BITCOIN

lozzy1965

mooneysaver said:

lozzy1965 said:

What's stopping you churning your money now?  Buy at 90 and redeem for 100.  Repeat.

Nothing! Like I said, literally free money!

So you're actually doing it right now and making 10c on every coin, for free - actually realising the 10c?

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/05/10/bitcoin-btc-investors-panic-as-terrausd-ust-sinks-below-1-peg.html

From near the bottom of this article:

He added that the problem with UST is that it’s largely “backed by faith.”

“It’s not fully guaranteed, it’s certainly not fully backed by reserves,” he told CNBC. “It was really just backed by faith in the issuer effectively.”

Zola.

https://twitter.com/DocumentingBTC/status/1522550224778108929

User232002

Malthusian said:

And the price of the FTSE 250 was at 21,800 during which period in March, again?

I really think you make stuff up in your head. It wasn't. Which is why I said I was using pre-pandemic prices before everything fell off a cliff. The FTSE was 21800 in late February, which seems a reasonable place to take a 'pre-march' number from.

Malthusian said:

Nobody cares about intraday price movements of tokens in March 2020, for the simple reason that hardly anybody bought in while Bitcoin was dumping in March 2020. And even fewer people bought in during very short intraday dumps. That was why it was dumping.

Interesting statement. How do people sell if nobody is buying?

Malthusian said:

It was only entertaining in this specific case because you overreached and quoted a price for the FTSE 250 that quite clearly dated from the pre-crash period in February 2020, while the Bitcoin price was picked from the post-crash period in March 2020, which anyone can trivially verify.

Firstly, I stated I was using pre-pandemic prices. So I have no idea why you consider using a pre-crash price from February as an 'overreach.'

Secondly, here are the prices of Bitcoin throughtout February and March of 2020. Please point to where Bitcoin was $8500 (thats £6800) in the 'post-crash period in March.' I'm struggling to find it. Of course, you've already stated that you've actually done some research in to this - so I do wonder what it says about your competence if such a thing does not actually exist.

Malthusian said:

And using a consistent date, as I did, would still have made Bitcoin look "better" than the FTSE 250 and S&P 500 to anyone willing to ignore the fact that the FTSE 250 and S&P 500 aren't zero sum games. But never mind, maybe next time.

Ah, this old chestnut again. Bitcoin isn't zero sum and just because you keep repeating it doesn't make it so. The code, the network, the asset all provide real economic value. Good money is something that makes everyone better off.

At least we can agree on one thing - Bitcoin looks better than the indices no matter which date you use in Feb/March 2020.

Malthusian said:

The most glaring error from an investor's perspective was not mixing up your cherry-picked prices, but forgetting about dividends in quoting the supposed return of the equity indices.

Laughable. Yes, Bitcoin is returning 10x the market, but those 2% dividends are going to make all the difference. 

Malthusian said:

Bitcoin does not outperform the markets. It underperforms any investment that generates a real return using external revenue. The return of a security is the return across all investors, which means the average return of Bitcoin is zero. Punters' money in == punters' money out.

Firstly, money is money. Saying it doesnt outperform the markets is literally just factually incorrect.

Secondly, the mental circle jerking over what counts as 'real revenue' is embarrassing. You've literally just posted that people are willing to pay tens of thousands of dollars to conduct transactions on a blockchain and in the same breath denied that these blockchains have real revenue.

Below is protocol revenue from the last month. Do I really have to dig this out every single time? 

Malthusian said:

*edit* I've ignored this point so far because it was boring, but since it's now been brought up three times: feel free to quote any of my posts where I mixed up coupon and yield.

You stated (paraphrasing) 'why would anyone loan money to El Salvador at 6.5% when their bonds are trading at 24%.' This is a disingenuous comparison and El Salvador isn't paying 24% interest on their loans. If you buy that bond trading at 24%, can you articulate where that 24% is coming from? Who is paying it? Its not coming from El Salvador.

Malthusian said:

*Yes, I happily stand corrected on that front, but my post caveated the case where I was incorrect, and asked why I would want half the Bitcoin upside plus 6.5%pa when I could have all the Bitcoin upside by buying Bitcoins instead. The response was "do your own research bro".

Ah, the new Malthusian posting style - post the same amount of incorrect takes but just caveat every post with 'If I'm incorrect...'

I'm sick and tired of holding your hand man. You have basically no financial acumen which is insane for someone who has nearly 10k posts on an investing forum. Yes, there are reasons why some parties may want to buy the El Salvador bond instead of buying BTC themselves. Its not a difficult thing to comprehend. 

Malthusian said:

That explains why the suits are selling their tokens (which seems a great shame, given the excitement that greeted every statement from the likes of JP Morgan or BlackRock that they were hodling tokens), but not why the disenfranchised masses aren't rushing to take advantage of being able to get rich quick at a discount.

Again, how do you have a market where people are selling but nobody is buying? Seems difficult...

Another strawman argument. The 'get rich quick' caricature of Bitcoin from you again when pretty much all my posts talk about sustainable and sound monetary policy, fairer financial systems and wider financial inclusion. Serious Bitcoiners (and many other networks, like ETH imo) aren't here for quick pump and dumps or to make people rich quickly. The end goal is to restructure the entire financial system.

I'd rather a lot of the SHIB, DOGE, SAFEMOON and other stuff didn't exist. However it does, which is why the advice here has pretty much universally been "Buy BTC, Buy ETH and have a 5 - 10 year time horizon."

Malthusian said:

Because the NFT fad hadn't taken off, and people weren't selling BTCs to buy monkey clip art in sufficient numbers. Zero sum money games are random, same as fashions, wars, religions and all other mass social movements.

Its truly adorable that you think people are selling BTC to buy NFTs. Just shows you don't have a clue.

The total value of every single NFT at its current market price is something in the order of several tens of billions. Bitcoin trades that amount pretty much every single day. 

User232002

Zola. said:

https://twitter.com/DocumentingBTC/status/1522550224778108929

Crashing upwards. I like this game.

Malthusian

The FTSE was 21800 in late February, which seems a reasonable place to take a 'pre-march' number from.

Which would be fine and dandy if you'd taken pre-March numbers for all three assets.

FTSE 250 Pre-Pandemic (March 2020): 21800

When the FTSE 250 was 21,800, i.e. late February, Bitcoin was around £9,600, not £6,800. Anyway, bored now. Anyone can check the numbers for themselves.

Ah, this old chestnut again. Bitcoin isn't zero sum and just because you keep repeating it doesn't make it so. The code, the network, the asset all provide real economic value. Good money is something that makes everyone better off.

Feel free to tell everyone where the money comes from when Punter A sells BTC that does not come from Punter B buying their BTC.

Paying a slice of that transaction to Punter C and calling it a "transaction fee" doesn't turn it into external revenue.

If you buy that bond trading at 24%, can you articulate where that 24% is coming from? Who is paying it?

Whoever sold the bond at a discount forfeited a share of future redemption capital, in exchange for being able to cash out now, rather than when the bond matures. If they sell at par they are essentially selling you El Salvador's future coupons just as El Salvador sold the same to them, while if they sell at a discount they're selling you that plus part of the return of their stake, in exchange for the ability to get out now. The redemption yield can be thought of as the coupon plus the annualised return of waiting to maturity to grab the original investor's forfeited stake. So the answer to your question is "El Salvador and the seller who took a haircut". The more you know!

Aegis

Malthusian said:

Ah, this old chestnut again. Bitcoin isn't zero sum and just because you keep repeating it doesn't make it so. The code, the network, the asset all provide real economic value. Good money is something that makes everyone better off.

Feel free to tell everyone where the money comes from when Punter A sells BTC that does not come from Punter B buying their BTC.

Paying a slice of that transaction to Punter C and calling it a "transaction fee" doesn't turn it into external revenue.

Seriously, how can anyone know anything about investments and not conclude that bitcoin must be zero sum?  Possibly even negative sum because of unknown numbers of tokens going into permanent inactivity entirely unofficially (if it were official, I'd argue that this would keep the system as a whole zero-sum, but as it stands it's a little like a house edge, but with "the house" being an unknown).

User232002

Malthusian said:

The FTSE was 21800 in late February, which seems a reasonable place to take a 'pre-march' number from.

Which would be fine and dandy if you'd taken pre-March numbers for all three assets.

I've literally just posted a picture showing that BTC was $8500 / £6800 on Feb 29 / Mar 1st. Is Feb 29th pre-March? 

You've also ignored the point made above as usual when you're wrong. You stated;

Malthusian said:

It was only entertaining in this specific case because you overreached and quoted a price for the FTSE 250 that quite clearly dated from the pre-crash period in February 2020, while the Bitcoin price was picked from the post-crash period in March 2020, which anyone can trivially verify.

Again, would you like to point out where Bitcoin was trading at $8500 in the 'post-crash period in March 2020.' I even posted the price data for you above. Of course you can't, because it didn't happen. But you've stated you did some research in to this and 'anyone can trivially verify' this. Which shows how competent you are.

Malthusian said:

When the FTSE 250 was 21,800, i.e. late February, Bitcoin was around £9,600, not £6,800. Anyway, bored now. Anyone can check the numbers for themselves.

In March 2020, the GBP / USD exchange rate was 1.28 which means £9600 was equal to $12300. Below is the price history data for Bitcoin from February 2020 - y'know so that we can all check the numbers for ourselves...

Can you please point out where exactly in late February Bitcoin was trading at or around $12300 during this time per your prior post. 

Of course, you can't. Which again speaks volumes about the veracity of the material you post.

Malthusian said:

Paying a slice of that transaction to Punter C and calling it a "transaction fee" doesn't turn it into external revenue.

Congrats. You've just determined that Western Union, Paypal et al have essentially no real revenue. I wonder if their shareholders are concerned. Probably not.

Not to mention that some of the protocols in that graph don't generate revenue from transaction fees either. 

Malthusian said:

So the answer to your question is "El Salvador and the seller who took a haircut". The more you know!

Incorrect. El Salvador pay precisely zero extra compared to what they originally agreed to pay the initial holder. El Salvadors liability is unchanged throughout the sale of the bond from the purchaser to you.

Your yield comes from the holder sacrificing some value in return for liquidity. The extra value over and above their normal bonds you are talking about is coming from the people that initially bought the bond, not El Salvador itself.

User232002

Aegis said:

Seriously, how can anyone know anything about investments and not conclude that bitcoin must be zero sum?  Possibly even negative sum because of unknown numbers of tokens going into permanent inactivity entirely unofficially (if it were official, I'd argue that this would keep the system as a whole zero-sum, but as it stands it's a little like a house edge, but with "the house" being an unknown).

Yawn. October 7th 2021. Oh, look - its the same person making the same points...

darren232002 said:

Malthusian said:

The argument is essentially equivalent to saying that a game of roulette must be a positive sum game, because the casino always makes a profit.

When you point out the profit comes from punters' money, and punters' money in still == punters' money out, the response is "but it's not because we call it something different".

There are plenty of ponzi's in crypto, but there are plenty of value creating protocols all over the place as well. AAVE takes in capital from A and loans it out to B. It charges B 6% interest and gives A 4% interest. It does all this without the need for a city centre HO and an army of employees but simply by using open source code. This is the business model of, like, every bank in existence. I think we can agree that making capital available to other people in society is a value creating process, and not a zero sum game. I think we can all agree that being able to deliver a product that the market clearly needs whilst drastically reducing the costs (HO/Employees) creates value via reduced costs, and is not therefore a zero sum game.

You're the type of person that thinks international trade is zero sum. It isn't. A rising tide lifts all boats.

As to the last point, the Bitcoin network can have properties that make it more or less efficient than current means of transferring value and that can provide an economic benefit to participants.

And of course, the utility of it can provide value in and of itself.

lozzy1965

Hey guys, the above series of posts really smacks of lies, damned lies and statistics!  Am I the only one who thinks this?

Thrugelmir

lozzy1965 said:

Hey guys, the above series of posts really smacks of lies, damned lies and statistics!  Am I the only one who thinks this?

Sounds like a desperate King Canute trying to stop the waves coming up the beach. While many people cut their losses and sell out having got their fingers seriously burnt.