BITCOIN

Thrugelmir

darren232002 said:

Frequentlyhere said:

@fwor is right, @Dalby84UK

The other thing you're missing is that even if it can't always keep up with inflation, cash does have a yield, whilst Bitcoin does not. That graph doesn't take into account that no-one (ok very few) keeps their cash under their mattress for decades - it goes to work, invested at banks and in investments.

If you put cash in to an investment that pays dividends or grows in value, the yield comes from the investment - not the cash. To say otherwise is to double count the yield.

The underlying investment needs to make a profit. By doing so it generates cash. The cash can be used to grow the business organically, buy another business , simply sits on the balance sheet (i.e. APPLE ~ though this is much to do with tax planning) or is used to buy the company's shares back increasing the value of those remaining. All outcomes are tangible in some form. 

Sub division of a coin into smaller and smaller units is a wealth illussion. As there's no limits. 

fwor

darren232002 said:

I note no anti-Bitcoiner has made any further attempt to make statements regarding what would change their mind on Bitcoin.

It's funny what people write without appearing to realise what they are saying.

In effect what you're saying here is "if you can't tell me why I am right and you are wrong then your arguments are invalid".

And I don't accept your attempt to divide the world of investors into "Bitcoiners" and "anti-Bitcoiners". I've never put any of my money into Bitcoin, but that doesn't make me "anti-Bitcoin". The nature of Bitcoin (intangible, with a value that is entirely speculative) means that it doesn't meet my investment objectives - it's nothing more than that to me.

User232002

Thrugelmir said:

The BOE some time ago said that a base rate of 3.5% ~ 4.5%  would be regarded as a more normal range. Would allow them flexibility and maneuverability when reacting to economic events. 

Bitcoin lacks stability that's the problem with companies having it on their balance sheets. Share prices would gyrate wildly. 

I'll take the under.

Stability will decrease as Bitcoin matures. It won't be like this forever. Share prices wouldn't be affected if companies kept modest amounts of reserves in BTC. Tesla volatility isn't to do with the BTC they have on their balance sheet - that factor is dwarfed by others.

Thrugelmir said:

darren232002 said:

Frequentlyhere said:

@fwor is right, @Dalby84UK

The other thing you're missing is that even if it can't always keep up with inflation, cash does have a yield, whilst Bitcoin does not. That graph doesn't take into account that no-one (ok very few) keeps their cash under their mattress for decades - it goes to work, invested at banks and in investments.

If you put cash in to an investment that pays dividends or grows in value, the yield comes from the investment - not the cash. To say otherwise is to double count the yield.

The underlying investment needs to make a profit. By doing so it generates cash. The cash can be used to grow the business organically, buy another business , simply sits on the balance sheet (i.e. APPLE ~ though this is much to do with tax planning) or is used to buy the company's shares back increasing the value of those remaining. All outcomes are tangible in some form. 

Sub division of a coin into smaller and smaller units is a wealth illussion. As there's no limits. 

No idea what your point is here and think you've misunderstood the point I was replying to.

Another poster was asserting that using cash to buy a stock meant this cash had a yield. If you do this and the stock goes up 5%, the stock has a yield (either via a dividend or any of the methods outlined). But you can't say that the cash has a yield of 5% AND the stock has a yield of 5% because you aren't making 10% on the initial capital.

As to the latter bit, again no idea of the relevance here especially when I've argued precisely that before when I pointed out that cutting a pizza in to more slices doesn't create more pizza. Its lozzy who seems to think that sub dividing Bitcoin is akin to inflation; which is clearly nonsense.

mooneysaver

Google will have to hold some btc on their balance sheet eventually.  I expect it to hit 6 figures quite easily this year.  Potential blow of top in September a lot higher from here if bitcoin follows its behaviour from the previous 4 year cycles.

Zola.

On the subject of pizza 

https://twitter.com/BitcoinMagazine/status/1528361110486794241?t=MhQ8YisD_wHiWDHruA79fQ&s=19

HCIMbtw

Frequentlyhere said:

Yes, indeed - "yield".  Terra/Luna investors were getting 20% "yield" too.

The thing is, if there was a risk-adjusted solid yield available on these things, then it would be instantly arbed away by huge global finance houses on the lookout for high yield in a (still, fairly) low yield world. 

I accept that it is nominaly possible to 'earn' with coins, but that money is either at best is coming from marketing departments looking to build popularity of a project, or at worst is the fun half of a ponzi scheme where there's not actually enough money coming out at the back end.

Q. Banks generate interest (yield) on currency? how is it possible for banks to do this if not their marketing teams or a ponzi?

A. Because DeFi platforms like CeFi (banks) are actually businesses that loan and offer products, invest money and generate an income, they can use to offer customer benefits on holding assets with them, giving them liquidity and helping them maintain/grow business 

Q. Why can people earn higher yields on assets like BTC? 

A. We'll if you remove the cost of regulation, the overheads of operating offices and a wealth of physical infrastructure you have then you have much better parity between rates of income and return to customers.. 

I'm not saying DeFi is all reputable, it's a minefield and a loads of risks, and yes loads of trashy alt coins with huge amounts of inflation that generate tokens out of thin air to support huge 'yields', but it seems pretty logical to me that DeFi returns can beat CeFi 

HCIMbtw

mooneysaver said:

Google will have to hold some btc on their balance sheet eventually.  I expect it to hit 6 figures quite easily this year.  Potential blow of top in September a lot higher from here if bitcoin follows its behaviour from the previous 4 year cycles.

Very different from my expectations.. I'm expecting us to track sideways for another few weeks, run a bull trap up to mid/higher 30s, then a bigger retraction down to $22-24k.. a lot more sideways for a couple of months, Expect September to be about the end of the bottom dwelling and start of gradual return to more consistent recovery 

I'm still DCA'ing though

Thrugelmir

mooneysaver said:

Google will have to hold some btc on their balance sheet eventually.  I expect it to hit 6 figures quite easily this year.  Potential blow of top in September a lot higher from here if bitcoin follows its behaviour from the previous 4 year cycles.

Companies aren't in the business of currency speculation. Shareholders would become extremely uneasy. As adds another layer of risk. 

Malthusian

Poor old Laszlo Henyecz. Why dump on him every May? Wouldn't it be more instructive to focus on the guy who bought his 10,000 Bitcoins and now has a hundred-million-dollar fortune?

Oh wait, he cashed in years ago as well, and is now living a modest life as a software developer. Like almost everyone else who bought or mined Bitcoins in the experimental and Silk Road stages. 10,000%+ returns lol.

darren232002 said: I note no anti-Bitcoiner has made any further attempt to make statements regarding what would change their mind on Bitcoin.

Anyone specific you had in mind? I didn't answer that question because it didn't apply to me. You addressed that question to people who believed 1) that Bitcoin is a "Ponzi" and a "scam" 2) that the current dump represents the end of it. Those two beliefs would only apply to someone with little interest in Bitcoin, few of whom will be reading p218 of a Bitcoin thread.

Cash has essentially no yield right now - Money is basically free because it can be printed on a whim which is why banks are paying 0.1% interest.

Not how interest rates work. Governments were perfectly capable of printing money in 1980 when savings accounts paid 10%pa.

Non-best-buy savings accounts pay 0.1% because that is the going rate for lending someone a stable currency, repayable on demand, backed by an industry insurance scheme and ultimately by the taxpayer, for people who don't bother moving their moeny around.

Even if we accept this to be true (I don't, but just for the sake of argument), Bitcoin is still a good bet. People under 40 invest in crypto in equal proportion to those who invest in the stock market. Boomers and older generations own less crypto and more traditional investments. As the wealth from boomers is inherited by millennials, its going to find its way in to crypto ;which is essentially a two decade re-balancing of where wealth is held by humanity.

And millennials keep asking why they are skint and why the boomers have all the money.

As you say, eventually the milennials will inherit real assets from their boomer grandparents and the satoshi will drop one way or another. After the Genexers have had their share.

A generation uninterested in Bitcoin transferring wealth to the generation that is interested in Bitcoin is not a great thing for hodlers. If more millennials get rich thanks to inheritance bailing them out, this reduces the potential market of people buying Bitcoin in the hope of getting rich.

But a fairly significant percentage of businesses don't pay out dividends. Which by the logic espoused in this thread must make them ponzi's.

The words Freq used were "businesses that make profit that can be paid as dividends". All businesses make profits or they (eventually) go bust. Dividends are of increasingly little importance in the modern financial system, and consist simply of a business moving some money you already own from an account you already own into a different bank account you already own. It's profits that matter.

A diversified investment into businesses that make profit is a positive sum game because of those profits. An investment into a computer token in the hope of selling it for more than you paid later is a zero sum game.

Gary1984

Adyinvestment said:

My mate paid for my fish and chips a couple of weeks ago with Bitcoin, I would say that was a pretty normal transaction.

The instability of the Bitcoin value is irrelevant for the retailers (in fact they would not even know Bitcoin was used) as the retailer will always get the fiat amount they are due.

Ah, so your pal converted some bitcoin to Sterling and paid for it with that?

I could probably buy a meal in a restaurant in most countries in the world with my Nationwide debit card. Doesn't mean they've all started accepting Sterling.