TL;DR:I theorize the existence of any collectible market relies on premiums being attached to the commodity upon which they are based. In this case, casascius coins premiums will be measured in terms of BTC, not USD.
...
B)
Joe's adds $1000 for each of his 100 BTC, taking his $100,000 in spot up to a net value of $200,000.
Jane adds $0 for each of her 200 BTC, taking her $200,000 in spot up to a net value of $200,000.
I agree, but don't forget scenario C:
Joe's can add only $500 for each of his 100 BTC, taking his $100,000 in spot up to a net value of $150,000.
Jane adds $0 for each of her 200 BTC, taking her $200,000 in spot up to a net value of $200,000.
The premium is what the market will support, not an arbitrary value set by the seller. If the premium is high at the start, it might fall. This is what happened with Casascius' 1 BTC Silver coins.
I fully agree, odolvlobo. That's why I said:
With the simple example, in B) we see Joe and Jane coming out exactly equal.
Whether in the long run Joe's value comes out ahead of or behind Jane has to do with any change in BTC premiums in the secondary market.
Whether those premiums are higher or lower than the original premiums that Mike offers will be purely driven by whether future investors perceive a greater value.
I was trying to keep the example simple so the post could focus on one point: That those premiums, while potentially higher or lower than initial offering price - are measured and evaluated in terms of BTC, and not USD. Exploring the reasons why those premiums might increase or decrease, while remaining in terms of BTC...I see that as a separate but equally fascinating topic to explore.
