One of my favorite approaches was attempting to price bitcoin based on its velocity of money.
This assumption falls short since it fails to take into account the symptoms of Gresham's law. In an environment, where bad money is available to conduct economic transactions, the velocity of quality money goes down, since bad money is used as a substitute. Instead quality money is used for savings - thus you have to look at save havens to get a more realistic picture.
Gresham's law would seem to make a velocity-of-money estimate a
low estimate, which is something I would expect in the first place since a lot of BTC trading is speculative.
If I could see a velocity-of-money valuation above $30 or $40/BTC, I would feel much more comfortable maintaining more of my money in bitcoin at prices like $125/BTC.
I'm also curious about a link between gold and bitcoin. Shouldn't their store-of-value properties track against each other in some tangible way - and would relationship allow the store-of-value effect on value to be separated from the medium-of-exchange value?
1.579 / BTC velocity = BTC fair price / ~$125
velocity needs a timescale. Money theory when looking at coexisting money systems can be quite a mess, e.g. you'd need to know the average preferences of economic agents to hold liquidity in different forms and how their cash flow looks like.
I'm not a money theory guy. I wish I had better methods - I'm pretty much in the dark about bitcoin valuation.
I had been thinking about a one-year period, but I suppose the velocity of money for bitcoin has varied enormously over the past year.
The excursion into bitcoin valuation was actually more or less a rhetorical pose to explore your valuation method. As you stated above, you have a sense for risk mitigated investments, so I am asking you directly: Price per share of AM aside, what would be the target ratio in your portfolio for holding mining stocks? (5%,10%,20%,...) Assume that you have insufficient information to evaluate the mining sector.
Ah, well, the zero-information assumption would change everything. Mining is truly an unusual sector because it is dominated by block rewards (completely predictable revenue), and overrun by competition that is the natural product of such low barriers to entry (broad competition makes trends more predictable).
But, assuming a total lack of information, I think that there is little or no need to hedge with mining. Your existing bitcoins won't become devalued if mining succeeds, and that's the argument for owning bitcoins to hedge your dollars.
Unregulated mining stocks are highly risky and highly speculative. So, for someone with low risk appetite, zero percent is fine. For someone with a huge risk appetite and a very bullish outlook on bitcoin, 25% of their bitcoin holdings isn't unreasonable.
The trouble is that the most attractive investment opportunities in mining are not open to the public through the exchanges. For this reason, I've been toying with the idea of opening a bitcoin VC fund operating through the Cayman Islands... it's about time for a legal, publicly traded, BTC-denominated VC fund (which could of course extend far beyond mining, and would serve as a vehicle to advance bitcoin as a whole). The exchanges are a clusterfuck.
If anyone believes they've got an accurate method for finding a velocity of money for bitcoin, please share!
Maybe it would be better to move this to a different thread.
I would be happy to. You are obviously an informed investor and I am at least as interested in your perspective as you are in mine.