BITCOIN

Zola.

AlexBacker said:

guys, is it a good time to buy btc?

If you have studied Bitcoin, learn what its actually about from a value proposition to the world (think especially about developing nations, there are billions of people working with weak, inflating currencies and no bank access), understand on a semi- technical level how it works and why it works like that, understand that it is the one truly decentralised asset (as it was allowed to grow organically without a CEO interfering or hoarding a massive pre-mined stash for themselves and their mates), that will give you an indication if you want to buy it. Learn about the bitcoin halving, why they matter, cycle patterns etc.

If you miss the 10 best days of a bitcoin pump in any year you basically miss the rocket and all of the gains. 

So if you believe in the long term viability of such open source technology (something of which the world has never seen until now), then yes its a good time to buy and hold, if you can stomach the ups and downs. But you have to be prepared to hold it for 4 years as a minimum, like most investments. The next halving is in around 800 days time, and up to now the best gains generally come one year after, so now could be a very good accumulation time..

If you want to merely gamble or make a very quick trade, its probably not the right product for you nor an ideal time. It could go down further, it could be a very dull sideways motion until the next halving, or a rocket... theres a lot of FUD battles going on and nothing is certain. Bitcoin does its own thing and rewards patience. 

For me it makes up a small part of my portfolio, but I believe it can become a very important and contributing wealth builder in about 5-10 years time. 

Aegis

Scottex99 said:

Mania isn’t going to last for 12 years is it? And if it’s true mania once it crashes hard which BTC has done multiple times, it’s not going to recover and make new highs, every time.

Where have you sourced these rules from?  There's no reason why a mania can't last a long time, and there's absolutely nothing saying that once an asset crashes, it can't have been in a mania if it then rises again, nor is it a hard and fast rule that bubbles always burst with major .  Looking at this from investopedia:

What Is a Bubble?

A basic characteristic of financial bubbles is the suspension of disbelief by most participants when the speculative price surge is occurring: It's only in retrospect, after the bubble has burst, that they're recognized (to many an investor's chagrin).

...

Bubble, in an economic context, generally refers to a situation where the price for something—an individual stock, a financial asset, or even an entire sector, market, or asset class—exceeds its fundamental value by a large margin.

In the case of bitcoin and most other crypto assets, there doesn't appear to be any fundamental or intrinsic value, the the price must by definition exceed the fundamental value by a large margin.  I don't see how this could be anything other than a bubble/mania.

And yes, I know that the article says that once a bubble bursts it won't reinflate, but that is very definitely not the same as saying that an asset can't crash in value during the boom and euphoria stages of bubble formation.

Scottex99

I haven't sourced them from anywhere, it's common sense.

When the asset itself passes 1tn in value, the price crashes in an extreme manner, multiple times but always recovers to a new high, the largest companies and banks in the world are putting it on their balance sheets or helping their clients get exposure to it.

Then there probably is intrinsic value (which is a myth anyway) whether you can see it or not.

The guy is asking if its a good time to buy, he's going to be told yes or no, by various people. 

Lets leave the boring tulip chat from 400 years ago out of it for once 

HCIMbtw

I started buying last year, hold BTC, SOL, ETH. I try not time the market, so DCA each week. Has prevented me losing circa 40%, currently about 15% down which isn't terrible considering I pretty much started at ATH. 

I have pretty high conviction and have been working towards 10% allocation of my non pension/property based assets, quite happy if price goes down as I buy cheaper and I will continue to DCA.

Maybe I've been orange pilled, but I really doubt I have and I listen to the arguments against as well as for. I actually think it is far more sensible to have some exposure rather than no exposure. I keep a close eye on general industry news, particularly related to SOL/ETH to make sure I am not missing anything important that might change my mind about the future of these investments.. as SCP platforms their success is dependent upon performance, adoption and development to a greater extent that BTC is. If I withdraw from ETH/SOL it will be into BTC. 

I really can't see BTC going to less than $33k dollars, and I think with that as a floor getting in at this price is fantastic asymmetric opportunity. No guarantees it will ever go back to that price. Increasing adoption gives it fantastic upside potential though, which for me makes it worth it. 

NB - Based on what I am investing I can afford to be wrong. InvestAnswers on youtube is my general go to for news/updates, he does a fantastic job summarising a lot of information and I listen on the drive to work. His style is a bit weird and presentational, but i'd recommend checking the channel out if anyone is interested in content from somebody independent of affiliations. He also does a fantastic job relating the opportunity to macro economics. 

Aegis

Scottex99 said:

I haven't sourced them from anywhere, it's common sense.

When the asset itself passes 1tn in value, the price crashes in an extreme manner, multiple times but always recovers to a new high, the largest companies and banks in the world are putting it on their balance sheets or helping their clients get exposure to it.

Then there probably is intrinsic value (which is a myth anyway) whether you can see it or not.

The guy is asking if its a good time to buy, he's going to be told yes or no, by various people. 

Lets leave the boring tulip chat from 400 years ago out of it for once 

Sorry, but "common sense" has no place in investment decisions.  Data is far more important, and a lot of people end up making very poor investment decisions purely by relying on common sense, e.g. selling after a loss to limit risk - it might make sense, but it's not a good investment strategy.  Nothing I've seen in years of advising and investing has led me to believe that something can't crash in value and recover as part of bubble behaviour.  The one commonality of all bubbles is that they have ultimately been irrational in hindsight, but presumably well justified by investors at the time.

Also, your claim of intrinsic value "probably" being there is immediately dismissable with knowledge of what intrinsic value genuinely means, which is effectively what it generates in income compared to that of a risk-free asset, or what it can be used for.  I regularly invest in stuff that, by this definition, doesn't have intrinsic value now, but the goal is that the investments will build that intrinsic value in time by developing intellectual property or working out a manufacturing process that they can use to create something there is demand for.  Bitcoin in particular does absolutely nothing (in terms of economic activity of the token itself, not ownership of the token), and in 5 years each bitcoin will still do absolutely nothing.  There's no ownership of the underlying technology, no way to monetise the intellectual property associated with blockchain (not necessarily the same can be said for all crypto assets), in short no way to make money other than selling to someone else for a higher price, which like it or not is what Greater Fool Theory is all about.

I mention tulips because it's a good example of mania.  If you find it boring, you certainly don't need to read up on the subject at all, but I and some others genuinely find it interesting to see the herd mentality that drove tulip investors and try to work out why on earth they made the decisions they did.

Finally, I'm not going to tell him yes or no, because I genuinely don't know whether the price will surge upwards for years or collapse down towards zero, or something between the two.  This is down to the fact that I have no way of working out any form of fair value for bitcoin, or any other cryptocurrency for that matter.  If he reads everything and comes to the conclusion that it's the right time to buy, then as I've said before, it's his money, he can ultimately buy what he wants as long as it's legal.

HCIMbtw

Aegis said:

Scottex99 said:

I haven't sourced them from anywhere, it's common sense.

When the asset itself passes 1tn in value, the price crashes in an extreme manner, multiple times but always recovers to a new high, the largest companies and banks in the world are putting it on their balance sheets or helping their clients get exposure to it.

Then there probably is intrinsic value (which is a myth anyway) whether you can see it or not.

The guy is asking if its a good time to buy, he's going to be told yes or no, by various people. 

Lets leave the boring tulip chat from 400 years ago out of it for once 

Sorry, but "common sense" has no place in investment decisions.  Data is far more important, and a lot of people end up making very poor investment decisions purely by relying on common sense, e.g. selling after a loss to limit risk - it might make sense, but it's not a good investment strategy.  Nothing I've seen in years of advising and investing has led me to believe that something can't crash in value and recover as part of bubble behaviour.  The one commonality of all bubbles is that they have ultimately been irrational in hindsight, but presumably well justified by investors at the time.

Also, your claim of intrinsic value "probably" being there is immediately dismissable with knowledge of what intrinsic value genuinely means, which is effectively what it generates in income compared to that of a risk-free asset, or what it can be used for.  I regularly invest in stuff that, by this definition, doesn't have intrinsic value now, but the goal is that the investments will build that intrinsic value in time by developing intellectual property or working out a manufacturing process that they can use to create something there is demand for.  Bitcoin in particular does absolutely nothing (in terms of economic activity of the token itself, not ownership of the token), and in 5 years each bitcoin will still do absolutely nothing.  There's no ownership of the underlying technology, no way to monetise the intellectual property associated with blockchain (not necessarily the same can be said for all crypto assets), in short no way to make money other than selling to someone else for a higher price, which like it or not is what Greater Fool Theory is all about.

I mention tulips because it's a good example of mania.  If you find it boring, you certainly don't need to read up on the subject at all, but I and some others genuinely find it interesting to see the herd mentality that drove tulip investors and try to work out why on earth they made the decisions they did.

Finally, I'm not going to tell him yes or no, because I genuinely don't know whether the price will surge upwards for years or collapse down towards zero, or something between the two.  This is down to the fact that I have no way of working out any form of fair value for bitcoin, or any other cryptocurrency for that matter.  If he reads everything and comes to the conclusion that it's the right time to buy, then as I've said before, it's his money, he can ultimately buy what he wants as long as it's legal.

I understand your argument with regard to intrinsic value of BTC. However, I would argue many smart contract platform style crypto assets (e.g. ETH/SOL) have pretty clear intrinsic value in allowing network operation. These layer one chains have a wide range of apps and systems operating on their network. The asset is integral to functionality. 

I personally find these riskier though, because they are obviously replaceable as networks if they are outperformed/outcompeted. 

For me BTCs biggest strength is its finite supply, level of adoption, and function as cash (not currency) for transacting with no intermediary. If you get your head around the macroeconomics of FIAT and don't see the value in this, then id encourage anyone to take a look at the economics of FIAT again. 

There is potential for the BTC blockchain to provide far greater functionality in the future, which could be deemed to give it clearer intrinsic value, but I don't need it to have that. 

Zola.

HCIMbtw said:

I started buying last year, hold BTC, SOL, ETH. I try not time the market, so DCA each week. Has prevented me losing circa 40%, currently about 15% down which isn't terrible considering I pretty much started at ATH. 

I have pretty high conviction and have been working towards 10% allocation of my non pension/property based assets, quite happy if price goes down as I buy cheaper and I will continue to DCA.

Maybe I've been orange pilled, but I really doubt I have and I listen to the arguments against as well as for. I actually think it is far more sensible to have some exposure rather than no exposure. I keep a close eye on general industry news, particularly related to SOL/ETH to make sure I am not missing anything important that might change my mind about the future of these investments.. as SCP platforms their success is dependent upon performance, adoption and development to a greater extent that BTC is. If I withdraw from ETH/SOL it will be into BTC. 

I really can't see BTC going to less than $33k dollars, and I think with that as a floor getting in at this price is fantastic asymmetric opportunity. No guarantees it will ever go back to that price. Increasing adoption gives it fantastic upside potential though, which for me makes it worth it. 

NB - Based on what I am investing I can afford to be wrong. InvestAnswers on youtube is my general go to for news/updates, he does a fantastic job summarising a lot of information and I listen on the drive to work. His style is a bit weird and presentational, but i'd recommend checking the channel out if anyone is interested in content from somebody independent of affiliations. He also does a fantastic job relating the opportunity to macro economics. 

I like James also, although I generally turn off when he pumps so many alts. 

Aegis

HCIMbtw said:

Aegis said:

Scottex99 said:

I haven't sourced them from anywhere, it's common sense.

When the asset itself passes 1tn in value, the price crashes in an extreme manner, multiple times but always recovers to a new high, the largest companies and banks in the world are putting it on their balance sheets or helping their clients get exposure to it.

Then there probably is intrinsic value (which is a myth anyway) whether you can see it or not.

The guy is asking if its a good time to buy, he's going to be told yes or no, by various people. 

Lets leave the boring tulip chat from 400 years ago out of it for once 

Sorry, but "common sense" has no place in investment decisions.  Data is far more important, and a lot of people end up making very poor investment decisions purely by relying on common sense, e.g. selling after a loss to limit risk - it might make sense, but it's not a good investment strategy.  Nothing I've seen in years of advising and investing has led me to believe that something can't crash in value and recover as part of bubble behaviour.  The one commonality of all bubbles is that they have ultimately been irrational in hindsight, but presumably well justified by investors at the time.

Also, your claim of intrinsic value "probably" being there is immediately dismissable with knowledge of what intrinsic value genuinely means, which is effectively what it generates in income compared to that of a risk-free asset, or what it can be used for.  I regularly invest in stuff that, by this definition, doesn't have intrinsic value now, but the goal is that the investments will build that intrinsic value in time by developing intellectual property or working out a manufacturing process that they can use to create something there is demand for.  Bitcoin in particular does absolutely nothing (in terms of economic activity of the token itself, not ownership of the token), and in 5 years each bitcoin will still do absolutely nothing.  There's no ownership of the underlying technology, no way to monetise the intellectual property associated with blockchain (not necessarily the same can be said for all crypto assets), in short no way to make money other than selling to someone else for a higher price, which like it or not is what Greater Fool Theory is all about.

I mention tulips because it's a good example of mania.  If you find it boring, you certainly don't need to read up on the subject at all, but I and some others genuinely find it interesting to see the herd mentality that drove tulip investors and try to work out why on earth they made the decisions they did.

Finally, I'm not going to tell him yes or no, because I genuinely don't know whether the price will surge upwards for years or collapse down towards zero, or something between the two.  This is down to the fact that I have no way of working out any form of fair value for bitcoin, or any other cryptocurrency for that matter.  If he reads everything and comes to the conclusion that it's the right time to buy, then as I've said before, it's his money, he can ultimately buy what he wants as long as it's legal.

I understand your argument with regard to intrinsic value of BTC. However, I would argue many smart contract platform style crypto assets (e.g. ETH/SOL) have pretty clear intrinsic value in allowing network operation. These layer one chains have a wide range of apps and systems operating on their network. The asset is integral to functionality. 

I personally find these riskier though, because they are obviously replaceable as networks if they are outperformed/outcompeted. 

For me BTCs biggest strength is its finite supply, level of adoption, and function as cash (not currency) for transacting with no intermediary. If you get your head around the macroeconomics of FIAT and don't see the value in this, then id encourage anyone to take a look at the economics of FIAT again. 

There is potential for the BTC blockchain to provide far greater functionality in the future, which could be deemed to give it clearer intrinsic value, but I don't need it to have that. 

Yep, there are some networks where the value seems more readily calculable, though my worry there is that the value of the conversion is often only a tiny fraction of what the asset is traded for (which demonstrates bubble behaviour).

The comments about fiat currency are why I hold as little currency as possible.  Inflation is an often insidious enemy of cash, but the idea of going from cash to a highly volatile asset class that I'm worried is subject to a widespread mania at the moment just doesn't seem rational to me.  Instead I generally hold equities because those provide actual ownership of the underlying profits and intellectual property of the companies in question, so the value comes from utilising those assets to generate cash flow.

With regard to intermediaries, they give me security (FCA or FSCS access) and in many cases rewards as well (e.g. my Amazon credit card).  As such, the existing system already adds value for me when it comes to making transactions via an intermediary, which I don't feel I would get by using a different medium of exchange.

spnego

The intrinsic value is the network itself. 
A secure network for sending money anywhere in the world for low cost where creating a bitcoin takes an amount of energy to produce.
There is intrinsic value locked up in the internet but tcpip wasn't monetised so you cant earn money in the underlying protocol from people using the internet.

Scottex99

Aegis said:

Scottex99 said:

I haven't sourced them from anywhere, it's common sense.

When the asset itself passes 1tn in value, the price crashes in an extreme manner, multiple times but always recovers to a new high, the largest companies and banks in the world are putting it on their balance sheets or helping their clients get exposure to it.

Then there probably is intrinsic value (which is a myth anyway) whether you can see it or not.

The guy is asking if its a good time to buy, he's going to be told yes or no, by various people. 

Lets leave the boring tulip chat from 400 years ago out of it for once 

Sorry, but "common sense" has no place in investment decisions.  Data is far more important, and a lot of people end up making very poor investment decisions purely by relying on common sense, e.g. selling after a loss to limit risk - it might make sense, but it's not a good investment strategy.  Nothing I've seen in years of advising and investing has led me to believe that something can't crash in value and recover as part of bubble behaviour.  The one commonality of all bubbles is that they have ultimately been irrational in hindsight, but presumably well justified by investors at the time.

Also, your claim of intrinsic value "probably" being there is immediately dismissable with knowledge of what intrinsic value genuinely means, which is effectively what it generates in income compared to that of a risk-free asset, or what it can be used for.  I regularly invest in stuff that, by this definition, doesn't have intrinsic value now, but the goal is that the investments will build that intrinsic value in time by developing intellectual property or working out a manufacturing process that they can use to create something there is demand for.  Bitcoin in particular does absolutely nothing (in terms of economic activity of the token itself, not ownership of the token), and in 5 years each bitcoin will still do absolutely nothing.  There's no ownership of the underlying technology, no way to monetise the intellectual property associated with blockchain (not necessarily the same can be said for all crypto assets), in short no way to make money other than selling to someone else for a higher price, which like it or not is what Greater Fool Theory is all about.

I mention tulips because it's a good example of mania.  If you find it boring, you certainly don't need to read up on the subject at all, but I and some others genuinely find it interesting to see the herd mentality that drove tulip investors and try to work out why on earth they made the decisions they did.

Finally, I'm not going to tell him yes or no, because I genuinely don't know whether the price will surge upwards for years or collapse down towards zero, or something between the two.  This is down to the fact that I have no way of working out any form of fair value for bitcoin, or any other cryptocurrency for that matter.  If he reads everything and comes to the conclusion that it's the right time to buy, then as I've said before, it's his money, he can ultimately buy what he wants as long as it's legal.

Ok, so what if my common sense tells me to buy more when the market is down, lowering my average cost. Is that common sense that's allowed in investment decisions?

I find the tulip thing boring because its been brought up about 20 times in this thread already. 

Bitcoin does indeed do nothing, as does gold or silver but people still like to hold it and trade it. And the potential merits of ownership and "expected" increase in value have also been discussed many times.

If you don't see them that's fine but you not need to keep writing essays about "data". You could just go to the equities thread or the where can I put my savings and make 0.78% threads and post there. Leave the crypto people to it?

It's a Bitcoin thread after all, you dont need to comment every 3 posts saying you dont get it or believe in it. Better yet, short it, or short the whole crypto market. At least that would be a good use of your time (and mine).

Most people that are pro crypto are in it because they like the risk, kind of like trading stocks but on steroids. They like the tech, they like the anti bank narrative, they like decentralisation, they like the idea of controlling their own wealth (in whatever form), they like innovation, they are excited about what's being built etc etc etc.

I don't care what the data says about fair value, it's done ok for me so far, and if I end up on the end of some bad numbers then so be it, that's on me, we're all adults here