Price = Slope x (10 ^ Time) = 10 ^ (Slope ^ -10) x (10 ^ Time) = 10 ^ ((Slope ^ -10) x Time)
So if we plot Price(log10) = log10(Slope x (10 ^ Time)) = Slope x Time
In other words, the scaling of time by Slope is a constant factor. Meaning roughly capital coming in (and shrinkage of ask liquidity) was increasing at 10 times per constant period.
Thus the initial 12 - 18 month phase was linear in log10 yet with a greater constant slope, thus the capital was still coming in was increasing at 10 times per constant period, yet the rate of capital ingress per unit time was faster.
The second 12 - 18 month phase was also linear in log10 yet with a lower constant slope, thus the capital was still coming in was increasing at 10 times per constant period, yet the rate of capital ingress per unit time was slower.
I tried to fit in many kinds of trendlines but all ended up surprisingly close to the one whose growth coefficient k ~ 23%/month.
I don't know what will happen.
But why do you assume the entire life of Bitcoin has to follow one slope?
Everyone loses money in a bubble (if they sell below the price they purchased). What prevents a second bubble?
The reason for the first bubble is easy to understand. These were tech savvy non-professional traders. Since then the institutional money and professional traders have been moving in. After that comes the second group of non-professional traders-- masses.
I think one could make the argument that Bitcoin is not quite ready for the masses to come in and we are still basing with institutional money coming in. In that case, return to trendline or below is even more likely. The institutional money would try to push it down to get in at a lower price, as I argue that Baidu did recently. If a sufficiently powerful entity decides they want to buy at a lower price, then they can possibly arrange some misinterpreted regulatory news to push the price (as we saw with the recent China news which was actually legalizing Bitcoin yet was misunderstood). I can't know this, but I do see the large China pump & dump & repurchase is probably done.
This is textbook bubble.
Which model?
Do you have evidence that the slope of the curve doesn't vary during a mania? I am searching for this data now, but the problem is this price data on the tulip mania is insufficient and the south seas mania was a step function because price was driven by 4 non-continuous financings.
So Bitcoin will be the first global mania that we have really good price data.
I think this is not necessary. Let's see the gamble that I am doing now (selling half and waiting for buyback). It consists of 2 scenarios one of which will happen:
- I will get to buy back double the sold amount, which will increase my stash by 50%, and then bitcoin likely goes to the moon
- I will never get to buy back, so I have the millions, the trendline buyback price rises, and my stash is permanently 50% smaller BUT this can only happen in connection with the event that Bitcoin goes to the moon.
Then it goes to < 1% of the moon peak price, but I assume you don't agree that Bitcoin is a bubble. Thus you would discount entirely this possibility. So the danger of hanging on for the moon price is that you likely lose everything, since the waterfall crash side of the peak is very difficult to get out of both psychologically and also dearth of liquidity.
Thus the way to make money on Bitcoin is to sell well before the moon price. Thus maximizing the number of coins invested is the way to maximize gains.
The chance of Bitcoin failing right now is basically 0. Even if there was a technical problem (well there are actually), they will be hidden under the rug at this point. There is too much professional money at stake, any and everything will be done to keep this bubble alive at this nascent stage.
Besides one shouldn't have even half of their networth in Bitcoin.
Or you lose nearly all.