I'm just reminding you that gold is one of the most liquid assets with more than $150 billion daily trading volume.
Yes, I acknowledge that. What I meant is that Bitcoin's success also depends on increasing that liquidity, only then it will be able to match gold's lower volatility.
The Supply does not have to halve, it is enough that it is twice as difficult to obtain it. If Miners have to sell at lower and lower Prices, it would make Bitcoin not worth Mining any more. This is where my thoughts of Bitcoin doubling every four years come.
I'm glad I misunderstood you, your remark in the other post seemed a bit too off.
But I still disagree: "Obtaining" Bitcoin today is most easily done by buying. Only in bubble phases buying is significantly more expensive than mining. And if Bitcoin's price less than doubles between the halving periods, then its hashrate and security budget will decrease. But we can say both values are probably excessively high currently, likely fueled by a potential "mining bubble" when mining operators financed themselves by going public. With half the current hashrate, Bitcoin would be still much safer than it needs to be. (And then there are transaction fees, merged mining ...)
How was it less than a doubling by the way? I am pretty sure it went from a high of around 60 thousand Dollars to over 120 thousand.
The correct numbers if we take ATH to ATH, are 69000 and 126000. That's only a 82% increase and was what I took
Of course it would be better to compare "average price to average price", but the WMA 200 values (~20k for 2018-2022, ~60k for 2022-2026) are misleading here because they go back too far. The WMA 100 which is a bit better has indeed approximately doubled between 2022 and 2026 (38k to 78k). For the halving years 2020 and 2024, the values are 7000 and 31000, which is also still more than a compensation for the halving.
So you may be correct in the end, on average the value may have doubled indeed. But that's not likely to continue.
How can we make it more stable?
By increasing liquidity. Usage "as a currency" would add orders of magnitude of liquidity. Trading on sidechains and on Lightning, too. That are the two main ways I see currently. Both depend somewhat on scalability improvements (layer 2 popularization).
The creator of that thread has probably bought into Michael Saylor's idea. [...] If you're right, he's going to lose his business.
Yeah, Saylor's recent remark was probably the trigger for that whole discussion that came up in several threads.
However, I think he may say that now because at this moment volatility benefits his business. But a "high volatility, but low or zero growth" scenario would be fatal for him indeed, while a "low volatility, low to medium growth" would be something he could adapt to as a Bitcoin treasury company. I'm not hoping for his bankruptcy, what I hope is that he can indeed adapt to that. What I'm worrying a bit is that in such a scenario his business model would lose relevancy, so he has also to take into account business scenarios where he's able to sell
some coins without side effects, and thus decrease his exposure.
The lower bracket gives us 1.5% per year, for Bitcoin we're sitting at 0.8%, hardly a difference!
Current gold volatility indeed is perfectly achievable for Bitcoin I think.
What I meant however that the even lower flexibility could leed to sudden jumps even if the price appears to have stabilized.
Let's have a simple example: Let's say that Bitcoin in a few years becomes an "established" online currency in those countries it's already somewhat popular now (North and South America, India, some European and African countries). It stabilizes on ~200,000$. But then China opens their restrictions. That could lead to a massive demand boost and a sudden 50% jump in price.
These things, however, have happened with fiat currencies too. I remember for example the wild EUR/USD fluctuations at around 2010, which were in the same order of magnitude. If we take into account such scenarios, then Bitcoin indeed may not be far away from fiat respect to a potential lower bound for volatility.
Poll
