QzF2MSjBFUmw

RGB consensus layer released to production

dr_orlovsky

tech

All About Cashu

unschooled

bitcoin

Is it time to relay even transactions with fee rate lower than 1 sat/vB?

hynek

I like the idea, that is a good way for scaling, we need more granularity for the fee rate.

A website to show Bitcoin prices in different fiat currencies

GxqoRR

Why HODL ? [Cybernetics]

Very good [video](https://youtu.be/-jF9gW2r_bk?si=zOW8F3TyfmMtZdJA) of BrainTruffle on the manipulation of orderbook.
Perfectly complements my post with illustration.

![](https://m.stacker.news/88392)

![](https://m.stacker.news/88393)

Why HODL ?

You can read the article in question here : https://stacker.news/items/953353
This topic can be closed, thx all

This post follows on from my previous topic. https://stacker.news/items/952783
This is my draft article on proving the superiority of HODL with a cybernetic approach.
If you have any other ideas to complete or correct it, don't hesitate.

### Informational advantages

The price on a free market is the synthesis of the sum of economic agents' knowledge concerning the anticipated scarcity ratio between two things. It's a complex, dynamic and antifragile cybernetic phenomenon. It's also rather counter-intuitive: for many, Value is conceptually perceived as linked to the effort required to create the underlying, a quantity of work, or to its utility.
But that's not the case at all: it's supply and demand alone that make the price, with scarcity resulting from the balance of these two forces.

Information of any kind, regardless of its relevance/veracity/probability, is never revealed to every economic player at the same time. Before it can serve as an input for an actor's action, the information has to propagate. There is no advantage to be gained on the market from information that has already been revealed to others, who have at some point had to act and adjust the price accordingly.
It's quite similar to a Cantillon effect, and its consequence is the same: those who are chronologically ahead of the process win.

Everything has been, is being, and will be priced in before you can take advantage of what you think is relevant enough to take advantage of in a market. Unless you're an [Insider](https://youtu.be/KV5QlSgq7lg?si=NVWqSAYq927V0sHF), and probably the only one, others before you will take advantage of their insights. With leverage, it doesn't take many people to take advantage of information and reflect it in the price. This means that, with modern technology, information not only spreads ever more rapidly through the price, but also benefits an ever smaller number of individuals. Polymarket's predictions for the US presidential election are a very good example.

No technical analysis technique offers any lasting informational advantage: the price is already public, and bots will constantly try to take advantage of the slightest statistical or arbitrage imbalance, much faster than any human and without emotion.
No news should motivate a buy or sell order either, because no matter how serious or likely an event is, the news is already in the price. News is never 100% public, there will always be people who know before the majority, and the distribution of information is not homogeneous and instantaneous. The approach of the good family man of the 70s, who read the stock market newspaper and then placed his orders, is obviously no longer feasible. Especially now that [psy-ops](https://youtu.be/wWrsW76bG88?si=44c07Z_Uu_SiD_00) are legion, including financial/economic news, they are manufactured to manipulate you into making the wrong decisions.

### Game Theory and Strategies

If you can manipulate a group of people into believing that they need to buy or sell at certain times, and often sell various training courses or paid access in the process, then yes, it can be strategically profitable to do so. It's immoral, but we shouldn't be surprised that it exists. On the other hand, what can be done is to reveal the rules of the economic game, of the free market, and the interests of each player, so that everyone can understand what the Nash equilibrium is.
This goes beyond simply advising against “Buy green, sell red”.

Trading, in addition to being a basic zero-sum game, is skewed to benefit a minority of insiders who have the informational advantage. Wash Trading, Spoofing, Scam Wick, false price history. Information that can't be verified/proven is a source of manipulation, an additional trap to the detriment of the uninitiated, especially retail investors. To this must be added slippage, the fact that the order book will adapt to your demand. You cannot “extract” value from the order book; an order can only have a positive net conversion cost, not to mention the associated fees. The gain expectancy of trading, as measured in the underlying assets, is **negative** and therefore not a viable long-term strategy, just a sophisticated, sibylline casino. You can't sell the tops to buy the bottoms as if the market were a cornucopia, the [Composite Man](https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Wyckoff) can't be beaten.

What can you do if you don't have private, advance information? What strategy should you adopt if you can't outperform the market? Or manipulate others into trading you an asset at a discount?
A simple position-holding strategy ensures that your underlying assets can't decrease, and that's already a lot. Much better than the [vast majority of traders](https://www.currentmarketvaluation.com/posts/the-data-on-day-trading.php) over the long term. Statistically, it's not 50/50, up and down, it's more like 52/48 and the majority lose by compound interest. The wisdom of DCA without ever selling before Wealth Escape Velocity. This means no training to pay for, no trading effort to make, no fear of News that doesn't change the fundamentals justifying the choice of its store of value.

Bitcoin further encourages this strategy with its inelastic deflationary production and finite total quantity of coins, as well as its blockchain where the history of each transaction and the distribution of coins can be seen. It pushes every individual to these conclusions.
Whether by logic or empiricism, we see that coins naturally end up in the hands of entities that don't sell, the famous strong hands that HODL. The entirety of BTC becomes increasingly illiquid over time, as the liquid quantity of coins, i.e. those currently traded, diminishes over time.
As time passes, the strength of Bitcoin holders' hands increases, becoming insensitive to any negative information, to FUD, as the flow of liquidity causes a natural selection to the detriment of the weak ones.
This on-chain analysis by [Glassnode](https://insights.glassnode.com/time-is-money-how-coin-age-shapes-bitcoins-spending-patterns/) helps us to understand this movement of structural immobility and reveals the Power-Law that links holding time with the probability of immobility.

Advantage in a market can only come from the possession of secret information, be it raw data or the fruit of your fundamental analyses, the complex result of putting it into perspective with other information and its consequences.
If we add to this Gresham's Law, why bad money chases good money, we'll better understand why it makes sense to accumulate the hardest reserve of value possible at the expense of the softest, and why Bitcoin is a [black hole](https://youtu.be/QhpyJSHx8LI?si=9lI-o-OtV7Hjlit3) in cyberspace that can only get bigger as it absorbs all the monetary premiums hidden in other assets and consumer goods.
This, therefore, is the final strategy of the economic game: to hold BTC as tightly as possible.
Real smart money accumulates BTC for eternity.
The HODL meme is even more cryptic and abstruse than it first appears.


Yeah that exactly my point, in fact is even before spread and fees, because structurally you cannot outperform the market without "secret" useful knowledges.
I will post my draft of the post, he's got a cybernetic approach, maybe he'll clarify what I'm asking to improve it.

Thx Darth.
But the point I'm trying to make is the strategic inferiority of trading. Because even among people who like bitcoin, I too often read things like “I'm going to sell the top to buy the bottom, and double my BTC”.
It's more this fallacious idea that I want to demonstrate is impossible.

The idea is more to prove/demonstrate that trading do not increase on the long run the quantity of the asset, what ever the asset is.
I don't say that empiricism is not useful, but that should be a statistic analysis, not an anecdote.

Hello everyone,

I'm currently writing an article on why trading makes you lose in the long term, and in particular why HODL is the best strategy. It's an asset-agnostic observation, although it's all even more true with Bitcoin.
The objective is to have a synthetic text to demonstrate what the Nash equilibrium is, because all too often we hear outside the BTC-Maxi sphere that trading is used, including on large timeframes.

But I'd love to hear other ideas to complete it. So my question to you is:
What are the reasons that justify, for you, avoiding trading, and why holding a position (HODL Bitcoin) is strategically optimum?

Ideas, deduction, articles, datas, I take it all.
Thank you

Meme Monday - Best Bitcoin Meme Gets 10,000 Sats

Meme Monday- Best Meme gets 10k sats

grayruby

charts_and_numbers

GM
I have reproduced the PLT of Giovanni : https://dune.com/qzf2msjbfumw/analysis-of-power-law-theory

I give his model little predictive power for the $ price, but I find scale invariance interesting and relevant to follow, for example for adoption or the “price” of PoW.
If you have any additional chart ideas, I'd be glad to hear from you.

Note: the retrieval of the number of active addresses through time is not exact, but the invariance seems respected.