[edited out]
I like your idea relating to annual income but the number you have given is pretty low too in a way? 0.5% of a $50k guy is just $250 per year being invested in Bitcoin? I don't know how much discretionary spending that would allow, depends a lot on where people live but if you think about the price of streaming services and other subscriptions these days $250 per year is cheap.
I thought that we were merely talking about the minimum amount of bitcoin that a person would need to hold in terms of counting as a current holder of bitcoin, and initially I had mentioned 1% of any annual income of the previous 5 years of the person.. so in that sense more or less we are tailoring the amount that they would need to hold to each individual's circumstance, so yeah, if they meet the minimum threshold, then they are in and they are counted, otherwise they are not.
So, yeah, like you point out $250 is 0.5% of $50k, which if the that were to be the minimum threshold, then all they would need to hold in bitcoin would be $250. There is no need for them to have ongoing buys etc etc.. They just would need a snapshot amount that rises to the threshold level (in this case $250) to be counted as "in" rather than "out."
Any person or institution that is conducting such a survey in regards to who they consider as a bitcoin adopter is gong to have threshold levels - and yeah, measurement would tend to be difficult since they frequently ONLY have quantity of bitcoin in addresses and not other information about the owners of the address. of course, if data is gathered from various custodian accounts, then they likely would have more information as compared with putting together information about bitcoin addresses which may or may not be directly linked to individuals. Oh of course, a survey could ask the participants to provide that information to the extent that any of us might consider using self-reported survey information.
Of course, over the years, there have been all kinds of attempts to measure bitcoin adoption and trying to figure out threshold levels is only one of the difficulties, even if we were assuming abilities to otherwise access reliable and/or detailed information to provide us with a reasonable adoption number that may well be lucky to get in the 1-2% numbers rather than the 5% to 10% numbers that cAPSLOCK was throwing out as if it were reasonable ballpark estimate of current bitcoin adoption rates.
100 by end of Jan, surely. But can we keep it?
100 by Monday and we keep it through remained of January would be better.
I agree that higher sooner is better, yet there is also value in NOT getting our expectations up too high.
Even with yourself, BitHodlers, I don't see why you are so anxious for the price to go up, even though everyone wants to be vindicated, yet I have troubles imagining very many scenarios in which anyone joining bitcoin in the past couple of years would have had been able to accumulate close to enough bitcoin within the market conditions of that time period (mostly up), and even a person with 4 years investing might have engaged in a lot of extra accumulating in 2022 and 2023, yet they still are merely in the 3x to 4x territories in terms of price appreciation ..
Guys who entered bitcoin in the past year-ish may well mostly be in the negative, and from my point of view, keeping on buying at a lower price seems a better solution than to be hoping for up.
By the way, if a guy were to have been in bitcoin 4 years and he were to have an average cost per BTC that is less than $35k, then the guy would likely be in good shape right now, and surely I don't presume guys to get into bitcoin and to be able to just buy once or twice but instead I envision guys tending to continuously buy in their first whole cycle since money continues to come in.. and there might have been some rare cases of willingness, readiness and ability to reallocate large segments of wealth into bitcoin in 2022 and/or 2023, and many folks will tend to have to accumulate over many years rather than being in a position to be able to frontload their bitcoin investment and also to act upon the fortune of where they were at in order to buy bitcoin.
Besides the mistake of selling too many coins too early, there are also a lot of guys who stop accumulating bitcoin way too early so they end up with a whimpy stash of something like 20 BTC (for example) that they had lump summed into in 2015 at less than $300 per coin, yet it tends to be way better to end up with 2x or 3x more coins, even if the average cost per coin ended up being $1k or $2k rather than $300 per coin.
The same is true for any guys in their first whole cycle and maybe even guys in their first couple of cycles of accumulating bitcoin (to the extent that cycles might still exist into the future). Guys may or may not be able to lump sum invest into bitcoin and/or to front load their bitcoin investment, yet it seems to me that based on the way that guys tend to be able to invest from the discretionary funds of their income as the income comes in (even if they might be able to lump sum from time to time), there seem to be needs to keep on accumulating bitcoin in the first 4 to 8-ish years, whether the BTC price seems to be high, low or in some other status.
Brian Armstrong cancelled Crypto bill.
After reviewing the Senate Banking draft text over the last 48hrs, Coinbase unfortunately can’t support the bill as written.
There are too many issues, including:
- A defacto ban on tokenized equities
- DeFi prohibitions, giving the government unlimited access to your financial records and removing your right to privacy
- Erosion of the CFTC’s authority, stifling innovation and making it subservient to the SEC
- Draft amendments that would kill rewards on stablecoins, allowing banks to ban their competition
We appreciate all the hard work by members of the Senate to reach a bi-partisan outcome, but this version would be materially worse than the current status quo. We’d rather have no bill than a bad bill. Hopefully we can all get to a better draft.
We'll keep fighting for all Americans and for economic freedom. Crypto needs to be treated on a level playing field with the rest of financial services so we can build this industry in a safe and trusted way in America.
XHmm. Sounds like Brian is mostly upset about various limitations on his shitcoinery.
We're fighting for the very nature of money. The old guard is not going to and was never going to just lay down.
It's a shame one of our most visible advocates is such a doofus.
Somebody please prove me wrong.
I agree that Armstrong has a lot of shitcoinery practices, yet from time to time, he does sometimes say the right things (or highlight certain issues that need to be highlighted), including some decently good point raised in that particular above statement.
The statement about not wanting to make matters worse is not an overall bad idea... even though grappling with the details of the bill and the various implications and applications might not even end up being publicly discussed.
Yeah I feel sorry for her too.
We will be married for 40 years in August she is fairly saint like to put up with me this long
Did she keep her maiden name in case it didn't work out?
Yeah Phil. Let us know her maiden name, date of birth and the last 4 of her social. No harm in that, right? just getting to know you MOAR better.
Poll
