We could have a guy who consistently invests $100 per week in bitcoin for his first 2 years in bitcoin then consistently invests $200 per week in bitcoin for years 3 and 4 and then he might continue to have variations, and maybe we just project ahead and hold the rate constant at $100 per week and presume that any increases change with promotions and/or cost of living and/or debasement of the dollar, so in the end we are holding the amounts constant as if he were investing 15% into bitcoin from his income. Sometimes we can use percentages or we can use actual numbers in order to try to make our points - even though surely there could be periods of variation or even longer term variation that might have had needed to change based on some real world happening that changes the behaviors.
To comment on this part only shortly, I think there exists all kinds of variations and people behavior is very complicated and unique in these details. I myself have witnessed or read many behaviors relating to Bitcoin with any mix of people. There simply aren't really rules or stereotypes that are applicable for everyone even if we could make some big groupings, like shitcoiners being crypto bros and stuff like that. There are some amusing imagines about this sometimes circulating on reddit and other places. While fun, we must also remember to always differentiate between shitcoins and Bitcoin when these images or descriptions are being used in places where people do not know this.
Mostly free information is likely better... but yeah some people get sucked into matters and they are gullible, so it can be difficult to know the extent to which they need to be protected.
It is and that is the dream or utopia, but in practice it is hard with the current state of things and knowledge of people. Otherwise we would not have so many rules that relate to finances and investments, what you can say or do. The primary reason some government agencies regulate these things is to minimize the damage to the average person. Just think for how many MLM or ponzi scams were successful in recent history. It would be interesting to read an academic paper if someone manages to quantify the damage from FUD and similar stuff, but that would be extremely hard and it would need several experienced and seasoned researchers.
The creation of various financialized products does increase bitcoin's supply, even if they are using those created products in legally permissive ways and not manipulating the market with them.
That is the big question here, just how much are we talking about. Like I said previously if it is a very small amount it is acceptable if you consider the environment that we are operating in and compared to how it is usually with these instruments. I don't like to complain if we have the best situation compared to other commodities or assets if you understand what I am trying to say because it could be much worse. If it is a lot, then it is a very bad thing. I am not sure that anyone really knows at the moment.
There has always been some manipulation, yet the amount can be quite great depending on some of the tactics that are used.... Some of the products might be allowed 12 hours to resolve their balances, and over the weekend they might get 2-3 days... and surely big injustices happen, including BIGGER players getting away with more than others based on their various connections and even there controlling of exchange prices. They have their fingers on all kinds of control mechanisms and pots of money.. and surely at some point we might end up seeing one or more of them blow up like when we saw Terra/Luna blow up and then FTX, Alameda, Blockfi, GBTC, Voyager, Celsius, 3AC and various other blowing up in mid-to-late 2022.. so it can take time for the various corruption to unwind when maybe some BIG ones are implicated and then the contagion ends up hitting a bunch of them. .and frequently retail will pay way more than the executives that caused the corruption.
Perhaps some of those time frames are the result of some limitations of the traditional financial system and just how things always were. If the stock market stops closing and starts trading continuously as crypto, then I expect these things to be fully removed. There should be almost no time left to resolve balances in this case. But if we see these changes with the stock market but not with the instruments, then something really shady is going and the manipulations and paper issuance must be massive.
I won't argue with that, and some folks are skeptical that MSTR's situation is being done on purpose and with nefarious purposes... yet there are likely some real world battles going on at the same time between some of the BIG players and MSTR... so it might not be clear regarding the extent to which some nefarious purpose was premeditated or if some nefarious purpose might present itself at a later time, so it was not necessarily premeditated.
While it is in the realm of possibilities of a low probability, I would not go there just yet. It seems to me that people try to find something wrong with whatever we have in the sense that they don't make constructive analysis and criticism but always come with doomsday theories. If we didn't have MSTR and ETFs, I am sure many of such users would claim that Bitcoin is dead because we will never get these instruments after so much time. Now that we have them, Bitcoin is headed for doomsday too. Some people can't be satisfied..
Strategy seems to surround itself with some pretty smart people, yet I can also imagine Saylor getting his way, and he does seem competently able to deal with complicated technical matters and consulting with experts on those kinds of topics... but yeah, he is not beyond making mistakes.
That is a good strategy for Strategy, and the pun is intended. Since he is lacking in some relevant areas like all of us, this is the best way to approach such a problem. Yes everyone is capable of making mistakes and we all sometimes make them, that is one of the key human traits.
He does seem to have had been moving further and further away from self-sovereignty aspects of bitcoin, even though many of us realize that the self-sovereignty aspects of bitcoin gives it its value - even though there is an ongoing tension to make money through various aspects of financialization of bitcoin.
I don't have an issue with that if it is entirely focused and limited to his situation, legal constraints and whatever else is there. But if he starts advocating that for normal users, or worse the whole protocol then I would get concerned.
There is probably plenty of information available for anyone wanting to compare and contrast products, even though folks get enticed into products that pay yield, offer tax and accounting benefits and do not put obstacles in the way. Surely aspects of self sovereignty have more and more obstacles and that is one of the ways that states try to lure folks into the paper products and away from directly holding bitcoin... yet if people are transacting directly with bitcoin, then the state is going to continue to battle against that for those who are not connected... so they don't mind tools being available but not to allow those direct transaction tools for the little people.
There is, but there are a lot of instruments and it is hard to understand and research everything. A single picture comparison would do wonders for the average people who do not have the time or knowledge to understand all of these in depth, it can just provide an overview. I would be satisfied with one, I don't think I could figure all of them out otherwise.
Yes. it is problematic to have more and more attempts to monitor all wealth that people hold, which seems to be more problematic in Europe, yet other governments will take from the same playbook.. since governments seem to love to control and monitor, which surely can be problematic for individuals to figure out ways to deal with those kinds of situations - and not even easy for individuals to figure out ways to get their governments to move in less oppressive directions.
Any precedent anywhere is dangerous, we have seen how pointed fingers at China for the ideas of a social credit system and now in the west in certain parts there are talks about carbon credit score and allowance even for normal people. They could easily include this into the planned CBDC in Europe and other places. Precedents are very dangerous.
When it comes to various allocations, I think the general rule is that people should try to buy when the prices are low whatever it is that they are buying.
Even if we assume that's a general rule, that does not mean that people have to follow it. In bitcoin, the rule of buying when prices are low seems so fucked up to me, because it would turn people hesitant because they want to time the exact bottom of the price, what's the point of all that?
People mostly don't even get to know when the the price is low. Ignorantly they are screwing themselves but they call theirselfs smart and hold their cash telling themselves the price will drop more, but then the price will just go higher leaving them dumbfounded.
People would just be better off if they quit following some general rule of waiting to buy when price is low. Ongoingly buying bitcoin with what one can afford to loose is 100% the best step to take.
While you are right with your assertion that bottom chasing is wrong and will lead to issues, that is not what I was talking about here. People should buy when prices are low, and in Bitcoin there is usually a period that is 12 to 24 months long during which prices are fairly low and give excellent room for acquiring thing. Remember the statement that you quoted I mentioned silver prices after there, and for silver there was even 10 years or more to accumulate and retail did not do anything. Many bought when it went several fold high, and many were recently wiped out by institutions for doing so. This is how they take us, the sheep, to the slaughter. Accumulate hard when prices are low. Do not buy when we are deep into bull euphoria or near the top and then sell when it is sliding down to prevent further losses.
