Topic: Bitcoin Volatility trends are mostly down since 2010. (Read 1617 times)
yes
Wasn't the price of 1btc actually a very stable growth till about sometime around the middle of last year when the price just skyrocket? Seems like the price has been more volatile in the last 6-8 months then ever before. I might be wrong though
Only if you ignore the summer of 2011.
2011 was nothing compared to what it did last year only about 4 months ago
If you look at it in terms of dollars the price moved, yes the price of 1 BTC has grown by a lot more dollars lately. But if you look at it in percentage terms, 2011 moved much quicker. $0.1-$32 only took only 9 months. If we started back at the $65 low that this rally to $1240 began at, 320x would be $20,800.
Good point, that is true
Volatility is also tied to uncertainty. When one country will treat bitcoin as something that is going to stay and we would be 100% sure no one will change his mind meantime, we would have much more stable market. But I doubt it will happen with bitcoin because sooner or later countries will try to limit its uses when they see that they own currencies are not used any more. Still I hope there will be enough politicians who could support bitcoin anyway before that happens.
Wasn't the price of 1btc actually a very stable growth till about sometime around the middle of last year when the price just skyrocket? Seems like the price has been more volatile in the last 6-8 months then ever before. I might be wrong though
Only if you ignore the summer of 2011.
2011 was nothing compared to what it did last year only about 4 months ago
If you look at it in terms of dollars the price moved, yes the price of 1 BTC has grown by a lot more dollars lately. But if you look at it in percentage terms, 2011 moved much quicker. $0.1-$32 only took only 9 months. If we started back at the $65 low that this rally to $1240 began at, 320x would be $20,800.
Volatility was low immediately preceding the GFC.
A higher price pretty much means more stability. If every coin cost a penny and only 12 million coins are in the wild you could buy the entire supply for a mere 120k . It's harder for people to influence the price the higher it is.
Since trading began in 2010, the trend for BTC volatility appears to be downward: http://www.coinometrics.com/bitcoin/bvix.
This is strong evidence that as adoption increases, bitcoin will become less volatile.
This is strong evidence that as adoption increases, bitcoin will become less volatile.
is the timeframe long enough, and the error on the slope of the line small enough, that this evidence is even significant?
When I ran the numbers through R, the trend was statistically significant.
Wasn't the price of 1btc actually a very stable growth till about sometime around the middle of last year when the price just skyrocket? Seems like the price has been more volatile in the last 6-8 months then ever before. I might be wrong though
Only if you ignore the summer of 2011.
2011 was nothing compared to what it did last year only about 4 months ago
You can clearly see that Spring/Summer 2011 had the greatest level of volatility. I doubt we ever reach that level again.
Wasn't the price of 1btc actually a very stable growth till about sometime around the middle of last year when the price just skyrocket? Seems like the price has been more volatile in the last 6-8 months then ever before. I might be wrong though
Only if you ignore the summer of 2011.
2011 was nothing compared to what it did last year only about 4 months ago
Wasn't the price of 1btc actually a very stable growth till about sometime around the middle of last year when the price just skyrocket? Seems like the price has been more volatile in the last 6-8 months then ever before. I might be wrong though
Only if you ignore the summer of 2011.
Wasn't the price of 1btc actually a very stable growth till about sometime around the middle of last year when the price just skyrocket? Seems like the price has been more volatile in the last 6-8 months then ever before. I might be wrong though
Since trading began in 2010, the trend for BTC volatility appears to be downward: http://www.coinometrics.com/bitcoin/bvix.
This is strong evidence that as adoption increases, bitcoin will become less volatile.
This is strong evidence that as adoption increases, bitcoin will become less volatile.
Yep, surprising that most people (well, journalists anyway) ignore that obvious fact; I guess that is because they look at absolute numbers, "oh look bitcoin crashed $300" while it's actually a 20% move. Another metric which is somewhat related is how much value, in percents, is lost from local maximum to the following local minimum, it progressed like this: 93% (end of 2011) -> 80% (apr 2013) -> 64% (dec 2013, assuming it is over) so extrapolating (I know, I know, but three points is already something) -> 50% somewhere in 2014, and stability should arrive in 2017, which I also think would be around the year of worldwide adoption (unless it crashes to zero, then not).
Yet another reason that we need mBTC as a default. Nobody would bat an eye at a 30 cent crash.
Since there is no governing body, default is whatever majority uses. So the only way to have it, is to use it. I however withhold because I think mBTC notation is cumbersome, generally bad for mass comprehension, and would result in even harder transition to the next floating point (to uBTC). When something better comes up, I'll start using that.
I still think we need to come up with a good name for 100 satoshis, set this as a base unit, and start using this unit forever together with satoshis. At the moment, 1$ buys you about 1000 of these units, which makes prices more or less manageable already.
Since trading began in 2010, the trend for BTC volatility appears to be downward: http://www.coinometrics.com/bitcoin/bvix.
This is strong evidence that as adoption increases, bitcoin will become less volatile.
This is strong evidence that as adoption increases, bitcoin will become less volatile.
Yep, surprising that most people (well, journalists anyway) ignore that obvious fact; I guess that is because they look at absolute numbers, "oh look bitcoin crashed $300" while it's actually a 20% move. Another metric which is somewhat related is how much value, in percents, is lost from local maximum to the following local minimum, it progressed like this: 93% (end of 2011) -> 80% (apr 2013) -> 64% (dec 2013, assuming it is over) so extrapolating (I know, I know, but three points is already something) -> 50% somewhere in 2014, and stability should arrive in 2017, which I also think would be around the year of worldwide adoption (unless it crashes to zero, then not).
Yet another reason that we need mBTC as a default. Nobody would bat an eye at a 30 cent crash.
Since trading began in 2010, the trend for BTC volatility appears to be downward: http://www.coinometrics.com/bitcoin/bvix.
This is strong evidence that as adoption increases, bitcoin will become less volatile.
This is strong evidence that as adoption increases, bitcoin will become less volatile.
Yep, surprising that most people (well, journalists anyway) ignore that obvious fact; I guess that is because they look at absolute numbers, "oh look bitcoin crashed $300" while it's actually a 20% move. Another metric which is somewhat related is how much value, in percents, is lost from local maximum to the following local minimum, it progressed like this: 93% (end of 2011) -> 80% (apr 2013) -> 64% (dec 2013, assuming it is over) so extrapolating (I know, I know, but three points is already something) -> 50% somewhere in 2014, and stability should arrive in 2017, which I also think would be around the year of worldwide adoption (unless it crashes to zero, then not).
With the increased "market cap", adoption and also the very significant positive market sentiment, volatility is noticeably on the wane in my opinion. Time for analysts to re-calibrate their methods.
Since trading began in 2010, the trend for BTC volatility appears to be downward: http://www.coinometrics.com/bitcoin/bvix.
This is strong evidence that as adoption increases, bitcoin will become less volatile.
This is strong evidence that as adoption increases, bitcoin will become less volatile.
is the timeframe long enough, and the error on the slope of the line small enough, that this evidence is even significant?
Since trading began in 2010, the trend for BTC volatility appears to be downward: http://www.coinometrics.com/bitcoin/bvix.
but very slowly
Since trading began in 2010, the trend for BTC volatility appears to be downward: http://www.coinometrics.com/bitcoin/bvix.
This is strong evidence that as adoption increases, bitcoin will become less volatile.
This is strong evidence that as adoption increases, bitcoin will become less volatile.
Jump to: