Pages:
Author

Topic: Stock-to-Flow Model: Modeling Bitcoin's Value with Scarcity (Read 5755 times)

legendary
Activity: 3920
Merit: 11299
Self-Custody is a right. Say no to"Non-custodial"
I am resuming this thread as PlanB today tweeted an interesting concept:

Buying the BTC 6 months before the living and selling it 18 months after it, significantly overperforms the BTC price.
I suspect it also reduces the series' volatility (improved shape ratio).

I don't mind these ideas.. they sound all fine and dandy, but are we going to trade on this?  especially the selling part?  And if we sell, then how much are we going to sell?  more than 50% of our stash? or less than 50% of our stash?  selling 10% or 20% might be acceptable to me, but any more than that, and I am not really with it. .nad then if I sell then I am anxious to get back in, and sure.. maybe 6 months before the halvening would be acceptable, but I can imagine myself feeling a bit uncomfortable staying out for that long... but I suppose that if it is ONLY 10% or 20% of my stash I might be less nervous, but if it were higher amounts of my stash, I would likely be even more nervous to get back in a lot sooner than 6 months prior to the halvening.
legendary
Activity: 2380
Merit: 17063
Fully fledged Merit Cycler - Golden Feather 22-23
I am resuming this thread as PlanB today tweeted an interesting concept:



Buying the BTC 6 months before the living and selling it 18 months after it, significantly overperforms the BTC price.
I suspect it also reduces the series' volatility (improved shape ratio).
 
legendary
Activity: 2380
Merit: 17063
Fully fledged Merit Cycler - Golden Feather 22-23
Wow.
A very nice article from Croesus about Stock to Flow article:

Stock-to-Flow Reality
Quote
You may think the Stock-to-Flow Model fell short, but it's still directionally correct, and here's why[/section]

In this paper, Croesus analysed why the S2F model "failed" only to understand that probably, due to overconfidence, PlanB didn't do enough to "correct" people's misunderstanding of the model and pumped it, twice, to the higher and higher target price.

Of course, when those prices didn't realise, people were mad t the model rather than at their interpretation.

Croesus then highlights some improvements for the model, such that his informative power is more excellent next time.
Interesting
It is helpful, above all, to refute the most common criticism of the model itself.
legendary
Activity: 1932
Merit: 4602
If you build graphs with such accuracy, then you can pull the owl on the globe for a long time Smiley
I used to read PlanB forecasts, but now it looks like a scenario for trapping new hamsters.
Even if the price drops to $15,000 in the coming months, it will not be noticeable on his chart.
legendary
Activity: 2380
Merit: 17063
Fully fledged Merit Cycler - Golden Feather 22-23
Rejoice!
Stock to flow is not broken, and at the time of halving, we will see it again!



Of course, a lot of bullishness in the air, and I thing a value of one on the ratio of market price/model price is long overdue.

I see too many risks being taken away from the table and a compelling macroeconomic environment for the orange coin to prosper.
legendary
Activity: 2380
Merit: 17063
Fully fledged Merit Cycler - Golden Feather 22-23

PlanB is not considering Stock to Flow Broken yet, and he has been tweeting about it lately.



and also:




I guess in the case of a pump, we will hear more from him.


Being totally honest I guess he is also trying to relaunch his Twitter account after being shadow banned for a long time. So he's tweeting like mad.

legendary
Activity: 2380
Merit: 17063
Fully fledged Merit Cycler - Golden Feather 22-23
Finally, with the latest bullishness, PlanB is tweeting about Stock to Flow again:




Basically, PlanB is expecting Bitcoin to grow an order of magnitude (10x) following the doubling of the S/F ratio from 55 to 110.
Of course, this is something like back fitting, but It's only a reference, not an absolute trading point!
legendary
Activity: 2380
Merit: 17063
Fully fledged Merit Cycler - Golden Feather 22-23
Great, thank you @Rikafip.
PlanB published an interesting video:



A little bit amatoriali as production, he's still has to perfection as a YouTuber, but this is a new and good way to explain his tweets that for some reason are obscure to most readers.

legendary
Activity: 1722
Merit: 5937
I don't know if you guys noticed but a couple of days ago PlanB started his own YouTube channel. So far he only has few interviews made by other YouTubers but he said that he is currently working on his first video. Anyway, here is the link https://www.youtube.com/@PlanB_Bitcoin
legendary
Activity: 2380
Merit: 17063
Fully fledged Merit Cycler - Golden Feather 22-23
Here is the indicator:



Search "PlanB RSI Strategy".
As I said, this is my first try with PINE Editor, so the code might be shaky.
Suggestions are more than welcome.


EDIT: Log Graph, as suggested by PlanB himself (my life is now complete!)




legendary
Activity: 2380
Merit: 17063
Fully fledged Merit Cycler - Golden Feather 22-23
PlanB published another article about investing:




Quant Investing 101

I implemented his algorithm on my Tradingview, but as I am away from my laptop, I cannot make it available to everyone.
I will do it asap.




full member
Activity: 168
Merit: 421
武士道
I guess you have to patiently re-read all this thread, as I think every one specific statement you declared in this post has been already extensively analysed, discussed and debunked.
S2F is not a guarantee of future price paths, this has been a clear statement everyone had in their own mind during this years.
Sorry man i should’ve checked before, i didnt follow this before, but i took the time read to everything now. And it kinda cleared up the things i had in my mind, thanks for the thread. Let’s see what the future holds.
legendary
Activity: 2380
Merit: 17063
Fully fledged Merit Cycler - Golden Feather 22-23
What is the point at which we can say that this model has become "broken" and unreliable in the future?
I think we should never expect a model to predict the exact future, but it can be nice to visualize things, start discussion or get ideas and orientation across. Math cant predict politics, manipulation or human decision making

If we are above 50k, then we can say that the model is working as the assumption of reaching 100k would have been logical if we continued in the region of 40k to 70k, but what is happening now (if we consider it the bottom) then the maximum ATH during the next four years will be About 150k which is far away from the model.
Idk man, i just checked out the model.

The basic assumption is:

The hypothesis in this study is that scarcity, as measured by SF, directly drives value. A look at the table above confirms that market values tend to be higher when SF is higher.
I think we can agree that there is some correlation between SF and value, because a high SF indicates scarcity. But thinking it directly drives the value is just foolish, it ignores so many other economic principles or other dynamic factors.

Scarcity alone was never the determining factor, just check out the gold chart. This whole model tries to predict price just with the supply side, but we know the demand side can be dynamic af and unpredictable.

Gold and silver, which are totally different markets, are in line with the bitcoin model values for SF.

Gold has the highest SF 62, it takes 62 years of production to get current gold stock. Silver is second with SF 22. This high SF makes them monetary goods.
  1. It’s not even possible to accurately determine the total supply(stock) or yearly flow of gold and silver.
   2. The SF of gold and silver are constantly fluctuating, taking a mean doesn’t prove an accurate model.
   3. SF cant even predict the price of gold or silver.

Despite this can still see how it’s generally correct about gold gaining value over time, but still inaccurate when we want it to be precise.

I would advise against basing price expectations/ predictions on some oversimplified model in the first place. It’s like trying to predict the weather in 30 years by dividing the total rainfall/ yearly rainfall, wrapped in some power law that uses oversimplified assumptions again. See how it won’t work.

It fails at trying to predict the price, but i still think it’s valuable by visualising some supply side dynamics. Even if it’s right for some time, it just wouldn’t matter, because it’s trying to solve something impossible. So let’s just note that it just shows us something we can expect about the supply side in the next years, if we make the separation here, we can actually still work with this information.

Also golds SF is probably way higher than calculated in the model, and Bitcoins a lil lower(lost coins). Still not everyone is running into gold, because there’s more factors than just this. Fundamental analysis is way more efficient. Both are money, Bitcoins monetary properties are way superior to golds. Even if gold wouldn’t be mined anymore in this decade, I still expect Bitcoin to rise more, for this reason alone. The highest saleable good becomes money, fiat beats gold(more people hold wealth in fiat than in gold, even if it’s dumb), and bitcoin will beat fiat, and rise for this reason alone, not just because SF.


I guess you have to patiently re-read all this thread, as I think every one specific statement you declared in this post has been already extensively analysed, discussed and debunked.
S2F is not a guarantee of future price paths, this has been a clear statement everyone had in their own mind during this years.
full member
Activity: 168
Merit: 421
武士道
What is the point at which we can say that this model has become "broken" and unreliable in the future?
I think we should never expect a model to predict the exact future, but it can be nice to visualize things, start discussion or get ideas and orientation across. Math cant predict politics, manipulation or human decision making

If we are above 50k, then we can say that the model is working as the assumption of reaching 100k would have been logical if we continued in the region of 40k to 70k, but what is happening now (if we consider it the bottom) then the maximum ATH during the next four years will be About 150k which is far away from the model.
Idk man, i just checked out the model.

The basic assumption is:

The hypothesis in this study is that scarcity, as measured by SF, directly drives value. A look at the table above confirms that market values tend to be higher when SF is higher.
I think we can agree that there is some correlation between SF and value, because a high SF indicates scarcity. But thinking it directly drives the value is just foolish, it ignores so many other economic principles or other dynamic factors.

Scarcity alone was never the determining factor, just check out the gold chart. This whole model tries to predict price just with the supply side, but we know the demand side can be dynamic af and unpredictable.

Gold and silver, which are totally different markets, are in line with the bitcoin model values for SF.

Gold has the highest SF 62, it takes 62 years of production to get current gold stock. Silver is second with SF 22. This high SF makes them monetary goods.
  1. It’s not even possible to accurately determine the total supply(stock) or yearly flow of gold and silver.
   2. The SF of gold and silver are constantly fluctuating, taking a mean doesn’t prove an accurate model.
   3. SF cant even predict the price of gold or silver.

Despite this can still see how it’s generally correct about gold gaining value over time, but still inaccurate when we want it to be precise.

I would advise against basing price expectations/ predictions on some oversimplified model in the first place. It’s like trying to predict the weather in 30 years by dividing the total rainfall/ yearly rainfall, wrapped in some power law that uses oversimplified assumptions again. See how it won’t work.

It fails at trying to predict the price, but i still think it’s valuable by visualising some supply side dynamics. Even if it’s right for some time, it just wouldn’t matter, because it’s trying to solve something impossible. So let’s just note that it just shows us something we can expect about the supply side in the next years, if we make the separation here, we can actually still work with this information.

Also golds SF is probably way higher than calculated in the model , and Bitcoins a lil lower(lost coins). Still not everyone is running into gold, because there’s more factors than just this. Fundamental analysis is way more efficient. Both are money, Bitcoins monetary properties are way superior to golds. Even if gold wouldn’t be mined anymore in this decade, i still expect Bitcoin to rise more, for this reason alone. The highest saleable good becomes money, fiat beats gold(more people hold wealth in fiat than in gold, even if it’s dumb), and bitcoin will beat fiat, and rise for this reason alone, not just because SF.
legendary
Activity: 3920
Merit: 11299
Self-Custody is a right. Say no to"Non-custodial"
What is the point at which we can say that this model has become "broken" and unreliable in the future?
I think we should never expect a model to predict the exact future, but it can be nice to visualize things, start discussion or get ideas and orientation across. Math cant predict politics, manipulation or human decision making

If we are above 50k, then we can say that the model is working as the assumption of reaching 100k would have been logical if we continued in the region of 40k to 70k, but what is happening now (if we consider it the bottom) then the maximum ATH during the next four years will be About 150k which is far away from the model.

I doubt that it is even close to impossible to get a 3x to 8x BTC price rise from here within the next 3 to 30 months.
The model was working fine until last November, but even before the Ukrainian crisis it was difficult to reach the levels of 100k, we hope that all these events are due to political factors and abnormal conditions and that we will return again soon.

From my perspective, you seem to want to focus on various ways that bitcoin supposedly failed to reach expectations that involve bitcoin price limitations as if bitcoin falls into some kind of mature asset category or that it is an asset that is similar to other asset classes and controlled my macro/monetary policies like stocks tend to have that kind of correlation, and I am not completely opposed to appreciating that we can see those kinds of ideas of limits in bitcoin's recent historical performance and that in the short term those dynamics might continue... but I also consider that we need to be careful in terms of making these kinds of under appreciation of bitcoin.

In other words, bitcoin continues to be in both a new category of a paradigm shifting technology that melds the ability to communicate through the internet and attach value to that transmission (or storage if you don't want to send it to anyone), and holy shit that is powerful while at the same time ONLY less than the 1% of the world's monetary value and/or participation is within this rock the world system.. the upside remains explosive potential, even if it might not happen and we cannot exactly tell when, either.

You can look at various points in bitcoin's history and it is swimming along fairly smoothly with other various assets and then it does a shift upwards at various points too.. and then it then becomes correlated with other assets, but instead it is on another curve that is 3x higher or 10x higher than whatever prices that it had been previously... I get a sense we are going to continue to see those kinds of upwards shifts up in bitcoin.. without really knowing when they are going to happen but when they do, we can no longer get bitcoin at the earlier prices... it is like being in the s-curve adoption, but not really seeing or being able to appreciate that we are within that.

Don't get me wrong.. on a personal financial preparation level I do not want to presume too much.. so I  attempt to prepare for either up or down BTC prices.. and even maintain fairly conservative projections of ongoing BTC  price expectations.. while at the same time accounting for those explosive upside possibilities that might only be 0.5% to 5% scenarios.. but they remain part of the expected value formulation that might not change preparations in any kind of meaningful way - except just to avoid selling too much too soon.  

The various upside scenario considerations do not suddenly go from let's say 25% to zero merely because we had some corrections that went down further than we thought to be possible.. but there still might be a need to tweak the projected numbers downward from 25% to 10% or some other reasonable adjustment that attempts to account what is really going on rather than just getting caught up in a few short term factors that might not be as long-term powerful as they are being proclaimed to be.

Each of us has to figure out our own calculations and whether we want to give any odds at all to certain kinds of upside or downside scenarios.. and personally, I believe that it is quite unrealistic to be ruling out some of the various upside scenarios merely because 1) negative things have recently happened in the world, 2) momentum is not looking good, 3) there are threats that more negative things are going to continue to happen. . blah blah blah , even if some of the better upside scenarios need to be downgraded from their previous modestly high expectations** to lower values.. but those previously modestly high expectations still likely do not need to be downgraded to zero..  

**you can characterize your previous assessments as "high expectations" or "overly high expectations"  if believe that you had made errors in that direction but I am not going to attribute possible errors of others because I feel that I have a tendency to come to my own assessments that are not overly-influenced merely based on market sentiment or what other people think blah blah blah. I continue to consider myself as arriving at my own assessments of expectations and engaging in my own reasonable assessments of what I believe is likely to happen (or not).. even if sometimes there can be some contagion that gets into my numbers, too. feels right to you..  

Of course, you have the right to Monday quarter-back your own ways of assessing probabilities and/or the ways that others assign probabilities  (including making of models), and sure each of us are going to have some of our own inclinations, and from this linked post, you can see some of my own ways of making btc price projections and how I assign prediction values... and for sure I have some influence from both stock to flow and the ideas of exponential s-curve adoption based on network effects and Metcalfe principles.

Whether you agree with my ways of assigning BTC price prediction values, you can see that I had not updated my upside projections since December 16, 2021, and I ONLY scribbled out my downside projections on May 19, 2022.. and sure it seems that my BTC prices projections in both directions need updating to account for more recent happenings, I give less than two shits if anyone else considers my BTC price prediction assignment of probabilities have good predictive value or that I am changing in my assessment too often in order to account for changes in what has happened since my last update...

At the time that I write out my predictive assignment of values, I am trying to best assess my own sense at that particular snapshot time, and those probability assignment charts should give some ideas about how I think about making my own formulations of more and less likely scenarios. .including attempting to account for extremes, even if the extremes are assigned low probabilities.. so for example, even in December 16, 2021, I had considered supra $1.5 million to have 0.5% odds with 99% odds that the peak for the cycle playing out before the 2nd quarter of 2023.  Since about mid-May 2022, when the BTC price fell below the 100-week moving average, I concluded that we had fallen out of the bull market so the timeline for the upside were mostly negated as of mid-May 2020.  So in that regard, my projections serve as snapshots of then thinking but still provides some ideas of methodology and how much value  to place on various extremes.. including but not limited to placing zero probabilities towards extremes.  
legendary
Activity: 1596
Merit: 1288
What is the point at which we can say that this model has become "broken" and unreliable in the future?
I think we should never expect a model to predict the exact future, but it can be nice to visualize things, start discussion or get ideas and orientation across. Math cant predict politics, manipulation or human decision making

If we are above 50k, then we can say that the model is working as the assumption of reaching 100k would have been logical if we continued in the region of 40k to 70k, but what is happening now (if we consider it the bottom) then the maximum ATH during the next four years will be About 150k which is far away from the model.

I doubt that it is even close to impossible to get a 3x to 8x BTC price rise from here within the next 3 to 30 months.
The model was working fine until last November, but even before the Ukrainian crisis it was difficult to reach the levels of 100k, we hope that all these events are due to political factors and abnormal conditions and that we will return again soon.
legendary
Activity: 3920
Merit: 11299
Self-Custody is a right. Say no to"Non-custodial"
Today I watched @VitalikButerin attacks Stock-to-Flow Model aggressively, I'll quote the tweet:

Quote
Stock-to-flow is really not looking good now.

I know it's impolite to gloat and all that, but I think financial models that give people a false sense of certainty and predestination that number-will-go-up are harmful and deserve all the mockery they get.

What is the point at which we can say that this model has become "broken" and unreliable in the future?
I remember reading somewhere that if the price does not reach 100k by the end of the world, the model will be broken.

For NOW, with everything that is happening in the world, it is almost impossible to return to a level closer 70k-100k, so do we have to wait for the end of the year or what?

I doubt that it is even close to impossible to get a 3x to 8x BTC price rise from here within the next 3 to 30 months.

I will agree that currently downward momentum is in place as a current ongoing and existing BTC price dynamic that is in our faces, and upward momentum does not just automatically resume happening without a bit of battling to regain some of the grounds.. but in bitcoin, sometimes UPpity can also escalate quickly.. just like DOWNity sometimes does the same thing.. 

Bitcoin prices do not always go down merely because a lot of supposedly smart people are proclaiming down to be inevitable...   

AT the moment, many of us are still likely struggling with some felt shock about how much down we have experienced in the past 6-8 weeks and especially in the past week.. so it is difficult to have any kind of confidence that any kind of BTC price reversal is actually likely or in our current cards  at any time soon.. but at the same time, we do know that in bitcoin's history we sometimes do end up witnessing surprises at various points along the way... even when it seems that the majority of folks is writing off UP as if it were close to zero odds, then the opposite ends up happening.   

So I personally consider it imprudent to write off certain extreme upside BTC price scenarios that could still end up happening sooner than you anticipate... at the same time, no guarantees, so it remains a great idea to continue to prepare for BTC price actions in both directions rather than putting all your eggs into preparing ONLY for one direction that might not end up playing out as you had been speculating to be the most likely price direction scenario
full member
Activity: 168
Merit: 421
武士道
What is the point at which we can say that this model has become "broken" and unreliable in the future?
I think we should never expect a model to predict the exact future, but it can be nice to visualize things, start discussion or get ideas and orientation across. Math cant predict politics, manipulation or human decision making, so to me its ridiculous to bash a model, because it suggest that people expected it to be able to do these things in the first place. From my point of view Bitcoin is undervalued rn, so did it really fail?

legendary
Activity: 2380
Merit: 17063
Fully fledged Merit Cycler - Golden Feather 22-23
Today the Stock to Flow appeared again in the TwitterSphere:



I would say that @PlanB was quite vocal in supporting his model, and even when it was working flawlessly, I never heard him supporting unsensible investment plans.
He mentioned many times the reasons why his model(S) could be wrong, and most of the time he was intellectually honest in promoting them.


Obviously, PlanB was quite quick to react:




I tend to agree with this last one. I might be a PlanB zealot, but I think he never was trying to lure investors into the business for his own direct financial benefit.
The accusation of having many followers is logically inconsistent, I won't even bother to comment. 


EDIT: I didn't realise Husires just posted the exact same tweet in the above post.
legendary
Activity: 1596
Merit: 1288
Today I watched @VitalikButerin attacks Stock-to-Flow Model aggressively, I'll quote the tweet:

Quote
Stock-to-flow is really not looking good now.

I know it's impolite to gloat and all that, but I think financial models that give people a false sense of certainty and predestination that number-will-go-up are harmful and deserve all the mockery they get.

What is the point at which we can say that this model has become "broken" and unreliable in the future?
I remember reading somewhere that if the price does not reach 100k by the end of the world, the model will be broken.

For NOW, with everything that is happening in the world, it is almost impossible to return to a level closer 70k-100k, so do we have to wait for the end of the year or what?
Pages:
Jump to: