All in all, Bitcoin being a minority of the cryptocurrency market became an obvious issue to this conversation, because it is only a piece of the speculation pie right now as opposed to the main chunk. Being the no.1 cryptocurrency appears almost irrelevant at this point and it felt unnoticed. It's recognised more so as the first cryptographic form of money, but not the most reliable nor the most valuable it seems. This again was a reminder of why I "feel" Bitcoin needs to reclaim 50% of market dominance in order to reach 6 figures, even if temporarily, just to show how it can lead in this market rather than continue to fall behind.
You seem to be confused as others in regards to such a bullshit point. You really believe bitcoin dominance matters in terms of the value of bitcoin and in terms of value going to continue to flow into bitcoin?
Yes and no really, it's subjective. When Bitcoin is the majority of the market, it set's the pace for other altcoins and leads the way. When altcoins are the majority of the market, I'd argue it's possible they become the leaders and BTC is instead following suit. Controversial I know, but at what point does Bitcoin become less self-determined due to not being the main influence in the cryptocurency market? Ultimately I don't believe Bitcoin's pace in the market is solely determined by itself, because it's part of a broader market, even it's price is self-determined. Something you no doubt completely disagree with, but there we go.
I don't completely disagree with you, at least in regards to perceptions that exist in the real world that gives way too much emphasis to such an important metric, and I really hate to get into any kind of attempts to substantiate my points beyond already having had made them - and further your point about the tail all of a sudden having power to wag the dog based on the growth of a misleading metric is almost ridiculous to think about, even if you have attempted to frame the matter in seemingly reasonable and logical ways.
It's less about BTC dominance influencing Bitcoin's price, but more about what is leading the way in this digital market. It also depends on volumes and where liquidity is coming from.
I am not going to dispute that a decent amount of money ends up getting into bitcoin that may well have not gotten into bitcoin (or at least not as quickly) because it came through various shitcoins or shitcoin projects first..,. that dynamic does not cause those shitcoins or projects to be leading bitcoin even if they become big contributors to bitcoin's price - or even creates additional UPpity price momentum.... It's like analysts trying to blame the 2014 "crash" in the bitcoin price on MTGOX/willybot blah blah blah.... yeah there was some contribution, but 2013 had more than a 100x price run up so the BTC price was due for a correction anyhow, so focusing on one cause or some narrow causes for BTC's 2014 price dip and its relatively long recovery in 2015/2016 remains somewhat ridiculous in terms of seemingly trying to overly simplify a variety of factors that influence bitcoin and it's price...
Similar is true when you give too fucking much credit to various shitcoins and shitcoin projects to be assert that they are leading bitcoin blah blah blah.. even if there are surely contributions in that regard, but too many people are likely to be mislead when you describe the dog in that kind of way.. leads to also attempts to analyze shitcoins and shitcoin projects.. and I continue to not only assert that to be irrelevant to this thread but also causes way too much confusion in terms of getting distracted from adequately understanding and appreciating a variety of bitcoin nuance..
Maybe I have been a wee bit overly harsh on you dragonvslinux in terms of suggesting that you do not adequately understand bitcoin, but jesus fucking christ.. I have some troubles understanding why you are wanting to argue those various confusing points in this threads which just has ongoing tendencies to devolve us into comparing which shitcoin is less shitty.. which is likely going to distract us a whole lot, in this thread, in being able to understand bitcoin better for many of us who sometimes can get lured into various false equivalencies (and I am not even proclaiming myself to be completely immuned from such luringenings).
While I haven't checked recently, if the minority of volume is coming from fiat or stablecoins, but instead altcoins (which has in the past been the case), then yes value flowing into Bitcoin becomes more dependant on altcoins. For example at the moment there isn't a need for more fiat-based liquidity to come into the market, if BTC dominance rose from 40% to 60% (+50%), then it'd be more than possible to see price do the same.
oh gawd... ..
even if a lot of value is coming into bitcoin through a variety of shitcoins and shitcoin projects does not cause bitcoin to be dependent on such funding sources in order to sustain itself.. even if a variety of arguments might well prove unequivocally that bitcoin would suffer some corrections or shifting down of its price curve in the event that those various channels of liquidity were to be completely (and suddenly perhaps?) be removed.
This isn't intended as an attack on Bitcoin, but a realisation that altcoin dominance has become problematic to gaining older investors.
They should figure it out sooner or later.. maybe after some rug pulls.. maybe after they get into scamming others? who knows? The widespread levels of distraction should not be our problems.. at least not on a personal level.. just because other peeps are distracted does not mean that we should be buying into that or giving credence to it as if it were some kind of solid investment thesis to be investing into pump and dumps, various kinds of snake oil and ponzi schemes.. even if a lot of money can be made by going in that direction.
Well yes you would hope so, and most newcomers do learn eventually I think. But there are always more newcomers, and so far for the past 4 years Bitcoin has continued to lose it's dominance while consequently altcoins gain dominance. If this continues as it has for multiple years now, then by default Bitcoin's importance in comparison to all other altcoins becomes less significant, statistically speaking at least, even if obviously not fundamentally and continues to gain importance when compared to the likes of fiat currencies or Gold for example. While institutions would ignore this, hedge funds, retail investors and traders will acknowledge it I think, as they do already when gaining exposure to cryptocurrency.
You really seem to be devolving into off-topicness here. I already have sufficiently addressed these points.. so I see little to no reason to continue to elaborate on that bullshit framing of the analysis.. so why don't you take that discussion somewhere else... if you are so excited to engage in it.. even create a thread since you believe it is so damned important - probably there are already threads in this forum that are related to that.. this one is not.
This is simply what I believe. First the altcoin profits as well as liquidity need to move back to Bitcoin, as part of a Bitcoin season.
Oh gawd.. you do sound distracted. Are you not toknormal or some other shitcoiner talking about the breathing of cycles.. blah blah blah. bitcoin needs to have a marketing department to get the word out there, right?
No need for a marketing department, but I do believe in the "ebbs and flows" of the market. There are tides and there are currents to put it simply. The tide is the longer term trend, it's obviously stronger than the currents within, while one of the currents is the liquidity shifting in and out of altcoins for example, another current would be it's main trading pair(s) - USD(T) - and the inflation occurring behind the scenes. A lot of liquidity has moved from BTC to alts this year, which is a trend in itself, hence I'd expect this liquidity to eventually shift back to Bitcoin. Bare in mind there is more liquidity in the rest of the market combined than in Bitcoin at the moment. There are also a lot more altcoin fiat pairs these days, many more than in 2017/2018 era, so there is now fiat going directly into altcoins rather than via Bitcoin as well.
This, as a trader, I've really noticed this year with ETH that previously the majority of it's volume (and therefore price directions) came from BTC, and therefore it's fiat value would follow suit, but now there is more from fiat volume which has become more relevant to determine price movements, and therefore it's BTC price appears to be following suit. The pairs that have the most volume are usually the values that determine up or down, it used to more or less exclusively be it's BTC, but times have changes. The relevance is these altcoins with higher liquidity are becoming detached price-wise from Bitcoin, so is less likely the liquidity flows to BTC if that's not where it came from, but instead directly back to fiat. The point I'm trying to make is that these currents are changing and evolving, becoming more independent from BTC.
To clarify though, by "Bitcoin season" I don't mean Bitcoin going up in price. It's meant Bitcoin re-gaining it's market dominance, whether price goes up or not (it's irrelevant to this concept).
I doubt that your breathing topic/thesis becomes more relevant to this thread by your more detailed elaborating on it.. .you are not making any kind of new theory that has not been presented here numerous times even if you are wanting to update it with contemporary data..
I'm not against some market weighted diversification strategy of (for example) 80% Bitcoin and 20% Ethereum, but clearly it comes at a price. Because while boomers are happy to invest 20% in ETH, Gen Z are more inclined to invest 50% in Ethereum and 50% in the latest speculative technology that may or may not succeed, without even considering Bitcoin, it can come across as "too old for them" or "too expensive". It's as if Bitcoin is for the boomers, and the Millennials and younger want something more speculative, more risky. As if Bitcoin isn't speculative enough. This is confirmed by the fact that altcoins are the majority of the cryptocurrency market, not Bitcoin anymore. Not since 2017/2018 altseason. This is just my experience, but it is what I see right now. Soon enough, things will need to change in order to move forward.
This is a bunch of blah blah blah nonsense.. there is not really any need to diversify within this industry - especially into penny stocks, ponzi schemes and scams.. bitcoin is already identified as the industry leader.
I think you'll find this point fits well with what I said before, that I'm not against newcomers diversifying 10-20% into altcoins in order to get rekt and learn their lesson. In fact, I think it's healthy.
Fair enough...
Details of such need not be discussed here... what are there more than 13k shitcoins and surely a variety of other projects and there are so many ways to go with how to fuck around with that 10-20% if such experiment and learning about the space is an urge that does not cause them to get more and more and more distracted and unable to limit their lil selfies to 10-20% when they hear about a project that is going to save humanity. blah blah blah.. anyhow a slippery slope that surely some people may have to work out themselves.. which is another reason that I have difficulties in even going above 10%.. and so there is a lot of value in both focusing in bitcoin (which you largely are not even doing in this response of yours) and focusing finances on bitcoin for a decent amount of time to work on building a nest egg for a while before venturing out into the so many projects that take advantage of people who fail/refuse to sufficiently understand bitcoin first (maybe you personally are there, dragonvslinux... .. I am not sure..especially given your ongoing desires to elaborate on such crappenings.. your mind seems muddled.. or maybe just that you have not found the correct thread to share your various supposed "insights").....
By the way, we likely agree that in the end, each person has to make these kinds of proportionality decisions for themselves and to find their own ability to balance the internal greed that each of us likely have and have to attempt to temper with our level of prudence - so long as greed and attempting to rush matters does not sometime overtake that. We are all (at least us non-bots, as d_eddie has confirmed that I am a peep) have these kinds of problems to sometimes become too emotional or greedy - especially if we do not sufficiently practice controlling some of those inclinations.
By the way, it does not hurt to diversify into property, equities, cash and perhaps some other areas.. and surely if you are a young investor and you are starting out ONLY investing into bitcoin, then you might start your first cycle or two just investing into bitcoin (and cash perhaps) before diversifying out once your investment and value is built to some greater degree.. perhaps more than $10k in value or $50k in value.. sometimes there is not as big of a deal to diversify if you are just getting started and you have not built too much value, yet..
You say this, but the market suggests otherwise. While not all are new investors, looks like the majority are, and they are diversifying if we analyse how the market is weighted.
It seems to me that part of the reason that we tend to direct a lot of responses towards newbies is to attempt to make the content of the discussion more generally accessible to everyone.. whether newbie or more experienced investor. Of course, some techniques are more advanced than others, and from my perspective you seem to be continuing to obfuscate this topic when you are suggesting that newbies should go straight into some kind of a diversification strategy.
Maybe I can bring up a hypothetical person to attempt to make my point more clear? Of course, NOT everyone is going to fall into exactly this hypothetical person's situation, so there is going to be variations of where someone might be at.. and surely there are a lot of folks who end up not really starting to invest until they get into their 30s even if they may have made some attempts in their 20s but ended up cashing out and not really building anything and then perhaps panicking somewhat when getting into their 30s.. or they end up putting everything into property.. or finally get a job that offers a 401k.
Let's say that we have a person that is brand new to investing, and s/he has about $100 extra per week (that is $5,200 per year) that s/he can invest into bitcoin and the person expects that s/he might be able to come across an additional $4k through the year to be able to put into bitcoin... maybe $2k twice a year (approximately) based on potential extra cashflow (that is $9,200 total for the year = $5,200 + $4k). I am presuming that this person does not invest into bitcoin until having his/her shit together, so has a timeline of at least 4 years of investing before needing to withdraw any of the money and surely 10 years or better is preferable and also has sufficiently projected cashflow, expenses, an emergency fund of sorts... so there should be close to a zero chance that there is going to be any need to touch the funds before 4 years and preferably longer such as more than 10 years.. I am going to say that for the first year or two, don't be fucking around with investing into anything beyond bitcoin.. so sure the eggs are all in one basket, but the size of the investment after the first year is only $9,200 and the size of the investment after two years is $18,400.... Somewhere between $9,200 and perhaps more than $18,400 the person can start to consider diversifying and all that kind of mumbo jumbo.. and also the person will have had 1 year to 2 years to study his/her investment and additional matters related to how his/her so far investment plan is working out in terms of personal circumstances and to figure out if what is being done feels like a decently good fit or if some tweaks might need to be accomplished based on changes in personal circumstances or various learnings along the way.
In other words, fuck the concept of diversifying for the mere sake of diversifying.. especially when you start to talk about diversifying into shitcoins or shit projects... that may or may not pump. I am talking about a kind of long term attempt to build wealth (and a nest egg) rather than either gambling or trying to become overly knowledgeable regarding one scam coin being less of a scam than others. Once getting into $10k or perhaps supra $20k.. maybe at that point 5% or 10% can start to go into other projects.. but still maybe take that from new money rather than taking it out from bitcoin, but surely there could be some justification to diversify some BTC value if it pumps a lot.. but that can be dangerous to attempt to accomplish too before a decent amount of a budding nestegg is already built.
The old saying of "never put all your eggs in the same basket" isn't considered to being holding BTC as well as cash, that sounds a lot more like averaging your way in and saving back from capital for further investment.
Well when you start out.. then you might ONLY have BTC and cash. Once getting to a higher level there might be some preferences or even needs to move away from having everything in only BTC and cash.. I have never said to only invest in BTC and cash.. but I could see how some people might reasonably end up going down that road, and maybe they do not feel any need to begin to diversify until after a few BTC cycles.. so if the above person gets through two BTC cycles with some kind of similar level of ongoing investment into BTC (kind of presuming the same cashflow levels but sometimes cashflow levels will go up.. but we need not necessarily presume that for the purpose of this example), there might be something like $73,600 ($9,200 x
invested into BTC, and at some point there might feel some need to begin to diversify.,. maybe ONLY after 1 cycle in terms of getting to something like $36,800 ($9,200 x 4) invested.
Of course, such a somewhat aggressive strategy of investing around $9,200 per year for the past 8 years would have likely caused a decent number of people to consider diversifying out of BTC at some point especially since we would currently be
looking at a BTC stash of nearly 82 BTC and nearly a $5.5 million spot price valuation, and especially if such 8 year long investor were ONLY in bitcoin and cash.. but at what point such diversification is justified (if at all) will be discretionary.. and sure, I would likely proclaim that too much gambling is going on if no diversification is made yet (at least into property and equities) based on the facts that I have described above.
Of course the past 8 year performance does not even exactly tell us what the next 8 years might bring.. and surely maybe we could end up reducing how much of an urgency would have been felt 8 years ago as to what might be felt currently, and that likely would ONLY justify changing the amounts invested rather than suggesting that there is any need to start to diversify at an point prior to building a wee bit of a nest egg before gravitating into the diversification (dilution of investment) direction.
Not forgetting that in 2017, diversifying wasn't the worst idea if you were being conservative and taking profits when prices went parabolic.
I doubt that retrospective analysis of what happened in 2017 with the considerable UP and down necessarily justifies changing the strategy in terms of focusing on BTC first before fucking around with various shitcoins.
Furthermore, there are quite a few people who actually come to the conclusion that it is not worth attempting to time tops and bottoms until getting a decent amount of stake in the game.. so I am not going to go along with your suggestion that it is prudent to take profits until building a nest egg first... and then yeah, if there is a certain amount of time in the market and a building of a decent amount of value, then maybe a bit of shaving might be justified.. each person is going to have to assess these matters for himself/herself, and I am not going to conceded that something like $9,200 or even $18,400 invested will necessarily trigger a justification of selling any significant amounts, but I could see that if you reached $9,200 or $18,400 invested in early 2017.. so at that point maybe your average cost per BTC would have been way less than $1k per coin, but then you get around a 20x in price appreciation causing your $9,200 to be worth $184k (so surely it becomes somewhat tempting to shave a wee bit off).. or your $18,400 to become worth $368k. So yeah it becomes tempting to shave some off... and again perhaps a bit of a dilemma while going through it but not as much of a dilemma when we have Monday morning quarterbacking.. which surely is not what kinds of real privileges that we have in the real world.
The top for most altcoins came a month later than Bitcoin,
Fuck shitcoins.. you are confusing matters... take that discussion somewhere else.
so if newcomers (such as myself back then) were cashing out at different times, then there is as much if not more money to be made. It's the bear market that catches newcomers out, not the bull market.
You can fuck around with your complication of your investment strategy all that you like, it is neither on topic here nor even as straight-forward as you seem to be wanting to suggest it to be. Do the fuck what you like, but stop cluttering our discussion of bitcoin with those kinds of distractions.. this is not the "all the ways that you can make the most money
(especially by fucking around with random shitcoins) thread".... the last time I checked.. unless infofront
(you fuck) changed the topic?.. hahahahahaha..
#nohomoAs long as newcomers are being careful and taking profits (at least initial investment amounts), then unfortunately the success of diversifying often leads to the mistakes coming later in a bear market. Because while losing 50-75% of your altcoin value to BTC in a Bitcoin season, like I'm anticipating, it's still possible to make the same amount of money or otherwise more so. Not to mention that when initial investments come from fiat, newcomers don't feel like they've lost anything as long as the fiat value is stable, even if they can feel like they are missing out on current increases in value.
My head is hurting with this nonsense
(I am pretty sure that I am not alone regarding this "human" feeling).
Having access to moving shares into a Bitcoin ETF is a safe and easy way to gain the exposure of Bitcoin's potential, something that other cryptocurrencies simply do not provide. This is where Bitcoin gains it's edge in the market I believe, because if you sign up to a cryptocurrency exchange you can gain exposure to all sorts, but if you invest in ETFs, you can only get Bitcoin. First mover advantage right there.
I hear what you are saying, but seems to be a BIG so fucking what. Yeah bitcoin is the first, but it is not ONLY the first because a variety of shitcoins were later.. yeah, some of those shitcoins might get ETFs too.. or some variety of an ETF shitcoin package may well come available and help to distract retards into buying into that crap.
So, yeah.. for now, bitcoin is the ONLY ETF.. but seems almost like a big so fucking what the point that you are making... or at least the way that you are making it.
Maybe it's the way I'm making it. Even if other altcoins get ETFs, Bitcoin still doesn't lose it's first mover advantage, it will have more price history to look at and analyse, at least for the next 4-5 years until the next financial instrument and evolution comes along - probably Western counties actually holding Bitcoin like they do Gold for example, payment processors like Visa/Mastercard integration. It's for those who don't know anything about cryptocurrency (and don't need to either), for those who simply want to gain exposure to it's price movements (a bit like futures market really, but instead with less trading).
Eventually investment comes from those who want to reduce risk, or otherwise gain exposure to BTC as a reserve asset. They don't need to understand or learn anything, they just need to know it's worthwhile to hold in a portfolio. Similar to how other institutions, like pension funds, and now starting to dabble in Bitcoin with a % or two. They don't want to do this, but they know they have to in order to reduce risk. Probably that's not the best analogy, but one based on investors shifting away from the computer literate and experienced traders, towards experienced investors, or more institutions really.
The makeup of Bitcoin investors has evolved dramatically in recent years, from initially nerds to speculators to institutions. I merely consider that this will continue, from those who understand more to those who understand less. This to me seems like an inevitable progression in Bitcoin as an investment class, to the point where bank customers are holding Bitcoin (via traditional financial mechanisms) without even really knowing what it is or how it works. Most customers never had an idea how credit or debit cards actually functioned, ie the payment processing side etc, but they all adopted it regardless, because it wasn't relevant as long as it worked. Most people don't have an interest in learning either, they just want to save money in a way that works. The less they know and have to spend time learning the better for them.
Fair points.
We can talk to end of time of why Bitcoin is more reliable, more valuable, a better investment and form of reserve currency, as well as a reserve asset, but ultimately other cryptocurrencies will always distort the idea of investing in it, rather than incentivize it. Not to mention most won't understand fundamentally nor technologically why Bitcoin is more reliable and therefore more valuable.. Because it simply confuses the idea of Bitcoin being on a playing field with altcoins, rather than a playing field with fiat currencies. Whereas the idea of a ledger being 100% reliable and 100% immutable is unique. I hope that makes sense.
They might learn better or they might not, and some of our own roles on a personal level is to figure out how we are going to be playing our own game and diversification.. and seems dumb as fuck to me to be considering a 80% BTC 20% ETH as any kind of prudent allocation, but hey.. do what you like in terms of staying distracted, even if ETH may (or may not) have several more pump and dump smoke and mirror bullshit to pull off including that other scammers continue to build on it. By the way, can we stop talking about that bullshit coin in this thread? There are other threads on this forum (and even other forums) for that.
The reason I reference 20% is because this is currently Ethereum's dominance in the market
Fuck that dominance bullshit.
, so something that newcomers may acknowledge and consider a fair allocation.
Might work for you, but newcomers should not be fucking around with that crap... for reasons that I have already outlined at various points above, in my other posts and through my above hypothetical.
As I said before, being diversified in the uptrend isn't necessarily going to get you rekt.
No need for either newbies or even people who have been into BTC for a while. In other words, there is no need to diversify for the mere sake of diversification.. as I believe that I have pointed out a zillion
(could be exaggerating? perhaps?) times... sure upon building a decent investment of $10k to $20k then yeah some folks might start to be justified in playing around with shitcoins.. somewhat of a personal choice rather than a "it's not going to get you rekt, so yolo... why not? blah blah blah bullshit..."
By the way, dragonvslinux, I will concede that there can be a certain amount of crazy-ass risk taking that people in their teens and early 20s might be ready, willing and able to take that might not be prudent in terms of longer term investing ideas because they do not have shit.. but there is also quite a bit of value in building principle, and so there are so many folks who have not built shit in life into their 30s, 40s, 50s and 60s, and surely it gets worse when they are in their 50s and 60s and realizing that what they had been doing had not been building principle.. so at some point their is a lot of justification in assuring that you are building principle... and I personally believe that it is better to start early to build principle and that will get you a lot of advantages later down the road... yes, sometimes there might be some once in a life time opportunity that people will come across that justify putting a lot of their principle at stake, but I doubt those kinds of situations are coming up as much as you, dragonvslinux, seem to be suggesting that they come up with your seeming desires to dilute BTC investments by gambling on shitcoins right from the start of investment life.
It's thinking that also being diversified in a downtrend when Bitcoin re-gains it's market dominance is a good idea, when so far it never has been. Admittedly I think many who are grateful for diversifying in the bull market maintain this diversification strategy when accumulating in the bear market, which is where is all goes wrong, not so much during the up trend.
As relevant as you believe this uptrend versus down trend discussion is.., seems to be appropriate for some other thread or forum.
Poll
