pull down to refresh

The logic is water-tight:
A bitcoin is worth what the next person will pay for it. The same can be said of lots of assets, of course, though many of those will also pay their holders a yield or offer some other utility, like keeping out the rain or looking nice when hung on a wall.
...or gold, or real estate for investment purposes, or the vast number of securities that don't pay a yield... and really, what's the difference between trusting that someone else will pay more for it and trusting that someone else will flow the "yield"?
As always, the goose meme applies:
NEXT, get ready for "the perspective of a stubborn nocoiner, though, and what do we know?" Nice to have to disclaimer up front.

"Citigroup analysts Alex Saunders and Nathaniel Rupert have a new report out on how to value digital tokens. The crux of their analysis is that the price of bitcoin is dependent on how many people want to own bitcoin:"

Very correct, very trivial. And yes, I think price has a high likelihood of being in that range
The main change in this update is an assumption that crypto bitcoin's getting too big for anyone to ignore.
Some S2F rah-rah:
Stock-to-flow for bitcoin looks nice because it gives incremental gains all the way to the moon infinity, but only an idiot would ever consider that a useful forecast.
(...or not; the midwit meme is strong with this one.)
what justifies the $135k base case? It’s ETFs, mostly. People are buying bitcoin ETFs and ETF issuers are buying bitcoin, causing the bitcoin price to go up, which encourages people to buy bitcoin ETFs.
Citi doesn’t mention treasury companies and corporates, which are warehousing another 4 per cent or thereabouts of bitcoin’s fully diluted supply in addition to the nearly 6.8 per cent in ETFs. Neither does it mention that retail speculation is largely through exchanges and via derivatives, not on-chain, so won’t show up in active addresses.
Not sure what the point of the article was, really. "Bitcoin" SEO trends well among FT readers, I suppose...?

Not sure what the point of the article was, really. "Bitcoin" SEO trends well among FT readers, I suppose...?
Not sure what the point of the article was, really. "Keynesian economics" SEO trends well among SN readers, I suppose...?
(it does, I click on most of your posts~~)
reply
Bc of my fancy, wacky titles or because it's my beautiful "den" pen name?
reply
All of the above, and more~~
But yeah, it's good to know where we're at in terms of the main stream takes on Bitcoin. You cater to this need by posting these commentaries.
reply
Bitcoin is indeed priceless. Here's the reality:
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @OT 6h
Sounds like an expert.
reply
stackers have outlawed this. turn on wild west mode in your /settings to see outlawed content.