I apologize in advance for this wall of text lol.
This price would be if adopted worldwide? I mean, if it was used as a real currency?
Yes to the first question, no to the second. The paper details what the 'adoption' means.
It's hard to say how niche or how widely adopted bitcoin will be one day though. If only 1% of the population owned some bitcoins we'd see a massive price increase. We're not even remotely close to that though. I guess we'll never know how many people actually use bitcoin.
You should read the paper, it btfo's what you just said.
BTC isn't going to be the entire M2 or M3 monetary supply, of course.
...
Yea, the first table shows M0 adoption at 1% still putting it at $22,035.93 USD.
There`s no such thing as "true" value.
...
We can`t decide wether bitcoin is overvalued or undervalued.
Some people say it`s overvalued and we are at the end of the bubble. How can you convince them that btc is undervalued?
I said the value is objective and non-arbitrary, a positive claim, with sourced justification and you simply say, "nah" as if that invalidates my claims? Okay bud, read the paper again.
I think you are both wrong.
Probably.
... The problem is, there is no algorithm for this, and its difficult to calculate a fair value for assets like stocks, so it’s even more difficult to calculate for bitcoin, if it is possible at all.
However, in focusing on current price because he is talking about true value if something happens in the future (% of global adoption), and we don’t know for sure if that will happen.
Are you sure there's no algorithm? The one I laid out seems pretty good, and if not, explain why with justification please.
Are you sure we don't know that this will happen in the /future/? That seems like an odd claim considering the 1% adoption has /already/ occurred in the way the paper describes.
one thing is for sure, there is no right or wrong when you are talking about bitcoin's value. the only thing that we can all agree on is that bitcoin is undervalued but there is no real possible way of telling "by how much". what OP is saying here is pretty interesting in my opinion, and I have seen some more like this and sometimes they try to use models that are not so compatible with bitcoin and when you add the unpredictable nature of adoption to the equation everything becomes a guesswork.
Why can't we tell by how much? What is wrong with my model? If we can agree it's undervalued, what standard are we using for that agreement; surely this standard can be used (at least in part) to determine the true value based on Bitcoin's ties to use/function in the real world, no? The future is unpredictable, sure, and the /real/ floating price may never even come close to matching it's objective price tied to it's use in the world, but I don't see why it's /true/ or /use/ value is all guesswork.
For me there is no such thing as undervaluation of the currency. She always has a real price. This price may vary depending on various reasons but there will always be real. ...
Okay, but I'm not talking about the real floating price, I'm explicating valuations based on the technology's current /use/. Surely you can see this as a useful metric in itself, no?
Do you know how crazy it is to say that bitcoin is going to be worth $6,7 million dollars? It is insane, and that is a lot of money. Those who are holding more than 100 bitcoins would have money that they are not even going to be able to count it.
...
Even $50k is a huge amount of money, but that is a realistic price, not an imaginary price like six millions.
I agree, that is way too much money to jump to right now, the system would break if it shot up to that level over night. However, people like Voorhees and Antonopoulos have said that if Bitcoin becomes globally recognized as a currency, or even adopted as a reserve currency, the planet would see its first trillionaires. I don't think this notion should be dismissed entirely.
TL;DR: None of these are valid counterpoints or objections to the model, fight me lol.