One BTC is like one gold bar, as another reader pointed out, not a share in a company, and most of the “gold” has been mined, so yes, stop mining and trade the gold. But it’s hard to make jewelry out of BTC, so one BTC is more like one of a limited edition of a famous artists print. The value is what the buyers and sellers agree on. And mostly the wealthy are bidding. Not a one-of-a-kind like a Rembrandt, but not an infinite supply either. Maybe it’s like a rare coin that they only minted a certain number of. As a reserve currency/asset there is no better design, but adoption is the problem. Miners are not profitable until BTC is actually adopted beyond an investment/speculation fad. BTC needs a very high price for mining to make sense. And without miners, there is no network, and no BTC… but BTC is designed so that anyone can run a node on a small computer and capture the transaction fees and use BTC as a form of payment. But for that to make sense, BTC needs to be used as a currency.
At 1:34 AM on Christmas morning, while markets were closed, six of the most powerful figures in global finance held an emergency conference call. Their goal? To stop Silver from crossing the one price level that would trigger a systemic collapse: $75.
In this video, I expose the leaked details of that secret meeting. I break down the exact mechanism the banks are using to "suffocate" the price, why the "Midnight Attack" to $70.16 failed, and why the physical shortage in Shanghai is about to break their paper ceiling.
In this video, you will discover:
The 1:34 AM Call: Who was on the line and the "Gentleman's Agreement" they signed.
The $75 Kill Switch: Why 41,000 call options force the banks to defend this line with their lives.
The "Failed Assassination": How they tried to crash silver to $70 on Christmas Eve—and why it failed.
The Prisoner's Dilemma: Why JP Morgan and HSBC will eventually turn on each other.
I would suggest that the “coins” are equivalent to the gold bars produced by gold miners, not the shares of gold miners… neither the “coins” nor the gold bars represent an ownership claim on the residual cash flows of the miners that produced them.
You're right that coins aren't shares in a traditional sense. But they're the only thing that exists to value. No separate equity. The coins have to serve both roles.
That's the thought experiment. Treat the product as shares because there's nothing else, then see what traditional metrics tell you.
Why pay $1 for the digital equivalent of a fart in the wind?
I have yet to see one rational argument for why humanity needs Bitcoin. And nobody can even explain what it is. Except lines of code that are simultaneously public and private (maybe they should call it Schrödinger coin?), and which can be hacked, stolen, monitored, tracked, frozen and now, from what I understand, taxed. But not used in jewelry, electronics and medical devices, or religious items, or as foil for decorating fancy foods. Nor does it serve as a reference for value (I mean, good as Bitcorn? No, not the same as “good as gold”!)
Thanks for presenting the argument that, using traditional metrics, it’s a losing proposition in other ways, too.
Best article ever on the BTC hype. Explains everything starkly & clearly. Thank you. I've been dumping my BTC ever since it dropped south of $120K. Maybe it might even hit $0 one day. Who knows?
I'd like to spend/buy/trade whatever, on BTC, but all my cash is tied up in Tulip Bulbs. Bitcoin has a meretricious quality that is ALMOST irresistible yet...I'm managing to resist. Maybe AI can make BTC more attractive.
One BTC is like one gold bar, as another reader pointed out, not a share in a company, and most of the “gold” has been mined, so yes, stop mining and trade the gold. But it’s hard to make jewelry out of BTC, so one BTC is more like one of a limited edition of a famous artists print. The value is what the buyers and sellers agree on. And mostly the wealthy are bidding. Not a one-of-a-kind like a Rembrandt, but not an infinite supply either. Maybe it’s like a rare coin that they only minted a certain number of. As a reserve currency/asset there is no better design, but adoption is the problem. Miners are not profitable until BTC is actually adopted beyond an investment/speculation fad. BTC needs a very high price for mining to make sense. And without miners, there is no network, and no BTC… but BTC is designed so that anyone can run a node on a small computer and capture the transaction fees and use BTC as a form of payment. But for that to make sense, BTC needs to be used as a currency.
High praise for these breakdowns you provide. Sanity, precision and quality delivery in a manic world. Killer take.
Money never sleeps.
Something's going on in the silver market.
At 1:34 AM on Christmas morning, while markets were closed, six of the most powerful figures in global finance held an emergency conference call. Their goal? To stop Silver from crossing the one price level that would trigger a systemic collapse: $75.
In this video, I expose the leaked details of that secret meeting. I break down the exact mechanism the banks are using to "suffocate" the price, why the "Midnight Attack" to $70.16 failed, and why the physical shortage in Shanghai is about to break their paper ceiling.
In this video, you will discover:
The 1:34 AM Call: Who was on the line and the "Gentleman's Agreement" they signed.
The $75 Kill Switch: Why 41,000 call options force the banks to defend this line with their lives.
The "Failed Assassination": How they tried to crash silver to $70 on Christmas Eve—and why it failed.
The Prisoner's Dilemma: Why JP Morgan and HSBC will eventually turn on each other.
https://youtu.be/iUKf5Nh9WcA?t=2
The deal was made. They agreed on $75. But you cannot manipulate geology forever.
I love the smell of AI-generated videos in the morning.
1:34 is a permutation of pi 3.14.
I would suggest that the “coins” are equivalent to the gold bars produced by gold miners, not the shares of gold miners… neither the “coins” nor the gold bars represent an ownership claim on the residual cash flows of the miners that produced them.
You're right that coins aren't shares in a traditional sense. But they're the only thing that exists to value. No separate equity. The coins have to serve both roles.
That's the thought experiment. Treat the product as shares because there's nothing else, then see what traditional metrics tell you.
Yes this is much better. The premise of the article is faulty I think.
Why pay $1 for the digital equivalent of a fart in the wind?
I have yet to see one rational argument for why humanity needs Bitcoin. And nobody can even explain what it is. Except lines of code that are simultaneously public and private (maybe they should call it Schrödinger coin?), and which can be hacked, stolen, monitored, tracked, frozen and now, from what I understand, taxed. But not used in jewelry, electronics and medical devices, or religious items, or as foil for decorating fancy foods. Nor does it serve as a reference for value (I mean, good as Bitcorn? No, not the same as “good as gold”!)
Thanks for presenting the argument that, using traditional metrics, it’s a losing proposition in other ways, too.
For the explanation: https://no01.substack.com/p/crypto-explained-simply (and yes, I know you know what it is and it was more the question "why is it useful")
I don't even paper trade it anymore.
Best article ever on the BTC hype. Explains everything starkly & clearly. Thank you. I've been dumping my BTC ever since it dropped south of $120K. Maybe it might even hit $0 one day. Who knows?
Brilliant forensic work relating to Bitcon.
I'd like to spend/buy/trade whatever, on BTC, but all my cash is tied up in Tulip Bulbs. Bitcoin has a meretricious quality that is ALMOST irresistible yet...I'm managing to resist. Maybe AI can make BTC more attractive.