S2F debunked?

[brainactive]

S2F is based on the premise that after each halving, bitcoin becomes more scarce as the amount of bitcoin produced by miners is essentially halved.

Shouldn't this already be priced in given that the halvings are pre-programmed and are therefore already known publicly?

As a thought experiment, if Tesla was "pre-programmed" to exactly double its earnings every 4 years (and have constant earnings in between the 4 years) and this was already known to everyone since the inception of the company, wouldn't the stock price already price in this fact? This seems to make more sense than the stock price starting to pump right at the having price?

Maybe a few years ago, we can use the argument that bitcoin markets are not mature enough to be considered "efficient" but now it seems pretty clear how fast information flows into the markets especially with the Elon tweets recently. So wouldn't it be fair to say that halvings should already be priced in and S2F is rubbish at best at predicting future price?  

[franky1]

bitcoins are not mined in patterns of

              ___/
       ___/
___/

nor are bitcoins mined in random length step patterns of
                 __/                       <- how the mythical bitcoin s2f tries to display it
    ______/
   /
_/

this is how bitcoins supply is actually mined


the weird step grading of the mythical 'bitcoin S2F' is produced by adding in a 'bitcoin price average' which then tweaks the steps..
yes adding in price info makes the steps follow a general price line and step

thus its not a predictor..
it uses the price to cause a pattern that follows the price.
it does not predict the future. it just displays the past


remember.
bitcoins mined supply is a smooth curve. not a step with random length of flat and steps
the randomness of the flat and step length of 'bitcoins s2f' is produced by using price data to case the lines to fir near the price pattern. meaning its just displaying the price resembles the averaged price..