[edited out]
OK, let’s simplify the question. As smart as you are, would you say that the S2F Model would never be invalidated in the next 50 years, and that we should still take it seriously? Yes, or no? It doesn’t require a long post from you.
I am having some troubles recognizing and appreciating why such a question might matter?
Because many people believe the model is based on Science, and the model doesn’t, or cannot, account for Black Swans and Human Behavior.
Your question had focused on way the fuck out there considerations of 50 years into the future.. why do we need to consider our own expectations about what various now existing BTC price prediction models might still be working so far out?
yeah, if we have a model (or models) currently that is applicable, we apply that model as far out as we reasonably can, but the closer the timeline of 4-10 years should be more important and relevant in terms of motivating our plannings, strategizing and actions.. and sure there are potentially extreme events that could happen that either change any model's trajectory, predictive powers or invalidate the model, but still should not justify throwing our hands up in the air with a sense of futility.
Seems to me that we should be attempting to use the best tools that are in front of us instead of proclaiming them all to be potentially invalid 50 years into the future and then making up our own models that are not tethered to anything.
So, yeah, if we are using any model, and facts are changing in such a way that had not been anticipated by the model whether it is in the near-term or further out in the model's life then we either tweak the model as we go or throw it out and substitute with a better model(s) if such better model(s) then exist.
Sure it could be the case that we have some fairly convincing BTC price prediction models in place, and then some actual events put their validity and applicability into question, and then when end up invalidating our previous models (that we thought were going to be good and sufficient) potentially we could then end up being stuck with much inferior models.. and surely that is not the case currently.
Right now, we have some pretty damned good models and stock to flow is amongst the best of the models in my opinion so long as it is coupled with the four-year fractal and exponential s-curve adoption based on network effects and Metcalfe principles... and sure I am not even going to deny that there are some other minority factors that could also be brought into considering such BTC price dynamic expectations such as momentum, various changes in sentiment, and attempts at predicting black swans or accounting for various macro-governmental factors, but surely from my perspective those various other factors are likely a lot of noise as compared with: 1) stock to flow 2) four-year fractal and 3) exponential s-curve adoption based on network effects and Metcalfe principles.
[edited out]
Are you debating that it would OK for PlanB to move the goal posts everytime the model is in danger to be invalidated?
I doubt that I am debating.
It seems that I said that if there are changes in the data and perhaps changes in the logic then the model might need to adapt to the new data and logic.
I believe then it shouldn’t be called a “Model”, which some known Bitcoiners have started not to take it seriosuly.
Yes.. there are a lot of people who seem to easily get distracted, including yourself if you are buying into such nonsense.
Of course, you can give the model whatever weight you believe including completely discounting it (seemingly prematurely).... but do what you like.. and rely on whatever other voo doo baloney that you believe to be better indicators/descriptors regarding where we are, how we got here and where we might be going. You might end up guessing correctly... good luck with that.
So what is your deal right now, Wind_FURY? Are you trying to figure out if we have dipped enough? or are you going to go back to recommending that folks stop buying bitcoin when they may well be served by continuing to DCA into bitcoin, especially if they do not really have a lot of confidence which way BTC prices might be going in the short term, but they have a long enough timeline that they are investing 4-10 years or more.
Do I, as a pleb, have no right to question the “S2F Model” because it might offend some people?
You can do what you like, and you can say what you like, and if you say stuff that seems to be untethered to reality, then you should expect that some people are going to question what you are saying.
Frequently, you yourself seem to be mischaracterizing even what the stock to flow model is saying and then you seem to persist with your mischaracterization and makes it appear that you are being purposeful in your own delusions.. so yeah do what you like, but sometimes it comes off as a wee bit disingenuous.
For example, if the model is anticipating a $100k average price for the 4 years after the halvening, and we are nearly two years into the halvening but the average might ONLY be $40k-ish, so either the model is under performing or it is invalid.. and sure there are guys like you who seem to want to say that the model is completely full of shit merely because it is underperforming some specific targets or even the mean of where it should be and also make some other claims about the model having no value, and seem to be even making misstatements about the level of certainty that the model is propounding.
Yeah.. maybe the model is wrong.. but still we are less than 2 years into this halvening period.. so there is another two years to see how the whole 4 year period after the halvening plays out and to verify if the model ends up underperforming.. and if so whether such underperformance is enough to invalidate the model or would it be better to tweak the model.. to account for the underperformance.. maybe even shift the curve downward if that might help to make the data more in line and which could even cause some need to adjust the theory and the math that is involved..
You seem to believe that tweaking the model in order to account for data, including if the curves of the model or the math might end up getting changed would be cheating.. which seems to be a lack of understanding regarding how good faith efforts are made when attempting to analyze these kinds of matters.. Even if models are tweaked, they can also be reviewed for their earlier iterations and how they might have gotten changed over the years and whether those changes might end up having had been substantially and meaningfully changing the model in such a way that is not "true science" in the event we are striving for "true science" and sure, there could be differences in opinions about methodologies or all kinds of ways to criticize how much weight to give to any model including ones that you might propose to be better models... or if you believe that the amount of tweaking of any model is substantially changing its original vision to cause such model to be "unscientific," so therefor you prefer to find some better model to help you to make better projections about how the BTC is likely to perform into the future.
Should we merely accept it as “truth”, or be in silence if the “Model” is actually invalidated?
No one is saying that. If you are making a variety of valid criticisms, then that could be helpful.
If you are devolving into your own absolutism interpretations, then that could end up coming off as misleading, when you merely proclaim that other people believe the model is broken, and some of those folks seem to be mixing up stock to flow and the floor model.. which are two different models and of course, the floor model had been shown to be quite wrong regarding November and December numbers of $98k and $135k respectively, especially since PlanB pronounced such specific floor number expectation numbers that quite largely underperformed his assertions.. as we know the actual BTC price at the end of November and the end of December was in the ballpark of $57k and $48k respectively.
In the end, everyone is free to decide how much weight to give to any model (if any), and surely each of us may well decide aspects of our own BTC investment strategies based on these kinds of factors. Seems to me that anyone who overly assigns specifics is setting themselves up for failures in various ways.. so if any of us are prepared for a variety of scenarios, we can also assign weight to a variety of models that we consider to be valid without expecting even that the models might require some kind of specific performance into the future that may or may not end up happening... and I have difficulties understanding how any BTC price performance model would have been wrong regarding specifics, if in September 2020 we had been prepared for either BTC prices to go down or to go UP, so our preparation for UP would have been a good thing because we would have gotten something like a 6.5x to 6.9x appreciation in the value of our BTC holdings - even though some folks might proclaim that they are depressed because right now we are only about 4.2x to 4.4x positive, when they thought that we would have been more than 10x positive by now... and I would blame people for putting themselves into too high of expectations rather than blaming the model.. but hey, Wind_FURY... you do you.. if you want to whine and complain that the model mislead you regarding your level of richie.. then that seems to be on you (and people with seemingly similar sentiments) more than anything.
By the way, I am personally prepared for BTC prices that could end this cycle within this calendar year as high as supra $1.5 million** .. so I am psychologically and financially prepared for such an outrageous price performance to happen.. while at the same time I am prepared for the bottom to go down to the 208-week moving average which is currently around $19k, and sometimes the BTC price will dip below the 208-week moving average for even as long as a few weeks.
**If you want, you can look at my as of December 16 projection of BTC price probabilities and my expectations of the 208-week moving average trajectory, including number of coins to reach entry-level fuck you status.I feel that I am financially and psychologically prepared for either extreme, even though I expect actual BTC price performance for this calendar year to play out at various points between the extremes, and surely in my own contemplation of the matter, the BTC price points that end up getting hit between the extremes that could end up happening are not assigned equal probabilities of happening, even though in the end, when we get through this whole calendar year, a certain set of events will have happened, even though at this particular time, a variety of scenarios are projected with varying probability levels... only one scenario will end up playing out and that is currently unknown but based on a whole bunch of probabilities of various events and factors. Some events/factors are known, unknown and unknowable unknowns.. but by the end of the calendar year, they will all become known, and the past will be in place, and we will just be in a similar place as we are now in terms of attempting to assign new probabilities to the next calendar year (to the extent any of it matters in terms of tweaking our own planning and carrying out of strategies).
). Essentially they are polarizing the world where one side is the US and the other side is everyone else.
