I think that I attempt to make a bit of a blind trajectory of forward prices (at least the 200-WMA, which seems to be my grounding), and at the same time, I frequently get into arguments with Phil because he has tendencies to frame bitcoin prices in terms of narrow mining expectations, and surely we all know that there is a difficulty adjustment every two weeks, so I get bothered when BTC prices are framed in terms of "need to," since the difficulty adjustments and even the entrance and exit of new players and changes in efficiencies will also likely end up affecting who wants to mine and how much they want to be in profits... and even profits might not always be the only motive since there are control motivations or even security motivations for those who want to make sure that their holdings are sufficiently protected.
What I find the most impressive is that his projections of the "minimum mining expectations" matched your JJG model pretty well!
He is considering that each block must reward the miner at least 250k USD.
This is an interesting perspective to the a possible price projection, and something that can support your projections. Maybe even be useful to adjust those values in
far future (after 2050)?
My punchline is that I don't really see the ways that Phil frequently attempts to ground numbers in either mining or other ways that he frames "what bitcoin has to do" as being very objective, even if he frequently strives to make logical arguments.. and so even if I cannot put my finger on the deviance exactly, I have hard times considering how those variables would be helpful to my own fuck you status projections, even if the numbers might seem like they overlap at various points or if we tweak our projection parameters in certain ways.. In other words, I consider them as a BIG SO WHAT coincident and not really helpful shedding light on fuck you status ideas, to the extent that fuck you status ideas have groundings that go beyond attempts at diminishing returns in the 200-WMA.. and then perhaps a flattening... and the various variables will hopefully work themselves out to the extent that they might not end up being products of the self-adjustments that are built in to come through the tool as currently formulated.
I feel like I am rambling to the extent that I might have already responded more clearly in my earlier post.
By the way, when I leave the default 3% inflation rate, then I see that Phil's numbers line up with my projected spot prices in the beginning (and yeah, I am not as attached to my own price predictions as compared with my 200-WMA projections), yet with more passage of time, his assertion of "minimum BTC prices" starts to deviate quite a bit, and maybe the numbers work with a higher inflation rate.., .I hate to screw around with too many of the variables.
One more variable could be the block reward (in USD and BTC value). The USD value could even the inflation adjusted (3%?)
It is likely quite helpful to have some kind of a inflation (or dollar debasement) adjustment built into the tool, even though many of us recognize that the rate of inflation has been and likely continues to be quite a bit higher in terms of what kinds of items we might be able to buy with the same quantity of dollars.
Even the golden years of supposedly little to no interest (or little to no debasement) prior to 2020, the reality was that the debasement was likely quite greater than 3%, yet the level of the debasement (inflation) surely depends upon what kinds of items we might happen to be putting in our shopping cart.
So, yeah, the situation seems to have had gotten even worse after March 2020, and so the severity of the debasement and inflation became a lot more apparent, including strong evidence in regards to desperate measures that would be taken.. yet even though we know ongoing debasement is happening, we also know that the Cantillon effect is not equal, even if the Cantillon effect might also be intertwined with the failing dollar.
