Topic: CNBC: "Bitcoin is the new safe-haven asset" (Read 2314 times)
This might be true. It is proved that in a long-term period investors may enjoy huge amounts of profits as ROI is over 100% these years. Even now that it is 8k and not 20k as it was in December 2017, it is still a good profit for anyone that bought some BTC.
I've been hearing this more and more from mainstream media sources... maybe they're trying to turn people away from gold/franc/yen? Gold especially has always been a thorn in the back of central banks because it doesn't allow them as much freedom to manipulate their currency and devalue it. People from Eastern countries know very well that gold is the most secure way to protect themselves from a rainy day, and it is a large part of their tradition to buy up gold and resell it several years later to buy something big like a car or a house.
This is why bitcoin is being ascribed similar features. People are turning to it to protect themselves from global risks, like trade wars. If China and the US go into a full out trade war, you'll see a lot of damage on the stock markets and the currencies. Investors will want to protect themselves, naturally.
This is why bitcoin is being ascribed similar features. People are turning to it to protect themselves from global risks, like trade wars. If China and the US go into a full out trade war, you'll see a lot of damage on the stock markets and the currencies. Investors will want to protect themselves, naturally.
Media has got the potential to turn anything positive as well the same on the negative manner. Such a news rolling out of an international media makes it a truth to the people who were in dilemma to make an investment into bitcoin. Users who have been into it as well benefited through it already know this fact.
I would agree to it as a new safe-have asset because bitcoin is more compared into gold where the prices per ounce right now is USD $1,229.30(price at the time of writing) at the same time bitcoin right now is USD $8,321.36 at coinmarketcap right now. Compared to gold bitcoin is much more accessible as you would only need internet to get is as opposed to gold where you can only get in into banks.
Ah, I see. Troll someone else
This is the essence of your whole "prove that $1,200 price spike was artificial" thing. No one is going to prove anything to you, since this is not what you actually want. All you want is to show your fake superiority...
But it seems that in this case you failed miserably
The market is stronger today.
it is bitcoin is safe heaven asset but at the same time we should understand Satoshi started bitcoin to give back power to people
If the price of bitcoin is stable, it could become a safe-haven asset like gold.
Like gold, cryptocurrencies are not controlled by any central bank or state.
If there is an economic crisis, BTC can effectively reduce people's losses!
Like gold, cryptocurrencies are not controlled by any central bank or state.
If there is an economic crisis, BTC can effectively reduce people's losses!
Let's relaunch this debate, now that Bitcoin has risen to new unexpected highs then fallen; i'm interested in what people will say now.
Yes, I think Bitcoin is a good safe-haven, but not for short term: meaning if you think you will need your money soon, then Bitcoin is not the ideal investment.
Yes, I think Bitcoin is a good safe-haven, but not for short term: meaning if you think you will need your money soon, then Bitcoin is not the ideal investment.
"safe haven" but look at the bitfinex fiasco right now. yes I believe in bitcoin but in its current state some people might find this hard to believe
I would like to agree to this CNBC news that bitcoin is the new safe-haven asset. Maybe because it is safe to send it and receive it plus hassle free transactions. You just need to know the btc address and then you can pay him or you can buy through btc. You do not need to handover the money physically or to go to atm. Or you need not to log in to your savings account online that most of the times can be hacked. So maybe that is the reason why they said it is the new safe haven asset. No one can snatch or grab or steal your money.
Ah, I see. Troll someone else
This is the essence of your whole "prove that $1,200 price spike was artificial" thing. No one is going to prove anything to you, since this is not what you actually want. All you want is to show your fake superiority...
But it seems that in this case you failed miserably
Trying to talk up the value of Bitcoin is one thing, actually investing money is another.
The amount of profit that you make is restricted by the amount of money you are actually willing to invest in Bitcoin.
Ah, I see. Troll someone else
This is the essence of your whole "prove that $1,200 price spike was artificial" thing. No one is going to prove anything to you, since this is not what you actually want. All you want is to show your fake superiority...
But it seems that in this case you failed miserably
That good to get positive publicity. The price may be a little volatile right now but it's staying strongly above $500 during this stretch so I see that as a positive also.
Good post OP.
But, what is the possibility of Bitcoins to see a high price rise due to this?
There have been many come-and-go, many popped up and said such things, but nothing changed.
But I agree, that the statement is correct.
But, what is the possibility of Bitcoins to see a high price rise due to this?
There have been many come-and-go, many popped up and said such things, but nothing changed.
But I agree, that the statement is correct.
You don't want to prove a statement of fact? That you said? I see. Move along, nothing to see here
Ah, I see. Troll someone else
This is the essence of your whole "prove that $1,200 price spike was artificial" thing. No one is going to prove anything to you, since this is not what you actually want. All you want is to show your fake superiority...
But it seems that in this case you failed miserably
Ah, I see. Troll someone else
I demonstrated that in the first place by using the expression "nominal difference", it was you that didn't understand what was going on, lol
If you really knew that, you wouldn't call two values with a 40% difference "very similar". Further, nominal difference usually means very small, negligible difference, that is, existing in name only. Surely not what you pretend it to mean now. But don't say that English is not your mother tongue, lol...
And you didn't mean what the phrase actually means
I demonstrated that in the first place by using the expression "nominal difference", it was you that didn't understand what was going on, lol
Right. Well, you still haven't substantiated your claim that the $1200 spike was artificial. You can't understand basic statisics written as English sentences either. And you haven't managed to use semantic sleight of hand to attack my maths either, so I don't know where to go with you. Suffice to say: "nowhere" is the only realistic option
At least now you know that there is such thing as percentage points, and it is not the same thing as just percentages
Right. Well, you still haven't substantiated your claim that the $1200 spike was artificial. You can't understand basic statisics written as English sentences either. And you haven't managed to use semantic sleight of hand to attack my maths either, so I don't know where to go with you. Suffice to say: "nowhere" is the only realistic option
Now. I'm comparing one percentage figure with another, for the prupose of comparing the proportions. Not for comparing the percentage differences between the changes themselves
I don't understand what you are talking about. I just see that you are by any means trying to look convincing when in fact you just shitted your pants...
That's the only conclusion that I can draw
So your "nominal difference" (lol) of 15% actually amounts to real difference of 40%, okay then. Now tell me that you are not distorting the facts. Besides, I also remember that you were saying something about "very similar values"...
Take a look at your linked wiki article on Percentage Points. The purpose of using percentage points is to compare the proportion of changes in two different sets of statistical records.
Now, this is very simple, follow closely:
1200 - 200 = 1000
1000/1200 = 0.83 recurring 3 (I worked out ~75% in my head, and I so don't care about having mental arithmetic that's so inaccurate)
266 - 100 = 166
166/266 = 0.624 3 d.p.
I'm sure you can do the multiply by 100 part with your own mental arithmetic skills, lol
Now. I'm comparing one percentage figure with another, for the prupose of comparing the proportions. Not for comparing the percentage differences between the changes themselves. If you really want to carry on arguing, you're either an appalling dogmatist or a terrible troll. Don't care which it is tbh
This is a prime example of the controlled media secretly working to promote Bitcoin!
...LOL?
There of been other examples in the past, and a positive media cycle often happens shortly before a huge Bullish move.
Check out the USA Today logo with a Bitcoin inside:
Why are they hyping BTC so much?
Er, no. The nominal difference between 60% and 85% is now, always has been, and always will be 15%. That's what I said, because reality says the same thing, and no amount of arguing is going to change that
Hey, have you finished school? If you subtract two percentages the result is always in percentage points
The difference between 20 percent and 30 percent is 10 percentage points, not 10 percent.
That's what nominal difference means. Except I managed to sum it up in a two-word expression, whereas you managed to clunk it out of 15 word sentence.
So your "nominal difference" (lol) of 15% actually amounts to real difference of 40%, okay then. Now tell me that you are not distorting the facts. Besides, I also remember that you were saying something about "very similar values"...
Does the 40% difference pass as a "very similar value"? Is $500 very similar to $700?
Er, no. The nominal difference between 60% and 85% is now, always has been, and always will be 15%. That's what I said, because reality says the same thing, and no amount of arguing is going to change that
Hey, have you finished school? If you subtract two percentages the result is always in percentage points
The difference between 20 percent and 30 percent is 10 percentage points, not 10 percent.
That's what nominal difference means. Except I managed to sum it up in a two-word expression, whereas you managed to clunk it out of 15 word sentence.
And the 85% mistake was a typo. Ever noticed how close together the "7" key and the "8" key are on your keyboard?
Seriously, it's easier just to say "I was wrong". That's what I do, when I get things wrong.
Arguing whether that ATH price spike was a genuine event caused by amazing coincidences first and then hype later or it was manipulated only by Mt.Gox trading bot is not gonna change anything here.
After all we are discussing statement that Bitcoin is the new safe-have asset, so far people are more convinced that it is not due to its incredible price fluctuation.
I would like to hear an official comment from that expert with explanation on what he based this observation tho.
After all we are discussing statement that Bitcoin is the new safe-have asset, so far people are more convinced that it is not due to its incredible price fluctuation.
I would like to hear an official comment from that expert with explanation on what he based this observation tho.
Er, no. The nominal difference between 60% and 85% is now, always has been, and always will be 15%. That's what I said, because reality says the same thing, and no amount of arguing is going to change that
Hey, have you finished school? If you subtract two percentages the result is always in percentage points
Quote
The difference between 20 percent and 30 percent is 10 percentage points, not 10 percent. In fact, an increase from 20 to 30 percent is an increase of 50 percent. Only if, for example, 20 percent of buyers choose a certain company's products in one year and 22 percent do so the next year, can one speak of an increase of 10 percent
And I am not even mentioning that just the difference between 85 and 60 is equal to 25, not 15 (percentage points or whatever). Go back to school, vires in numeris
Er, no. The nominal difference between 60% and 75% is now, always has been, and always will be 15%. That's what I said, because reality says the same thing, and no amount of arguing is going to change that
Everything you've said does not prove that the $1200 spike was artificial. What I said demonstrates that the magnitudinal changes were very similar. What exactly is it that you are trying to argue about now?
Further, your "nominal disparity" of ~15% would actually be equal to 25 though not percentages but percentage points. You may not see (or understand) the difference between the two, but if you convert 25 percentage points into actual percentages, you will get a real disparity of more than 40%. Not something that you can easily sneeze at, or get away with, and I was just following your own logic. Still going to insist that these "magnitudinal changes" are very similar?
It seems that I'm doing much better than you so far, lol
That's why I used the word "nominal". Have you proved that the $1200 spike was artificial yet? No?
Thereby you essentially admit that you are deliberately distorting facts so that they better suit your point
The title of the article should be :"Bitcoin is the new safe-haven asset?"
With such a high volatility, bitcoin is still far from being the "safe-haven". At the moment, many investors will still turn to gold during economy uncertainty. The risk bitcoin carries is still too high.
Best advice is still "to invest what you can afford to loss"!
With such a high volatility, bitcoin is still far from being the "safe-haven". At the moment, many investors will still turn to gold during economy uncertainty. The risk bitcoin carries is still too high.
Best advice is still "to invest what you can afford to loss"!
Everything you've said does not prove that the $1200 spike was artificial. What I said demonstrates that the magnitudinal changes were very similar. What exactly is it that you are trying to argue about now?
Further, your "nominal disparity" of ~15% would actually be equal to 25 though not percentages but percentage points. You may not see (or understand) the difference between the two, but if you convert 25 percentage points into actual percentages, you will get a real disparity of more than 40%. Not something that you can easily sneeze at, or get away with, and I was just following your own logic. Still going to insist that these "magnitudinal changes" are very similar?
It seems that I'm doing much better than you so far, lol
That's why I used the word "nominal". Have you proved that the $1200 spike was artificial yet? No?
Everything you've said does not prove that the $1200 spike was artificial. What I said demonstrates that the magnitudinal changes were very similar. What exactly is it that you are trying to argue about now?
Further, your "nominal disparity" of ~15% would actually be equal to 25 though not percentages but percentage points. You may not see (or understand) the difference between the two, but if you convert 25 percentage points into actual percentages, you will get a real disparity of more than 40%. Not something that you can easily sneeze at, or get away with, and I was just following your own logic. Still going to insist that these "magnitudinal changes" are very similar?
It seems that I'm doing much better than you so far. Your strength is surely not in numbers, lol
Everything you've said does not prove that the $1200 spike was artificial. What I said demonstrates that the magnitudinal changes were very similar. What exactly is it that you are trying to argue about now?
And the drop from $1,200 to $200 is not quite like ~75%. It is more like 6 times (though only an 85% nominal drop). You should take $200 as the base for calculating percentages (i.e. from where the price started to hike). In any case, fiddling with percentages doesn't smell well since that's what you are trying to do now...
Namely, the price spike from $200 up to $1,200 equals 500% growth while the drop back to the same $200 is only 85% decrease
Namely, the price spike from $200 up to $1,200 equals 500% growth while the drop back to the same $200 is only 85% decrease
So, why wasn't the 2013 $266 ATH "conspicuously artificial"? What was the big difference between 2013 spike and 2014 spike? It's "none", isn't it?
because we didn't go below $200 after the spike that had started in November 2013?
BTC/USD went below $100 subsequent to the April 2013 spike, which is ~60% drop. The drop from $1200 to $200 was more like a ~75% drop. I really don't think that a ~15% nominal disparity between those proportionate drops indicates anything with any certainty at all.
You're doing the same thing I do all the time: saying things without checking the facts separately. I get it right 9 times out of 10. You can do better.
You seem to be stretching out "the facts" to fit your point. I think that I've said it perfectly clear and unambiguous that I don't know whether that April 2013 spike was artificial or not. It may well be, but as I said, I don't know, so I can't possibly come to any decisive conclusion. Nevertheless, I have to repeat that the period of almost 3 years during which the price didn't fall below $200 seems to be long enough to argue that the price of $200 is "natural" (as far as it is possible for Bitcoin at all). And that the growth up to that figure was not artificial...
That's the point which you seem to have deliberately shrunk from addressing
So, why wasn't the 2013 $266 ATH "conspicuously artificial"? What was the big difference between 2013 spike and 2014 spike? It's "none", isn't it?
because we didn't go below $200 after the spike that had started in November 2013?
BTC/USD actually went below $100 ($70 was the bottom) subsequent to the April 2013 spike, which is ~60% drop. The drop from $1200 to $200 was more like a ~75% drop. I really don't think that a ~15% nominal disparity between those proportionate drops indicates anything with any certainty at all.
You're doing the same thing I do all the time: saying things without checking the facts separately. I get it right 9 times out of 10. You can do better.
So, why wasn't the 2013 $266 ATH "conspicuously artificial"? What was the big difference between 2013 spike and 2014 spike? It's "none", isn't it?
I pretty much don't know since I wasn't there yet (when Bitcoin, as you say, hit $266 ATH in early 2013), but maybe because we didn't go below $200 after the spike that had started in November 2013 (and which was later attributed to Willy the bot)?
I guess 3 years is enough to make such an inference (that it was mostly "natural"), no?
So, why wasn't the 2013 $266 ATH "conspicuously artificial"? What was the big difference between 2013 spike and 2014 spike? It's "none", isn't it?
Keep in mind that the last time we hit $1000 it was completely artificial,Pumped up by the will bot or whatever you call it.
Why do you or anyone else actually believe that story? Because of the evidence provided?
The stories about trading bots at Gox were exactly that: stories. There was no attributable source: it was simply a claim, repeated multiple times in news pieces about the Gox fiasco. There exists nothing to prove the veracity of the stories, and should be treated in turn with due diligence.
Well, it may turn out just a story or an urban legend in the end, but there is hardly any doubt about the nature of that price spike from rags to riches. I mean that it was conspicuously artificial and ended badly...
For those who got stuck with bitcoins bought at prices anywhere above $300
Keep in mind that the last time we hit $1000 it was completely artificial,Pumped up by the will bot or whatever you call it.
Why do you or anyone else actually believe that story? Because of the evidence provided?
The stories about trading bots at Gox were exactly that: stories. There was no attributable source: it was simply a claim, repeated multiple times in news pieces about the Gox fiasco. There exists nothing to prove the veracity of the stories, and should be treated in turn with due diligence.
What if this expert knows something that we don't know? He pointed some risks to the security of the bitcoin's network, but in end he believe that he also said how community is working to solve some of the problems
We might not know that he went all in and bought bitcoins at $750 with his retirement money
Keep in mind that the last time we hit $1000 it was completely artificial,Pumped up by the will bot or whatever you call it. Once we reach $1000 with actual natural adoption its a completly different matter and all going well we should be able to hold that price rather than crashing back down to abysmal levels.
What if this expert knows something that we don't know? He pointed some risks to the security of the bitcoin's network, but in end he believe that he also said how community is working to solve some of the problems
We might not know that he went all in and bought bitcoins at $750 with his retirement money
What if this expert knows something that we don't know? He pointed some risks to the security of the bitcoin's network, but in end he believe that he also said how community is working to solve some of the problems
We might not know that he went all in and bought bitcoins at $750 with his retirement money
Let there be a price correction and the same analysts will be singing a different tune.
We are still way to early in the lifecycle of bitcoin, for it to be classified as a safe-haven asset.
We are still way to early in the lifecycle of bitcoin, for it to be classified as a safe-haven asset.
Safe haven. That not only implies it's safe, it means it explicitly. Bitcoin doesn't qualify. Look at what the price action has done in the last couple of days and tell me that's anywhere near safe.
It's safe in the sense that 1 BTC = 1 BTC and you can hold them yourself, unlike the rest of assets where most likely you are just trusting a 3rd party to keep them for you.
Price going up and down is unavoidable due us having a tiny marketcap. Once we are 100k+ per coin with a trillion marketcap the price will be more stable.
The point is, if the stock market is too damn volatile for your liking, there's no way you should consider bitcoin as an alternative.
Bitcoin is a store of value that (in some people's minds) has a negative correlation with the stock market. AKA: stocks go down, bitcoin goes up.
Gold is a great example that everyone seems to use on this forum but there are thousands of other investments that are considered safe-haven investments when there's huge uncertainties within the market. Bonds, T-Bills, GICs, anything that is negatively correlated with the stock market. Bitcoin does make sense. It's definitely not 'safe' but it is somewhere else for people to store value while the stock market plays out it's (negative) volatility.
Gold is a great example that everyone seems to use on this forum but there are thousands of other investments that are considered safe-haven investments when there's huge uncertainties within the market. Bonds, T-Bills, GICs, anything that is negatively correlated with the stock market. Bitcoin does make sense. It's definitely not 'safe' but it is somewhere else for people to store value while the stock market plays out it's (negative) volatility.
Bitcoin was the first rough-draft of crypto currency. Like any initial plan, it has major flaws. I think some forward looking altcoins are the better option for safe haven, looking into the future.
What if this expert knows something that we don't know? He pointed some risks to the security of the bitcoin's network, but in end he believe that he also said how community is working to solve some of the problems.
I think bitcoin is just very sensitive, like we are here. We are jumping on each change. When it raised from 450 to 600 in days everything was nice, when it drop fast its like someone activated alarm. Many people just creating unnecessary chaos.
This is positive thing about btc, people who read about it will see that some expert said something nice about btc. That is all, btc is growing and I`m sure this will happen often in the future.
I think bitcoin is just very sensitive, like we are here. We are jumping on each change. When it raised from 450 to 600 in days everything was nice, when it drop fast its like someone activated alarm. Many people just creating unnecessary chaos.
This is positive thing about btc, people who read about it will see that some expert said something nice about btc. That is all, btc is growing and I`m sure this will happen often in the future.
sounds like a crock of BS. It wasn't very long ago when it was 200~, this uptick may or may not be another cycle.
At least some good news for bitcoin
is that a good or a bad joke? im not so sure of it yet. 
Safe haven. That not only implies it's safe, it means it explicitly. Bitcoin doesn't qualify. Look at what the price action has done in the last couple of days and tell me that's anywhere near safe.
It's safe in the sense that 1 BTC = 1 BTC and you can hold them yourself, unlike the rest of assets where most likely you are just trusting a 3rd party to keep them for you.
Price going up and down is unavoidable due us having a tiny marketcap. Once we are 100k+ per coin with a trillion marketcap the price will be more stable.
Safe haven. That not only implies it's safe, it means it explicitly. Bitcoin doesn't qualify. Look at what the price action has done in the last couple of days and tell me that's anywhere near safe.
Ikr I can't believe an expert would say something like that, there is nothing "safe" about Bitcoin. At least they used "..may be.." in the second heading. But seriously you can't compare Bitcoin to gold. If everything man-made was destroyed gold would still be gold and would still look pretty and still have practical uses. Bitcoin would not even exist.
Not to mention that there are still plenty of challenges that Bitcoin has yet to overcome, any single one of those could potentially get Bitcoin on its knees overnight. Maybe someday Bitcoin might be a safe haven but you'd be crazy to store your wealth in Bitcoin right now.
Safe haven. That not only implies it's safe, it means it explicitly. Bitcoin doesn't qualify. Look at what the price action has done in the last couple of days and tell me that's anywhere near safe.
Finally some journalists are getting closer to the truth... for anybody informed about the Bitcoin system, its safe haven properties are clearly apparent. After all, Bitcoin is highly similar to precious metals, because it has no counterparty risk, can't be easily forged, and has a limited supply. That makes Bitcoin at least equally attractive as a store of value. The relative ease to acquire Bitcoin and its high fungibility could make Bitcoin even more attractive than precious metals in case capital has to be moved quickly to escape expropriation measures.
It is even imaginable that one day, central banks might buy Bitcoin as reserve to stabilize the failing fiat currencies. But before this happens it will already be in widespread use by the population.
ya.ya.yo!
It is even imaginable that one day, central banks might buy Bitcoin as reserve to stabilize the failing fiat currencies. But before this happens it will already be in widespread use by the population.
ya.ya.yo!
I agree on the news, and if people would understand it we can witness a massive adoption in the future. This is safe in my opinion because of the main reason that it is decentralized, the function is not controlled by a specific entity and the good in IT will do every to protect the system from hackers because they have also invested and entrust they coins in blockchain.
Don't know how he speculate this even seeing lots of price volatility in bitcoin price in current stage and before.
Return may be huge with lots of daily and weekly swings but i don't think investing in bitcoin is same like investing in gold as stated there.
Assuming you're using a safe-haven asset as an asset that you go to when everyone else is dumping their money into the same asset, Bitcoin would qualify. Assuming you're trying to treat it like gold where you have an asset that maintains its value constantly, Bitcoin doesn't fall into the same definition. CNBC kind of left their definition ambiguous in this instance, but they aren't necessarily wrong. Return may be huge with lots of daily and weekly swings but i don't think investing in bitcoin is same like investing in gold as stated there.
Don't know how he speculate this even seeing lots of price volatility in bitcoin price in current stage and before.
Return may be huge with lots of daily and weekly swings but i don't think investing in bitcoin is same like investing in gold as stated there.
Return may be huge with lots of daily and weekly swings but i don't think investing in bitcoin is same like investing in gold as stated there.
Jump to: