Bitcoin Generalized Stock-to-Flow Model

[Bitcoin_Model]

Introducing the Bitcoin Generalized Stock-to-Flow Model, which predicts only $30K for the present cycle, and $170K for the next (2024-28) cycle:

https://medium.com/@bitcoin.modeling/bitcoin-generalized-stock-to-flow-s2f-g-model-867953687b33

Bitcoin Generalized Stock-to-Flow Model


#NotFinancialAdvice #InvestAtYourOwnRisk #Bitcoin

[1715127690]

1715127690

[1715127690]

1715127690

[1715127690]

1715127690

[1715127690]

1715127690

[1715127690]

1715127690

[Skybuck]

Introducing the Bitcoin Generalized Stock-to-Flow Model, which predicts only $30K for the present cycle, and $170K for the next (2024-28) cycle:

https://medium.com/@bitcoin.modeling/bitcoin-generalized-stock-to-flow-s2f-g-model-867953687b33

Bitcoin Generalized Stock-to-Flow Model


#NotFinancialAdvice #InvestAtYourOwnRisk #Bitcoin

Thanks for the update ! Will keep an eye on it !

[tranthidung]

Introducing the Bitcoin Generalized Stock-to-Flow Model, which predicts only $30K for the present cycle, and $170K for the next (2024-28) cycle:

What is the current cycle?

If a cycle contains a bear, bull then bear periods, what is the period we are in now?

If the current cycle already reaches its top around $69k months ago and now is in bearish period, $30k is not the bottom because price even fell lower than that months ago. What is the price at $30k you are talking about for the present cycle?

Currently, Bitcoin is under realized price and is good time to accumulate it. We can expect another dump to wash out like what happened when Bitcoin crashed from $6k to under $4k and after that it rose with a new bull run straightly towards $69k. It might or might not happen, we never know.

• Is Bitcoin bottom there yet? Fear & Greed, Pi Cycle Top / Bottom

[pooya87]

I believe that until proven otherwise all the old models are broken, whether the Stock to Flow model or the modified version of it, or the traditional 4-year cycle with halving model, or any other ones that could be calculated based on past behavior.

Over the past couple of years with the global economy getting worse due to pandemic and now the energy crisis in the West, the markets are not behaving "normally" so we can't expect the bitcoin price to behave like before too.
Which is why the previous cycle (starting from $3k) didn't end up at a bubble like it was supposed to and fell a lot shorter than that (a couple of $100k shorter in fact).

I say we are in uncharted waters and the future price behavior is very unpredictable. Specially with the "cost of living crisis" and the "energy crisis" that most of the world is facing.

[Don Pedro Dinero]

Introducing the Bitcoin Generalized Stock-to-Flow Model <...>

Introducing? LMAO. S2F is not new and most of us are familiar with it. It is an interesting and elaborate model but I think that not many people pay attention to it anymore.

S2F is wrong by many factors and many reasons

I believe that until proven otherwise all the old models are broken, whether the Stock to Flow model or the modified version of it, or the traditional 4-year cycle with halving model, or any other ones that could be calculated based on past behavior.

Right. I think maybe plausible models can be created but I would wait and see how this cycle turns out because S2F is not the only model that has broken down.

Over the past couple of years with the global economy getting worse due to pandemic and now the energy crisis in the West, the markets are not behaving "normally" so we can't expect the bitcoin price to behave like before too.
Which is why the previous cycle (starting from $3k) didn't end up at a bubble like it was supposed to and fell a lot shorter than that (a couple of $100k shorter in fact).

I say we are in uncharted waters and the future price behavior is very unpredictable.

I agree 100%

[odolvlobo]

Any idiot can fit any model to any curve with a sufficient number of variables. You are so convinced that the failed Stock-to-Flow model must be correct that you are willing to add a brand new variable to "fix" it, without any kind of explanation or justification.

What you have done is create a model that is based on nothing, and so it predicts nothing.

[bitcampaign]

it seems interesting to follow this development I will read also see the latest model for bitcoin price analysis in the future, as we know the old model version has expired so we need to update it

[Bitcoin_Model]

The most important point to note in the new *Generalized* Stock-to-Flow (S2F-G) model is the following.

In the Original Stock-to-Flow (S2F) Model, the equation used was:

  BTC-Price_(S2F) α≈ (Stock/Flow)^3

In S2F-G, the same equation is transformed into:

  BTC-Price_(S2F-G) α≈ (Stock)^5/(Flow)^2

This makes a HUGE difference in future predictions between the two models. For example, in the present cycle (2020-24), S2F projects $50-100K, compared to the S2F-G projection of only $30K. The next cycle (2024-28) makes the difference between the two models even more stark - the S2F prediction is $500K-1M, but S2F-G predicts a mere $170K. This is because the 'Stock' and 'Flow' exponents were decoupled from each other in the S2F-G model, resulting in a square (^2) dependence on the Flow parameter by itself, rather than being "forced" in the S2F model to be a cube (^3) dependence on (Stock/Flow). The Original S2F model is likely flawed, and should be correctly replaced by the S2F-G model.

[odolvlobo]

The Original S2F model is likely flawed, and should be correctly replaced by the S2F-G model.

Can you demonstrate that your new model is not also flawed?

[Bitcoin_Model]

It will be automatically demonstrated when the BTC price hits $100K by 2025, but does not exceed $400K before 2028. Quoting from the paper:

"A limit of $400K is suggested to break the tie for the 2024–28 cycle — if the cycle peak exceeds $400K, then the Original Model is right; if not, the Generalized Model wins!"

[Poker Player]

The Original S2F model is likely flawed, and should be correctly replaced by the S2F-G model.

Can you demonstrate that your new model is not also flawed?

I very much doubt it.

As I have said in other threads on the subject, it does not seem a very scientific attitude to set up a model that when it is disproved by the data, instead of considering the model as false, you reformulate it, and if the data falsify the new formulation, you reformulate it again.

It will be automatically demonstrated when the BTC price hits $100K by 2025, but does not exceed $400K before 2028. Quoting from the paper:

"A limit of $400K is suggested to break the tie for the 2024–28 cycle — if the cycle peak exceeds $400K, then the Original Model is right; if not, the Generalized Model wins!"

The fact that one or a few data coincide with the theory does not verify it. The only thing that can be assured is that for the moment it is not false, and that it is gaining plausibility.

The original S2F also appeared to have been demonstrated, until the data falsified it.

[Bitcoin_Model]

The Original S2F model is likely flawed, and should be correctly replaced by the S2F-G model.

Can you demonstrate that your new model is not also flawed?

I very much doubt it.

As I have said in other threads on the subject, it does not seem a very scientific attitude to set up a model that when it is disproved by the data, instead of considering the model as false, you reformulate it, and if the data falsify the new formulation, you reformulate it again.

Small but critical clarification: Even if the data only until 2019 is taken into account, the Stock and Flow exponents still turn out to be ~5 and ~2 respectively, as per the Generalized Stock-to-Flow (S2F-G) model! In other words, I'm NOT "reformulating" the model with new data, rather I'm introducing a NEW MODEL from scratch, or a MODIFIED MODEL *EQUATION*, which fits the existing data in an entirely novel manner.

It will be automatically demonstrated when the BTC price hits $100K by 2025, but does not exceed $400K before 2028. Quoting from the paper:

"A limit of $400K is suggested to break the tie for the 2024–28 cycle — if the cycle peak exceeds $400K, then the Original Model is right; if not, the Generalized Model wins!"

The fact that one or a few data coincide with the theory does not verify it. The only thing that can be assured is that for the moment it is not false, and that it is gaining plausibility.

The original S2F also appeared to have been demonstrated, until the data falsified it.

As I mentioned above, in spite of taking into account the same data as S2F (up to 2019), the S2F-G still makes different predictions. Of course, I can give a window for the falsification of my model: If the peak BTC Price lies outside of $100K-$400K range during the period 2024-28, then my model will be broken. I have confidence that S2F-G will prevail!

[darkangel11]

Here's my thought. Someone was following the original S2F, but when it begun to deviate from the original that person drew a line that followed the last bull run and then cut it by half to create a predicted low bottom and lo and behold a new model. Then they say:

Only time will tell as to which model eventually prevails as correct. A limit of $400K is suggested to break the tie for the 2024–28 cycle — if the cycle peak exceeds $400K, then the Original Model is right; if not, the Generalized Model wins!

We can expect that if the rewards were extremely this cycle bitcoin will not be able to achieve the original S2F target in the specified time. That doesn't say we should keep adjusting it every cycle and then boasting that we're good at drawing models.

[Mate2237]

Introducing the Bitcoin Generalized Stock-to-Flow Model, which predicts only $30K for the present cycle, and $170K for the next (2024-28) cycle:

https://medium.com/@bitcoin.modeling/bitcoin-generalized-stock-to-flow-s2f-g-model-867953687b33

Bitcoin Generalized Stock-to-Flow Model


#NotFinancialAdvice #InvestAtYourOwnRisk #Bitcoin

That is just a prediction, it has not taking effect. We are still in the bear market in which nobody knows when the bear market will end. the $30K cycle as of now is not realizable until next two months of this year. I hope as it is, it is $19k which is a very bad market. We are not expecting the bull market in this year again though that not withstanding because bitcoin is unpredictable.

[Poker Player]

In other words, I'm NOT "reformulating" the model with new data, rather I'm introducing a NEW MODEL from scratch, or a MODIFIED MODEL *EQUATION*, which fits the existing data in an entirely novel manner.

Good clarification.

In my case, I was commenting on a general methodological issue, which is that models cannot be considered verified because they make a prediction and the prediction comes true. If the prediction is not fulfilled the model is false but as a predictive model it has to be able to make a multitude of predictions in the future, and as long as these coincide with the theory we can consider that it gains plausibility, but not that it has been proven to be true.

It is much easier to consider it as false, which is done when reality does not coincide with what the model predicts.