Topic: All of the World’s Money and Markets in One Visualization (Read 238 times)

That is still possible, but the question is when it will happen. If Bitcoin's market capitalization reaches $ 19 trillion, it means it will double the golden capitalization, and the whole market capitalization will to 50-60 trillion dollars, nearly equal to the stock market. It was a distant dream but nothing was impossible for Bitcoin. But I'm afraid we will not live until then to witness that anymore .

first of all thanks for the info and I just checked the crypto market cap at a peak worth 2.82 trillion   well there is time crypto beat apple   but this still can be achievement.

1 million per coin   I hope I'm still alive to see that.

Anyway, its a little bit out of topic but I saw this



Military Spending its around $2.1 Trillion in 2021 alone  

"The U.N. World Food Programme feeds over 100 million people facing severe hunger in more than 120 countries and territories every year. In 2021, we did this with a budget of $9.6 billion dollars, which was still $5.2 billion dollars short of our total funding requirements. Clearly, ending world hunger will require more money.

Back in July of 2021, U.N. World Food Programme Executive Director David Beasley told us it would take an estimated $40 billion each year to end world hunger by 2030. " - https://www.wfpusa.org/articles/how-much-would-it-cost-to-end-world-hunger/

so basically we can end world hunger if we allocate military spending to this  

I agree, never put all your eggs in the same basket - but diversification is only smart if you understand what you are investing in, and not to distribute your capital in such a way that you invest in 10 different things, of which maybe 50% don't make much sense. Until now, I have not had the opportunity to invest in government bonds because that option did not exist, but considering that I come from a highly corrupt country where the former prime minister is in prison, and the current one is up to his neck in affairs with all his ministers, then you can understand me that I would rather invest 500 € in toilet paper than in their bond

Ha, I get where you're coming from, I had the same mindset not that long ago. But then reality kicks you in the head when you realise you're already overexposed to Bitcoin and face the dilemma of whether to further increase that exposure by putting in money you can't really afford to lose.
I figured it's best to play it safe for now and see how the situation pans out in the near future. There are no safe options that allow you to beat inflation, but accepting a small loss in value seems more sensible than going all-in and hoping for the best.
It's a cliche but diversifying is the key.

I'm trying not to influence anyone (especially beginners), so I didn't want to explicitly write "Bitcoin" - but in the context of the bonds I mentioned and the period we're in when it comes to Bitcoin, I believe it will far exceed the previously mentioned 3% (or even a little more) in the next two years. Of course, I am concluding this or rather speculating based on the fact that I have been familiar with how things work for a long time and I hope that the next halving will have a similar effect as the previous ones, and accordingly I expect at least x5 on the current price at the next ATH.

Of course, risk is always present, but no matter how safe an investment is, no one can persuade me to lend money to someone and be happy that they will pay me back in 2 years with an interest rate of 3% - and we have already mentioned that inflation will undoubtedly void any profit.

Depends on the terms of an early redemption I guess. Many bonds would allow you to do that but you'd either lose accrued interest or have to pay some sort of fee that would reduce the interest you earned, but you would unlikely end up losing money (in nominal terms) unless you decide to redeem in the first few months.


Out of curiosity, can you name a few of such? I don't think pointing investments "likely" to yield 6%-15%/year is as easy as it seems at first.
If you have a family or other financial responsibilities, or if you just like to 'play it safe' with your finance - you probably won't go 100% on those investments anyway, as the risk is just too high. Again, we are in quite an unprecedented period, where anything could happen (markets wise). People are jumping on those bonds (or other forms of sub-inflation rate deposits) as simply there are no better, safe options.
Even seasoned investors like to sit on some cash during market downtrends or recession, waiting for good buying opportunities, and if you could park that cash somewhere that yields an interest (provided you have quick access to it) - that's even better.

There is logic in what you say, especially if interest rates on time deposits in banks are between 0.5 and 1%, so that 3% (or even a little more) does not look so bad. However, when you look at the minimum investment which is 500 EUR, and after 2 years you will get about 530 EUR + if you need the money before the bond's maturity, there is a high probability that you will get less money than you invested.

It is far from the fact that I will advise someone what to do with their money, but I know that I would rather invest in something else that can very likely bring me a profit of at least x2 or x5 in the same period, regardless of the risk that always exists.

Tangible currency is ignoring most of the worlds currency should be qualified as debt not an asset.  The note is not a fixed exchangeable worth but a note of promised debt in potential worth with no fixed value.    Just USA alone has more then double in exchanged dollar debt then what is shown here as the worlds tangible currency worth.
  This is equal to judging an iceberg by the part you can see, its not how it works the vast inertia to world markets is driven by bonds far more then the more visible and talked about shares.  Its been like this a long time and more then ever we are a debt driven world economy.   Not everyone is equal, some barely pay any interest and others are asked to pay 20% in interest for what they promised even secured debt can be that way.
  I cannot really answer the BTC question when the view is so misshapen but BTC will likely be used more in future then now so the value will be higher.  Against that value will be lost from debt driven assets that fail to repay value, if I own 1tn of debt and it repays a tenth of that the world  is going to change in its verdict on the worth of alot of things.  I think the next ten years will  see commodities of all kinds valued more highly and BTC is going to be one of those imo, there cannot be a singular change only multiple adjustments for and against various performing or non performing assets.

That's a good question. In my personal opinion, stablecoins that are meant to be 100% backed by cash/treasury deposits should not be included in the total crypto market cap, as they're essentially just a token representation of fiat currency. I would make an exception for projects like dai, which is designed to keep its value at par with USD but is not necessarily backed by it.

By the same logic, WBTC (Wraped Bitcoin) also shouldn't be counted. The same goes for any other "wraps" that are just representations of other coins on different chains.

I wouldn't mind if CMC/CoinGecko or others worked out an "adjusted" market cap to weed out any fiat, wraps, or derivatives.


In uncertain times, when the global recession is expected, 3% on cash, even if below the inflation rate, is still a sensible choice for someone who does not want to take high investment risk.

Of course it is possible, to the same extent as it would be possible if Mr. Mars contacted me and offered me a golden ticket for a trip to his dearest planet

Joking aside, we shouldn't be fooled by the fact that anything other than fully centralized crypto projects can get global political support - and the average person already today has a hard time understanding the difference between Bitcoin or CBDC and will always choose something backed by the state rather than something like Bitcoin.

Here, as an example, I will state that for the first time in history, my country is issuing state bonds, the purchase of which ordinary citizens will be able to participate, and the interest rate is about 3% with a maturity of 2 years. I don't have to tell you that the interest is significant and that it might not be enough for everyone, but to people it seems like a smart investment.

You seem to be assuming here that "store of value" and "investments" are somehow mutually exclusive. They're not. It's estimated that about half of the demand for gold comes from investments (I think it's more as a lot of "jewellery" demand would also overlap into this category). That's x7.6 more than entire crypto market.
Big money don't tend to be chasing risky >x100 opportunities, and greedy kids throwing their lunch money into get-rich-quick projects will not take crypto market into the next level.
So it's not about having a cake and eating it, but just shifting from one type of investment into other, which will have to happen eventually if bitcoin carries on. And there's nothing wrong about that.


Yeah, that's why I said "if" and "if you don't have to". If you're at the stage of your life that you need to cash out, than you will cash out. But what's next? You will carry on working and accumulating wealth that has to be stored somewhere. If you look at the wealth distribution, people's investments grow as they age (no surprise here), so why would they switch from holding an investment that appreciates in value (be it BTC or anything else) to depreciating cash?
Thinking that cashing everything out is somehow a way to stop worrying and the only way to "have fun" is flawed. Cash is just as investment as anything else.


I'm not saying it'll be easy for Bitcoin at all. I'm just pointing out that there are still opportunities and rationale for further growth. But anything is possible, it could get replaced by Dogecoin for what we know

Should the value of backed stablecoins count as value of cryptocurrency or as value of US dollar? Or as no value at all? Because we just take billions of US dollars out of circulation in their cash/bank form and put them into crypto form. But no new wealth was created, unlike with Bitcoin. That's over 20% of crypto market cap we are talking about.

It's indeed a big drop and it wasn't acceptable but what can we do? The worse has already happened but instead of focusing too much on the negatives, why can we just focus on the positive instead? It was still not the end because as we can see it is still recovering.

A drop in market cap means a drop in the price and this means people can invest more. We are not in the beginning anymore because like I said earlier, we are now recovering but if you mean the age of the market then it wasn't really new. Bitcoin the first crypto started in 2009. If fiat continues to inflate then I think it will affect BTC in a negative way because it's now difficult for them to invest here.

Really sad to see that the cryptocurrency market fell from 2.8 trillion to only 760 billion!!! This is a really big drop!! But it is within acceptable limits so far and is continuously recovering.

This market has experienced many mishaps that led to its market value dropping in such a way, but we are still in the beginning, this market is only a little more than ten years old, so if we look at the matter from this angle, we will see that what we have achieved during this period is something important.

With the continued inflation in fiat, it will not be difficult for bitcoin to reach a million dollars, but the purchasing power at that time will be parallel to the price of bitcoin at 70-100k$ at most. This is why many people have come to view bitcoin like gold as a safe haven against inflation.

That's the problem, you can't have the cake and eat it at the same time, it will either become more and more a store of value and by this becoming less interesting as an investment or continue growing while not so much of a transaction and storing of wealth thing and more like speculation. So the problem is where the change will happen and at what prices, if an equilibrium is to happen sooner rather than later then the path to 1 million is going to be a pain.


People dumped it at 60k, they dumped it at 50k and they dumped it at 40k, it's easy to say hold forever but you have to consider other facts, like the one that people age, so if you're in your 30s and you want to start a family would sell now for a profit to buy a home or spend the next decade living with your parents and planning to have kids when you're in your 80s when you're a millionaire? Some look at it and see 200x profits already, and they ask themselves, should I wait for another 5 years to double the money or should I simply stop worrying now while I don't have to spend money on blue pills to have fun? Not everyone is a long-term holder, if that would have been the case, how do you explain the drop from 65k to 16k?
Each person has his own plans, his own goals and so on, that's why we will keep seeing people liquidating their coins and not buying back every single day.

Again, it's possible, I would never write it off as that would just be stupid, but it's not as simple as it you make it look.

Obviously, we're talking about the actual value that $1mil has today. Assuming things will stay roughly the same, $1m in nominal value is just a matter of time.

Few things to consider:
1 - wealth (including bitcoin) tends to get concentrated in the hands of a few, rather than getting equally distributed. This will accelerate even more when regulated institutions get a green light to include BTC on their balance sheets. If BTC proves to consistently appreciate in value over time, it's unlikely that any of the big holders would decide to dump it all at once. That means less and less bitcoins are on the markets available for sale, so you pumping its value becomes progressively easier.
2 - new people are born every day, so it's not like the retail market will get saturated and the logic "whoever was interested in Bitcoin has already bought in" is flawed.
3 - lots of bitcoins are being lost forever (people lose their keys or die without passing them to others etc) and fewer bitcoins are being mined with each halving.
4 - people who bought in are unlikely to sell it all when the price goes up, but rather just a portion of it, so they can enjoy the immediate benefits but still have skin in the game in case it goes further up. If Bitcoin proves reliable in appreciating in value, why exchange it for depreciating fiat if you don't have to?


That's true, but if public perception of Bitcoin shifts from "get rich quick" to something more of a "store of value+" that would be a good thing in the long run. Plus, I don't imagine that hotheads gambling on coins going >x10 overnight are as significant to the market as they used to be.
Bitcoin has the potential of stealing (some of) gold's lunch as well as replace cash if we are to move to a cashless society. Will there be enough for $1 mil per coin? I don't know. But the opportunities are still there.

Are there any debt charts? The debt and real estate market is much more than all existing money and gold, as the market capacity for its words is less than 20 trillion, real assets and debt market is much higher.

This percentage is bad because it means that in the market that is supposed to be decentralized, there are 18% in stable central currencies, 9% in a stable company currency.

The collapse of these three sectors leads to direct losses of 27%, and indirect losses that are more than that, meaning that the central market is becoming more influential.


Edit/ here we are

"If you dreamed of making the white picket fence a reality, a new house would've cost approximately $6,296"
"A fresh set of wheels varies depending on the make and model, but a Chevrolet in the 1920s cost $525"
https://www.countryliving.com/life/g33398396/what-things-cost-100-years-ago/

Would you say in 1920, that your house value will pump to 200 000$ from 6300$?
Would you say in 1920, that to own new Chevrolet right from factory you have to have 100 times more "money" (60 000$).

Is 19.3 trillion doable? If history is about to repeat itself (dollar will lose >97% of purchasing power in 100 years) than after 100 years we will hit this number and bitcoin wont even pump. It will only remain current purchasing power (~30 000$).

Inflation adjusted $1 million or $1 million no matter what that 1 million would buy?
The first is really hard to achieve, the second is more achievable.

The problem is where are all those money going to come from since a lot will either sell for $ or for goods and other assets so you simply have to insert a matching number value back into the system just to keep the price, and if we look short term, so that's two halvings you would still need to cover up $250 million in newly issued coins each day only to keep the balance.

Second is what users will perceive bitcoin at that time, it's easy now to get investors on board, the price is 20k , it was 3x times not so long ago so 10x returns sound plausible to a lot of people, but when the price would be half of the target, like $500k, do you think there would be that many with hopes of another 10x in another halving.?
That's the reason why some go into shitcoins, because they know over a short span there is no way for BTC to match some of the shitcoins growth that can spring 20x in a month, of course, followed by a return to zero and dust. But that's the thing, a lot throw money at start-ups because they think it can give them a solid return, not that many go for old reliable companies that have a solid business model but which can't double their profits overnight.

One of these became popular during the 2017 bull run and bitcoin took up one square on its own iirc and that was it (I think each square was $200bn). A lot has changed since then.

I didn't think a single company would break the valuation of $2tr for quire a while and then apple was worth $3tr (not sure if that happened before or after I thought it). I also thought a lot of markets were beginning to stop growing a few years before they did (about 3) so there was a bigger rise than I speculated for. Even with all this, I didn't think a $6tr market cap for crypto or bitcoin was far reaching, particularly over a larger timeframe of 4 or so years. At the time this was equivelant to the majority of the UK's property market and the market cap of gold (both have risen quite a lot since too).