I do appreciate the excellent rpitelia's work and his insightful take on risk management of his position.
But as AnthonyMint points a constant slope is very unlikely.
There are different phases that have to depend on media coverage. We just got a major rally in prices which is attracting a whole new target of speculators, including myself.
So, considering that, the optimal smart's money scenario is a strong pump and dump that inflates a bubble from these levels (from 800 to 1800) and a symmetric crash after. Than we can reenter the old trendline after neutralizing this new dumb money possible play.
the slope is not constant, but the AVERAGE is.
or at least it has been since the last 4 years, and it's likely to continue so for the next couple of months/years.
I want to clarify that I did not say a constant slope is very unlikely. I don't know if it is likely or not. Can anyone suggest a past case that is similar to Bitcoin with good pricing data we can analyze?
I do want to take issue with the notion that the average has been constant the last 4 years. You can put a line there and say it is, but that is arbitrary. I can look at the same chart and see two different slopes.
We don't know yet which interpretation is the correct one.
how can it be the same average slope given:
1 much more media coverage?
2 different scale of possible speculators coming in?
if, in a logistic framework, we assume that average slope is given by the doubling of market participants every 3 months or so. How can they not TRIPLE given this different environment?
we just experienced a sudden, enormous, enlargement of the participants base. We'd better check the media coverage on a logaritmic scale to understand if the environment really changed.
The fact that the price is increasing by a factor of 10 every year or so, means #1 and #2 should be happening. So we would need to actually quantify that the increases are moving faster than the recent slope of the period of the 10X (is there a word for 10X period, as we have "doubling" period for 2X?).
Since I can't quantify that, I have instead used the demographics to argue my side. I argue that the early stage and late stage will non-professional investors which pile in without raking and other measures to prevent a bubble. Whereas the middle stage was likely institutional and professional investors coming in, who are very experienced at trying to sell and buy at a lower price.
