Bitcoin’s Q1: Record VC Investment, Falling Prices, And Slow Consumer Adoption

[tokeweed]

The bitcoin-watching news service CoinDesk recently released its first quarter look into the cryptocurrency’s performance during the opening months of 2015. Mostly the data is net positive, showing an increase in total wallets, and investment. However, there are a number of included data points that demonstrate slowing growth in key bitcoin, and bitcoin-related areas.

The collected data indicates that the first quarter of 2015 was the most popular ever in terms of the dollar-value of venture capital investments made into the bitcoin ecosystem. That data point, however, is skewed by a single investment — the $116 round million invested into 21, a company that remains at least partially occluded in terms of its ambitions. Aside from that single investment, first quarter venture investment was on par — $113 million — with the preceding fourth quarter.

Key to bitcoin’s performance, at least from an external perspective, is the number of wallets in existence. Those receptacles and storage locations of bitcoin help the market understand how many new people the cryptocurrency is attracting. In the first quarter, according to the CoinDesk report, total wallets grew from 7.4 million to 8.4 million, up 14 percent on a sequential quarter basis.

That growth rate is likely under expectations from a year ago. The market value of all bitcoin in circulation — some remains yet-to-be-mined — fell from the last quarter of 2014 to the first quarter of 2015 by 36 percent.


Last thought, here’s CoinDesk’s aggregate new merchant adoption of bitcoin:

http://techcrunch.com/2015/04/26/bitcoins-q1-record-vc-investment-falling-prices-and-slow-consumer-adoption/

[NUFCrichard]

The bitcoin-watching news service CoinDesk recently released its first quarter look into the cryptocurrency’s performance during the opening months of 2015. Mostly the data is net positive, showing an increase in total wallets, and investment. However, there are a number of included data points that demonstrate slowing growth in key bitcoin, and bitcoin-related areas.

The collected data indicates that the first quarter of 2015 was the most popular ever in terms of the dollar-value of venture capital investments made into the bitcoin ecosystem. That data point, however, is skewed by a single investment — the $116 round million invested into 21, a company that remains at least partially occluded in terms of its ambitions. Aside from that single investment, first quarter venture investment was on par — $113 million — with the preceding fourth quarter.

Key to bitcoin’s performance, at least from an external perspective, is the number of wallets in existence. Those receptacles and storage locations of bitcoin help the market understand how many new people the cryptocurrency is attracting. In the first quarter, according to the CoinDesk report, total wallets grew from 7.4 million to 8.4 million, up 14 percent on a sequential quarter basis.

That growth rate is likely under expectations from a year ago. The market value of all bitcoin in circulation — some remains yet-to-be-mined — fell from the last quarter of 2014 to the first quarter of 2015 by 36 percent.


Last thought, here’s CoinDesk’s aggregate new merchant adoption of bitcoin:

http://techcrunch.com/2015/04/26/bitcoins-q1-record-vc-investment-falling-prices-and-slow-consumer-adoption/

I hadn't seen that chart before, I knew that the number of transactions was increasing and the amount of VC money being invested in the environment was massively increased, but it is a little worrying that fewer companies are moving towards Bitcoin every quarter.

It is also exactly the opposite of what I would have expected.  BitPay have said that they are seeing loads more turnover, where is that coming from then?  It can't be that the companies that already accept bitcoin are seeing ever increasing numbers of bitcoin transactions, but other non-BTC acceptin companies are ignoring that and staying clear, that would just be weird business!

[tokeweed]

Techcrunch is saying that the numbers are skewed.  And basically is saying that the coindesk article was trying to make BTC look like it's booming when in fact it's not by manipulating how the numbers are presented.

[NUFCrichard]

Techcrunch is saying that the numbers are skewed.  And basically is saying that the coindesk article was trying to make BTC look like it's booming when in fact it's not by manipulating how the numbers are presented.

Which number are skewed, the number of transactions, the VC investment numbers or the number of businesses accepting Bitcoin?

Bitpay claim to be doing more business, so that isn't a coindesk article, surely the VC investment numbers are easily trackable, and the data shown above doesn't show that Bitcoin is doing well, or do you mean that they were lying in the past, and now they are slowing bringing the numbers into line?

[tokeweed]

Techcrunch is saying that the numbers are skewed.  And basically is saying that the coindesk article was trying to make BTC look like it's booming when in fact it's not by manipulating how the numbers are presented.

Which number are skewed, the number of transactions, the VC investment numbers or the number of businesses accepting Bitcoin?

Bitpay claim to be doing more business, so that isn't a coindesk article, surely the VC investment numbers are easily trackable, and the data shown above doesn't show that Bitcoin is doing well, or do you mean that they were lying in the past, and now they are slowing bringing the numbers into line?

Read the article and read between the lines.  Techcrunch is basically saying that the 2015 "boom" in Bitcoin is fake.

[Chef Ramsay]

Techcrunch is saying that the numbers are skewed.  And basically is saying that the coindesk article was trying to make BTC look like it's booming when in fact it's not by manipulating how the numbers are presented.

Which number are skewed, the number of transactions, the VC investment numbers or the number of businesses accepting Bitcoin?

Bitpay claim to be doing more business, so that isn't a coindesk article, surely the VC investment numbers are easily trackable, and the data shown above doesn't show that Bitcoin is doing well, or do you mean that they were lying in the past, and now they are slowing bringing the numbers into line?

Read the article and read between the lines.  Techcrunch is basically saying that the 2015 "boom" in Bitcoin is fake.

Finally, the realization here is that you are trolling funk. You can get acquainted with your fellow ignored numnuts. Enjoy drony!

[tokeweed]

Techcrunch is saying that the numbers are skewed.  And basically is saying that the coindesk article was trying to make BTC look like it's booming when in fact it's not by manipulating how the numbers are presented.

Which number are skewed, the number of transactions, the VC investment numbers or the number of businesses accepting Bitcoin?

Bitpay claim to be doing more business, so that isn't a coindesk article, surely the VC investment numbers are easily trackable, and the data shown above doesn't show that Bitcoin is doing well, or do you mean that they were lying in the past, and now they are slowing bringing the numbers into line?

Read the article and read between the lines.  Techcrunch is basically saying that the 2015 "boom" in Bitcoin is fake.

Finally, the realization here is that you are trolling funk. You can get acquainted with your fellow ignored numnuts. Enjoy drony!

Go ahead.  And you didn't have to tell me.  I don't even know you.  Lol.  Jesus.. If you only read that article.

[Snorek]

Again, the price matters. People may say that they don't care whether bitcoin cost $200 or $1000, but the business care. That artificial price spike from end of 2013 made bitcoin famous, but it was just a one time event. After that number of bitcoin businesses rose, but now people see that price is not going back to $1000 anytime soon so no wonder we have this ultra slow consumer adoption...

[ChuckBuck]

Again, the price matters. People may say that they don't care whether bitcoin cost $200 or $1000, but the business care. That artificial price spike from end of 2013 made bitcoin famous, but it was just a one time event. After that number of bitcoin businesses rose, but now people see that price is not going back to $1000 anytime soon so no wonder we have this ultra slow consumer adoption...

Agreed.  Unfortunately if it doesn't make "cents" for businesses and consumers alike, then it doesn't make sense...

[Lauda]

OP have you posted the article to show it to the rest of us, or because you agree with it? I'm hoping that the first one is true.

Again, the price matters. People may say that they don't care whether bitcoin cost $200 or $1000, but the business care. That artificial price spike from end of 2013 made bitcoin famous, but it was just a one time event. After that number of bitcoin businesses rose, but now people see that price is not going back to $1000 anytime soon so no wonder we have this ultra slow consumer adoption...

Well it does to certain people. I say that it doesn't matter, because it doesn't matter to me and some individuals that I know. The next spike would boost the adoption exponentially.

Techcrunch is saying that the numbers are skewed.  And basically is saying that the coindesk article was trying to make BTC look like it's booming when in fact it's not by manipulating how the numbers are presented.

Are they saying that the numbers are fake? How about Techcrunch reads something behind the lines: Your website sucks most of the time. If they used the correct numbers to write about it, they didn't do anything wrong. Everyone tries to make things look a bit better than they really are.

[AtheistAKASaneBrain]

Lol obvious fake graph is obvious. VC capital is increasing yearly. Even if it goes down, that just means more room for us before the inevitable happens (BTC success).

[tokeweed]

OP have you posted the article to show it to the rest of us, or because you agree with it? I'm hoping that the first one is true.

This is what I said a day ago about the same article.  "Whether that article is totally based on facts or not is besides the point (for me).  That article is from Techcrunch.  The group of people who run it knows what's up in the tech world.  And that article shows what they think of Bitcoin at present.  It's a bleak picture, and an article that insinuates that Coindesk was skewing the numbers to make it seem everything is booming.  When in reality, it's not.  Techcrunch is probably trying to show the people outside of Bitcoin what's up."

It's in this thread...  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1039354.msg11212050#msg11212050

Are they saying that the numbers are fake? How about Techcrunch reads something behind the lines: Your website sucks most of the time. If they used the correct numbers to write about it, they didn't do anything wrong. Everyone tries to make things look a bit better than they really are.

Maybe I used the wrong word.  Techcrunch didn't say it's fake.  But more like coindesk manipulated the info available to make it look like everything was fine and dandy.

[tokeweed]

This is the complete article.  Check out the bolded statements and try to read between the lines.  What is Techcrunch trying to say in this article?

The bitcoin-watching news service CoinDesk recently released its first quarter look into the cryptocurrency’s performance during the opening months of 2015. Mostly the data is net positive, showing an increase in total wallets, and investment. However, there are a number of included data points that demonstrate slowing growth in key bitcoin, and bitcoin-related areas.

The collected data indicates that the first quarter of 2015 was the most popular ever in terms of the dollar-value of venture capital investments made into the bitcoin ecosystem. That data point, however, is skewed by a single investment — the $116 round million invested into 21, a company that remains at least partially occluded in terms of its ambitions. Aside from that single investment, first quarter venture investment was on par — $113 million — with the preceding fourth quarter.

Key to bitcoin’s performance, at least from an external perspective, is the number of wallets in existence. Those receptacles and storage locations of bitcoin help the market understand how many new people the cryptocurrency is attracting. In the first quarter, according to the CoinDesk report, total wallets grew from 7.4 million to 8.4 million, up 14 percent on a sequential quarter basis.

That growth rate is likely under expectations from a year ago. The market value of all bitcoin in circulation — some remains yet-to-be-mined — fell from the last quarter of 2014 to the first quarter of 2015 by 36 percent.

Here’s CoinDesk’s recent chart of aggregate bitcoin trading volume, on a monthly basis:


The sequential quarter total is skewed by the November timeframe, but it seems that volume hasn’t seen too great an acceleration, or deceleration in the last two three-month cycles.

Among the bulleted key takeaways that the report contains is the following: “Bitcoin struggled to gain mainstream consumer traction [in the quarter].” That has been the case for the life of bitcoin. That the trend persists isn’t, therefore, too surprising. Still, it isn’t hard to wonder what bitcoin firms that pitched investors over the past 18 months, predicted would happen — did they anticipate that the price of bitcoin be so low? Would investors have invested quite so much over the past year if bitcoin wallet adoption was as slow as it has been?

Last thought, here’s CoinDesk’s aggregate new merchant adoption of bitcoin:

[tokeweed]

Lol obvious fake graph is obvious. VC capital is increasing yearly. Even if it goes down, that just means more room for us before the inevitable happens (BTC success).

I think all info presented in that article came from Coindesk's State of Bitcoin 2015 write up http://www.coindesk.com/state-bitcoin-2015-ecosystem-grows-despite-price-decline/