wtf
Zoom out.
[...]6 digits = fuck you status for many WOers who aren't there yet, and there is a big difference between a $2M fuck you and a $10M fuck you.
$100k/coin and even $1M/coin are unpredictable certainties. Got coin?
You probably meant 7 digits for 2mil, for example...sorry
.
I can't think of any 6 digit number to be a fu situation...a nice chunk of "change", but hardly a fu, even in the heartland and forget about it on the coasts.[...]
Jay has already explained it -- 6 digits = $100k+/coin. Assuming a 20 BTC stash, this is entry-level spot price f.u. status (
whatever the implications of spot price vs. 200 WMA may be). You seem to be describing a situation where a mere couple of coins can achieve this, so then, yes, a 7-digit spot price would be needed.
Wow!!
I am shocked!!!!!
I am shocked, I must say... .. .
shocked!!!!!!!
(maniacally focusing on your "whatever the implications" statement)You seem to be having troubles appreciating how it is likely so important to NOT get too reliant upon BTC spot prices, especially if you are planning to mostly hold onto your BTC rather than cashing out and investing into something else?
Think about it. The ONLY way that BTC spot price is durable (especially if it is in an exponential UPpity phase) would be if you were to cash out into something more stable, and surely we should be more likely to hang onto our coins rather than cashing out, especially when we have developed abilities to both conceptualize and to appreciate the valuation of our BTC stash based on bottom prices rather those all over the place BTC price movements (including tops).
Have we spent all of this time accumulating BTC in order to cash out at the top or somewhere near the top of some perceived exponentially UPpity BTC price move?
That's a rhetorical question.. no homo.I think not. and I will continue to preach bottoms until I am blue in the face or dead.. whichever comes first
(or at the same time), even if there may well be folks who continue to differ in their focuses on tips, and I actually expect that a lot of folks differ in their ways of framing these valuation of BTC stash matters, and that remains part of the explanations for their likely ongoing, consistent and persistent mixed-up-ed-ness when it comes to dee cornz, aka my lil precious, aka king daddy...and udder akas currently not listed herein.
In any case, I quite like the $2M as the entry-level f.u. status threshold, but I tend to multiply it by about 5, in order to secure it against unforeseeable events that may affect spot price.
From dee perspective of dis here cat (aka yours truly, aka royal "we"), we should not need to multiply by 5 in order to appreciate a sufficient and adequate cushion, so long as we are using the bottom rather than the tops in order to make our assessments. and so lovely in regards to why you were using your 5x multiplier, which may end up getting similar results to my focusing on bottoms, even though I am going to continue to argue the point. and to see if I can beat these ideas into the skulls of my fellow WO regulars, including uie-pooie.
#no homo. Call me crazy and a bully, if you must.
Basically this is very roughly equivalent to using the 200 WMA (my beloved indicator) as a basis for any calculations/predictions when it comes to spot price mega-pumps that are not likely to affect the 200 WMA value much in the short term.
Well, that is fair..,. but still something seems off about your framing.. maybe I am just getting somewhat confused by some of the interim juggling around of figures?..
IOW, the 200 WMA acts as a filter, shaving off any spikes (up or down), effectively setting a (quite reliable IMHO) lower bound envelope for spot price (although that envelope has been broken a few times, esp. during the mid-2022 to mid-2023 bear period).
That is fair also, yet I see no reason to give up on it. especially since it has so many common ways of referencing it. We could go to something like 260 WMA or 300 WMA, but it would be so damned uncommon.. which is part of the reason I abandoned referring to the 208 WMA - especially since so many tools were using the 200-wma.
In other words, we likely can still create tools around the 200-WMA and even account for periods in which the BTC spot price might go below it. which surely is incorporated into the
sustainable withdrawal tool.
powered by bitmoverHow big must the upcoming pump be, in order for the 200 WMA to reach $100k? Looking at past cases of spot vs. 200 WMA prices during pumps, it seems that the spot/WMA ratio tends to go down with time.
End of 2013: 28x
End of 2017: 16x
End of 2021: 4x
End of 2025: ???x
The % gain time of
my fuck you status chart shows exactly how much the bottom (or the 200WMA) moved every single 6 month period going back to 2010. .. but yeah, you are measuring the whole cycle (so now I see what you are doing) and then it tries to project the 200WMA going forward based on an anticipated dropping rate.. and the chart even shows the lowest ever appreciation of the 200 WMA was between June 2022 and November 2023 with ONLY a 20% annualized rate of appreciation for that 18 months-ish period.
For the purpose of this exercise, let's SOMA-guess that it's going to be around 3x.
That's what my fairly conservative chart is projecting... to go from $17,829 in late 2017 to $53,484 in late 2025.
This would mean that the spot price at the end of 2025 would be around $300k. So, 20 BTC would be right at the entry-level f.u. status threshold (according to the 200 WMA of $100k), with the added cushion of 3x f.u. status of $6M (based on spot price).
You seem to be characterizing your numbers weirdly since the 200 WMA was at $17,829 in late 2021... so it would have to go 6x in order top arrive at $100k.. and so something seems to be wrong about your calling the 3x of the spot price as a cushion .. including that if you are expecting 3x of the 200-wma then 3x of the 200wma for spot price would be $150k-ish.. Maybe we are saying similar things but just using different maths and sciences, and one of us has likely been learning too much from the maths and sciences school of proudhon.
Looking forward to filling the green part of my post...
I did not go back and check your earlier numbers.... but maybe I should?
Yet, just cursorily, 3x to 6x seems reasonable to anticipate putting in that green part, even though it is probably safer to anticipate the range of possibilities to be more broad.. maybe even 1.5x to 20x, in order to attempt to capture the broad set of possibilities in our expectations and more likely to be pleasantly surprised... .which seems decently likely to end up falling in the 3x to 6x range.
Ok... since the numbers are already there, I went back and I calculated the actual numbers with my fuck you status chart..
End of 2013:
28x 206x $.30 to $62 **
End of 2017: 16x
16.92x $62 to $1,049
End of 2021:
4x 17x $1,049 to $17,839
As of February 17, 2024 (slightly more than 1/2 of a cycle): 1.743x $17,839 to $31,091
** I doubt that we can really come up with a fair representation of 2013, and maybe we could just agree that it was high because the starting out price was so low.
I doubt that there is any material difference with us in terms of 2013 and 2017; however, 2021, our numbers come out quit different.. so who is going to concede in regards to their numbers? Do we need proudhon to come in here and settle our maths and sciences?
Does a change in numbers for 2017 to 2021 change our speculations? My own change (and looking at the numbers) causes me to consider that my own fuck you status chart (in terms of the future projection) may well be a we bit too bearish... ..
and so, you can see that I added another row to show how far we have gotten so far, even though we ONLY have a wee bit more than half of cycle, so far.. and we so far have 1.743x.. so 3x.. seems reasonably reachable.. yet of course, nothing is guaranteed.. so we should be well easily placed within the 3x to 6x territory.. and whether king daddy is able to squeeze more than 6x out of this cycle is still to be found out, including the extent to which tops are going to continue to fit more or less within exact 4-year patterns.
Poll
