin. shares/stock only offer whatever a whole share/stock is as the min buy in. sometimes not even that, as some portfolio managers only accept buy-ins of large basket allotments of many stocks/shares. meaning the little guys dont get a chance

(robinhood  falsely represented allows percentage buy-ins. but your not actually buying a true ownership stake in the stock/share. your buying robinhoods valuation for them to own/hoard the stock/share and then divvy out any profit or loss of any complete sale amongst many users clubbing together to fill a whole share/stock. )

bitcoin allows you to buy AND OWN small parts, affordably

firstly market cap is a meaningless statistic.
it doesnt represent any dollars backed up somewhere nor any held as insured reserve..
its simply whatever the price is that instant multiplied by how many coins ..

its not a measure of an economy or a community which then divides down to a market price.
anyone can make a trillion coins. sell just 1 coin for $1 and make a $1 trillion market cap. all for the cost of $1

seeing as you are in "management and digital transformation"
how about the history of bitcoin how an inspiring idea and digital financial management conundrum got solved in 2008 (things like the byzantine generals problem, double spending, auditing) became a working network in 2009, proving the concept. and it inspired a whole digital transformation there after. where even governments now see possibilities of a CBDC due to the directions bitcoin went and the features it has that made governments change direction on old plans for a digital economy, that was going to be highly labour and accountant and server based. to now be something that is managed by the tech features bitcoin first birthed that can self audit and follow rules without human intervention keeping it all together.

(the governments before, just wanted some digital fed reserve custodian using a MySQL database with sub banks (digital commercial banks) also with MySQL databases on some secure 'intranet' that required servers and hard drives and security guards and IT technicians monitoring and managing it all. but now they can have the potential of smart contracts and peer-to peer open systems thanks to bitcoin. without all the resource heavy stuff of personnel and without all the flaws of human input mistakes and outages

you can reference things like the old digital fiat where banks had outages and errors and stolen funds/hackers and such. and then show github repo's of how smart contracts cant easily just create funds without agreement/checks.
where it can be more secured as it would require multiple signatures from remote locations making it harder for hackers to hit as there is no one spot to attack. but would require a simultaneous location attack..
how bitcoin and blockchain can audit funds without human eyes. and how information can be distributed to be always accessible even if one location has a blackout.

no bitcoin has ever left the bitcoin network. hackers and scammers cant steal funds via hacking the contracts(transactions) on the distributed ledger..  they can only hack the people holding the keys. because the ledger does not hold the secret keys. bitcoin is more secure then old fiat systems. and governments know this. and are moving in that direction with CBDC

(not exactly the same. but i find it exceedingly impossible for their current idea's of CBDC to have even been possible if bitcoin was not invented and shown to the world first.)

so larry not only wants bitcoin to be backed by gold. because he doesnt understand bitcoin is backed by its own cost and utility..
but now he also wants bitcoin to lose its digital utility and be something physical he can physically pass to someone..
..
ok larry does not understand the purpose function, utility, supply, creation,cost features of bitcoin so wants to take it all away.
..
if you want something physical thats backed by something physical that you can physically give away.. then get off your computer and go find physical things.
maybe have a kid where the kids nationality is backed up by your own as parents. and with your backing pass him off to someone else as payment for rent..
after all it fits all your idea parameters.. right?
.. but maybe your kid is lazy, ugly an an unachiever. so no one wants him.. now how good are you as his backup thats legally registered on his birth certificate. .. not much

how about you then have another kid. but this one has utility. he can do something worthwhile. people wont care about his nationality or who his parents are, they just see his work effort and hardworking ability and think he is worthy of becoming something..
is who his parents are as important? or is his value of his own work effort worth more
..
anyway lets continue about digital stuff that larry wanted backed by something else..
here is one for you larry..
imagine we called bitcoin "luna" and backed luna by something.. ... .. wait for it....... the peg breaks. and boom luna is dead
the item its backed by didnt die. but the peg to it did..

luna is a token created at no cost in of itself and is only given value by being pegged to something. and when that peg breaks the value breaks
much like how the dollar has lost 95% of all its value it had last century when it broke its gold peg.
yep it does not actually cost $10 to make $10 bank note. and more and more people are realising that $10 doesnt buy them what it used to buy them..
..
like having a spoiled brat kid who thinks he is worth alot because his parents are rich. he does nothing himself and earned nothing himself. .. and then his parents dis-own him and cut him off from his inheritance.. how much is that kid worth now..
..

bitcoins value is its own cost. its not free to create bitcoin. its not printed for a penny worth of labour and sold for multiple hours of labour.. it actually takes alot of work effort to make bitcoin

bitcoins value is actually much higher then you think. it doesnt need something else to give it value, because it already has value by itself.

what you need to realise as a stepping stone into backed value, firstly its not the market price being the value. but its ultimate bottom line cost of acquisition where no one can make/mine/print/acquire/buy/swap it for any less, that is the value.

that bottom line amount is the backed value that is in-of-itself.

take gold.. the market price is $1.7k but this is just temporary it can go up and down unpredictably in the short term. yes its function, features etc push the underlying value below the market price upwards which then push the market price up in the long term.. but thats another aspect you need to learn about

golds value, the underlying bottom amount no one can buy acquire make or mine gold for is actually around $900 right now.
golds store of value (remember not the price) the value is $900 not $1700
gold does not need to be backed by something else worth $900+ because its own mining costs back it by that.

get it yet?

dont confuse the market price with a backed value/intrinsic value.
even houses have a different measure for house value vs house price.

get it yet?

a good example of good leveraging today.
the market price is low. you might have say 120k coins, but you are cash poor... but do not want to sell the coins,
you refuse to sell the coins. but instead choose to lock them up in escrow(multisig) with a loan company where they give you fiat as a loan.

using this fiat to just pay salary is a loss-leader. once its gone its gone. so dont waste the money that way. dont use fiat to spend on fiat things that dont make you returns..
instead use that loan money to buy more cheap coins. to hoard. then when the price goes up. you can sell the loan purchased coins to pay back the loan and keep the difference/profit. and also unlock your collateral to then add the profit to the coins you locked that are now unlocked. win win

a bad example of leverage is where those that are mainly fiat based with fiat costs, decided ages ago to hoard(lock up) fiat in bitcoin to leverage the fiat market..  when the price was higher, thinking it would go higher. but now the price has come down to $20k. they cant/wont sell the coins at a loss to pay their large fiat costs. and so they are stuck. its bad to sell coins. its bad to collateralize the coins to get a fiat loan to then use on fiat spending of non ROI spending(excessive labour). so the only option left is to downsize the fiat costs. until the bitcoin price rises for you to then have profitable coin to sell to then be able to pay staff bonuses, pay rises, more employees, etc

if you think the AML/KYC regulations are unfair.. just read some exchanges own policies..

usually/morally
if an exchange thinks something is suspicious. an exchange cannot reveal to the user, that the user is under investigation. it is simply suppose to in-house do an investigation to see if the red flags reach a threshold to then report it to government regulators. at this point exchanges do not freeze accounts or give the slightest hint that something is off to the customer. the transactions are allowed through and as long as there has been a report then its all fine and dandy..
if the regulator does their own investigation and sees something suspect or gets corroborating info from other sources. then the authority gets a court order to push an exchange to freeze an account and confiscate the customers funds..
but without this court order. a exchange cannot confiscate users funds..

now heres where things get complex.
a business can have its own business policy(separate to regulation) about what customers should do under the membership of the business. where by again the business should not confiscate or freeze an account under investigation.. but it can without saying why. stop a user from using its service, by allowing them to withdraw their funds and close their account.

again only in a case of a regulator authorised court order can a exchange confiscate users funds and forfeit the users value away from the user.

but here is the thing.
a company "can" set terms that the breach of service contract of allowing the withdrawal to close the account only applies for like 90 days, by which if the person has not withdrawn their funds within 90 days of notification of their terms of service breach. the funds can then be forfeited and kept by the exchange. where other terms then allow the exchange to avoid being sued by the customer because the customer agreed to the terms included clauses such as not holding the exchange liable for losses and not seeking court actions but instead "arbitrations" if they want any chance of returns after the 90 day limit example
.. in short its not a legal forfeit sanctioned by the exchange. instead in simple terms you authorised to donate your funds to the exchange by not claiming them in the terms agreed window of opportunity that was part of the registration policy agreement(terms of service).
to which leave you out in the cold with no method of recompense(unless you have a really good lawyer)

so even if regulators dont see the use of mixers as a crime because there is no evidence that the funds before/during/after a mixer actually came from criminal proceeds, with enough evidential proof to get a court order for. .. the exchange can treat the mixer tainted coins as a red flag violation of the business terms of service. and tell the customer they can no longer use the service and give them just 90 days to get their money out..
(which some privacy loving people use fake emails so wont see these notices triggering the countdown.)

so if you have any funds in an exchange read the terms of service.
note the things outside of the regulatory minimum. but inside the exchanges own policy.
EG its not against the law to not give KYC. but if the exchange has terms that all account holders need to offer out their identity but refuse. then thats the business term of service breach.

yep. although regulations may have a $1k threshold before the regulators would want ID. the only way some exchanges can achieve this is to ID people right at the registration process or allow them to register with basic info. then hook them into KYC to activate the market order service or any service they offer.

best way to view it..

use the "bread loaf" value

imagine there was no bitcoin trade at all. no volatility due to people wanting bitcoin or not and bitcoin got pegged to a fixed value..
like a loaf of bread being $2 so the price at the moment is about 11,000 loaves of bread..

in 5-10 years imagine bread was $10
the fiat value of common things would be 5x more also.
meaning people would sell bitcoin for over $100k. just to stay at same value.

now add back in the inconsistencies of the market.
electric prices are going up. meaning miners costs are going up. this means they wont sell for less value than this years low
also those small hobby miners with higher residential electric wont mine. and instead they would buy, because its cheaper to buy coin right now compared to paying their electrical provider to mine bitcoin
so even more push up of the bitcoin market price.

then there are the FIAT bank savers. realising if they held onto $10k. they cn buy 5k loaves today but only 1k loaves of bread if they just kept their fiat as fiat. so they are in dire need to spend their fiat now on things they may want in 10 years time. because its cheaper to buy them now.
or they will invest their savings in a store of value that hedges against inflation if they dont have real world things to buy and instead want to safeguard their savings.... and yep, bitcoin springs to their mind.
so even more buyers. meaning more support for a price rise.

what you are seeing this month. is not an expectation of long term trends of a down action of bitcoin price.
what is happening is those that were considering to save up for a mortgage in 10 years or buy a car. are rushing now to do so now by converting their stored value to spend it all now. so that in 10 years time they are not having to have a price ticket of 5x if they waited to buy later.

right now. the temp holders/ the short term investors are exiting. but those that hold will reap the rewards for holding over the long term.

in short if you dont need to buy anything expensive in the next couple years hoard your coin. if you NEED to buy expensive things in the next year or so. spend your fiat now, get it while its cheap. because your fiat wont buy it all in a few years. it will cost you more fiat later

isnt it funny how you accept that the dollar barrel is not the problem (yet america is having price problems where there is no conversion).. yet you ignore that fact..

and yet in britain you are stlil agreeing with me that the price per barrel is not the problem. but its instead the forex rate.. that has changed hmm.. i wonder if you ever consider that the forex rate has been adjusted due to the after effects.. not the cause.
many refineries dont actually hand pounds to american/saudi oil barons. nor do they have only pounds but convert to dollar on the day of purchase...
UK actually have dollar reserves from decades ago. (its like buying the dip. hoarding.. you know. investing for future hedges against inflation... i do so hope you atleast understand this concept.. it might aid you in bitcoin investment )

meaning whether its 2008 or 2020 they handed over the same amount of reserves.
the forex after purchase then changes to then reflect the market rate.

you know because maybe.. refineries are just smarter with money than a toddler you think they are
..
do you realise that they are making huge profits from this inconsistency of barrel price vs local retail price.
or do you actually think refineries are making a loss and forced to push prices up..

.. ill let you figure out that chicken and egg problem..
but here is a hint. forex market doesnt play to whims of reserve swaps. it actually bases the value of such reserve swaps against indicators of value like local retail common goods basket prices to set the value for the swaps.

meaning when petrol prices and food go up the forex then reflects that as a after effect.
where by the refineries have already got the oil and the forex markets are the reacting to the retail markets.

its how companies can make profits playing the markets even when the source goods are the same. by raising the retail prices to get profit. but then affect the market to make it look like they are making a loss/breaking even

the secret is is seeing if they are making profit .. then you know that they have played you too.

the funnier thing is that you honestly think that refinaries pay the oil price of june using the forex rate of the june retail indictors.. not even realising that they bought that oil tankers contents of oil many many months ago and refined it and distributed it, before june. but then sell it at a june price. which forex then reacts to

over burdensome regulations
setting a high tier where a business needs to set aside some value of, as a claim/pot of funds to show they are able to handle large business.. before they even started running a business
by this i mean suggesting that businesses need to set aside £500k just to even start offering any amount of exchange service, even if the latter customer volume is just £1k a day, as that becomes a wall that stops certain businesses starting up.

requiring regular audits of 40+hours a time at £150 an hour puts extra costs on a service. . an easier thing would be just to email a regulator the addresses of hot/cold wallet reserves. and job done. 5 minute proof.

having to put business employees through some examination they have to pass to become "compliance officers" where this is not a free thing to train/send then to the exam. where businesses cannot even operate without a compliance officer in the building at all time(meaning multiple people on shifts of a 24/7 business)

requiring a business to grab information it does not need.
EG instead of KYC everyone. have a business that offers 3 portals of access. users that have under £1k balance use portal A that has no KYC. nor does it want to know the taint/source of funds as its not large enough to be worthy of money laundering investigations..  if they breach the threshold, then they need to upgrade to portal B or stop using the service portal A. and so on. wher portal B asks for basic KYC and portal C asks for extended KYC
the same could apply to custodial wallets. no KYC for monthly min wage income amount, requiring upgrading to higher level wallet if they want to receive/spend more per month

basically no need to KYC everyone upfront even if they are only trading sub £1k. no need to KYC-extended(require proof of income and business status/work status/proof of source of funding) for people under £20k, and so on

coinbase could have kept its coinbase vs coinbase pro separate to enable this idea so that the small holders had less friction about opening an account.
but instead coinbase has now a headache for customers trying to sign up even if they only want to trade small amounts.