Pages:
Author

Topic: Stock-to-Flow Model: Modeling Bitcoin's Value with Scarcity - page 4. (Read 5755 times)

legendary
Activity: 2380
Merit: 17063
Fully fledged Merit Cycler - Golden Feather 22-23
As they say, past return do not guarantee future returns. I like to extend this say to forecasting models, "predictions in the past do not guarantee predictions in the future". I have to admit that anyway, due to the unpredictability of bitcoin demand, this model does reasonably well. If I had to use something or would really care about the price in the mid-term, I would be my choice as of now. The fact remains that bitcoin is expected, by most people, to grow at a slower pace than in the past, but I am betting on an exceptional long term growth to which this model seems to agree.

This model was fitted only on a subset of the then available data, and had a forecasting power on following data, with minimal parameters adjustments.
This means the price dynamic is quite well predicted by model, so, in a sense, predictions in the past actually predicted the future!".
legendary
Activity: 2394
Merit: 1632
Do not die for Putin
As they say, past return do not guarantee future returns. I like to extend this say to forecasting models, "predictions in the past do not guarantee predictions in the future". I have to admit that anyway, due to the unpredictability of bitcoin demand, this model does reasonably well. If I had to use something or would really care about the price in the mid-term, I would be my choice as of now. The fact remains that bitcoin is expected, by most people, to grow at a slower pace than in the past, but I am betting on an exceptional long term growth to which this model seems to agree.
legendary
Activity: 2380
Merit: 17063
Fully fledged Merit Cycler - Golden Feather 22-23
Another great interview of PlanB with Preysto Pyhs:

BTC048: Does the Stock to Flow Model Eventually Break w/ Plan B



Quote
Preston Pysh talks with renowned analyst, Plan B. He talks about whether the Stock to Flow Model will eventually fail, along with numerous other macro insights.

IN THIS EPISODE, YOU'LL LEARN:
00:00 - Intro
02:09 - What’s Happening in the Broader Macro Economy From His Perspective?
16:28 - Will the Stock to Flow Model Eventually Fail?
28:21 - Regional Trends - Specifically With Proof of Work
33:52 - When Will More Countries Start to Adopt It?
37:07 - Is the ETF important?
41:19 - Lightning Adoption, What’s the Impact?
46:07 - Would Plan B Ever Reveal Himself?



It's a great conversation. I strongly suggest you to listen to in in the full length.
Two points stands out:


Quote
Preston Pysh (22:40):

As we’re going through this transition, you were describing it earlier with China, they’re buying anything that has scarcity to it as soon as they can, with the dollars they’re receiving, because it’s going to retain their buying power as whatever this thing is that’s transitioning takes place, and on the other side, that buying power is still going to be there for whatever the scarce thing is that they purchased.

Preston Pysh (23:03):

This goes for anybody on the individual level, country level, whatever, but I really think that we’re going to eventually get to a point where there’s going to be so much demand for people to store their buying power in this thing that is everything and is nothing. Whether the stock-to-flow is slightly above real estate or slightly above gold, I think you’re just going to get to a point where there’s just total FOMO of, I can’t store $10 billion worth of buying power in this bond anymore, as it’s yielding negative whatever percent. I just see that whole fixed income $200, $300 trillion worth of buying power today just evaporating and getting sucked in like a black hole and it’s going to send the curve just in a parabolic kind of direction.

Plan B (23:53):

I agree. I fully agree. Real estate is not fungible, and it’s not portable either. All those dimensions, Bitcoin is the better money. On the other hand, the only thing where we differ, I guess, is the timing of the events. Yes, the dollar will die. Every reserve currency dies, it’s a certainty. There will be something new, something better. But when is that happening? It’s the same question as the supercycle, are we entering the supercycle now or later?

Plan B (24:23):

I think the supercycle will be there, it’s inevitable, but not now. I think it will happen after next halfing, if you will, after the stock-to-flow of Bitcoins will be higher than gold and higher than real estate. Because until that point of stock-to-flow of 100, real estate will, for whatever reason, be the preferred asset as we’re seeing right now.

Plan B (24:46):

I’m seeing around me, people put more money in real estate like hundreds of millions. BlackRock, for example is buying the entire city of Amsterdam because those companies and the money right now is with old people. They have real estate and the gold, the physical world and not the digital world. The digital scarcity is a next generation thing.

Plan B (25:06):

I think it will happen. But I also see, in my own model, that there is a linear relationship between scarcity and value. I agree that is one of the dimensions of money, fungibility is the other one, portability is another one, divisibility is another one. That’s also a very problematic with houses, divisibility. But scarcity is, in my view, the most important factor, causing that linear relationship and causing people to put more money in real estate now, that will change next to divisibility, fungibility, portability, also the scarcity of Bitcoin will be better than real estate.

Plan B (25:46):

My guess would be, I’m probably going into that question right now, are we going into this FOMO hyperbolic scenario right now or next year, or the year after, or are we going to drop 80% first have a big war with the powers that be, the central banks, the US dollar, et cetera, et cetera, and go into that hyperbolic scenario, or a US dollar scenario, if you will where Bitcoin is the best store of value after the next halfing. So, say 2024, or ’28, that will be the period or maybe a little bit after that. Let’s say somewhere between 2024 and 2032. Yes, I think we both agree there will be this hyperbolic scenario. Bitcoin will be by far the best asset physically, dynamically, mathematically, above all other, but the powers that be, with the largest armies, the biggest balance sheets, and all the political power, they will fight, they will fight till the death.




Going a little bit oustidethe bitcoin only scenario:

Quote
Preston Pysh (06:49):

New people that are maybe just coming into the space would hear that, and they would say, well… I’m playing the contrarian here, I know you’re going to knock this question out of the ballpark, but I think it’s important for education purposes for people. A person would be hearing all that, and they’d say, well, you just had a global pandemic, they had to print all this money, and this is just a spike. They’re not going to be printing $4.5 trillion in the coming years like they did for, I think that was the number that you said, for COVID. Some of this stuff will start to normalize. It just needs more time. You see the big time banks, I think it was JP Morgan come out and say, oh, supply chain issue is going to be resolved here in six months from now. Why is that wrong, in your opinion?

Plan B (07:37):

First, from a logical point of view, if printing money was the solution for these problems, then like I said, Zimbabwe would be the richest country in the world, and every country would be doing it. Of course, that’s that’s not true. Through the ages as well, the Roman Empire died, part of because the debasement of the currency, the printing of the money. It was the denarius at the time. So, the silver content was diminished from 90% to 0%. That caused big, big troubles, because nobody accepted that money anymore, because it was like Monopoly money. That’s one.

Plan B (08:11):

But on the other hand, the debt that the US is creating to keep the dollar going, to keep the government going, to keep everything going, and the same in Europe, by the way, but the US, of course, is the reserve currency, that debt is someone else’s asset. The asset can be in the pension fund, it can be… Well, most of US debt, by the way, is owned by China, right? China is making all this stuff for the world, for the US, earning a lot of money, but then parking that money in the treasury bonds, so in the debt of the US government, and that debt, of course, we all know that, all institutional investors know US debt will never, ever be paid off. We all know that. But we also know there will be new debt, there will be an extra credit card, if you will to pay off the old credit card. As long as that goes on, that’s all fine, but it cannot go on.

Preston Pysh (09:05):

It requires rates to keep going down.

Plan B (09:08):

If you would increase interest rate right now the debt would be unserviceable. The US could not pay the debt when interest rises with the current tax income. It’s unsustainable, they have to keep rates low and keep decreasing them or the whole house of cards will fall down. Of course, China sees that as well, because imagine that you have all this US debt and you see that the debt is printing his own money and you know it will be worthless one day.

Plan B (09:37):

What will you do? You’ll spend it like a madman and you see them doing that. They buy every gold mine, every scarce commodity mine in Africa, they buy all the harbors in the Middle East, in Europe even, they buy everything with the US dollars that they have, except more US debt, of course. That’s a smart thing. By printing and printing more, the US is actually making China stronger and stronger every day.

legendary
Activity: 2380
Merit: 17063
Fully fledged Merit Cycler - Golden Feather 22-23
PlanB tweeted the other day an interesting consideration on the Stock To Flow Cross Assets:


https://twitter.com/100trillionUSD/status/1453006360568811531?s=20

This is almost identical to a previous tweet, but it focuses on the relative performance of the two competing Store of Values.
As you can see, gold valuation barely moved during the last 10 years. Each year Valuation,, and SF is represented by single purple dots: those are almost impossible to distinguish from each other, meaning that gold has been steady in nominal terms during the last 10 years.

BTC, on the other hand, has been constantly catching up, crawling upward on the SF/Market Capitalisation regression line.


EDIT: relevant Meme:
legendary
Activity: 3920
Merit: 11299
Self-Custody is a right. Say no to"Non-custodial"
According to this model, demand is not in the equation.
For you it is part of the equation, not for the model. For the model price is not the result of demand and supply, but ultimately only a function of S2F, or supply.
price is determined by supply and demand, isn't that a fact like 1 + 1 = 2 ? the model is wrong if it claims to predict the future price without looking at demand

Ultimately, I believe that this aspect is correct that price is a product of supply and demand.. so they do somehow both need to be accounted for, even if there might not be a need to talk about both - even while presuming both to be within what is determining the price... so I doubt that you can presume S2F to be wrong merely because it does not specifically talk about demand but merely presumes demand in some kind of way... and just focuses on supply.


price is determined by supply and demand, isn't that a fact like 1 + 1 = 2 ? [

The price of an option on a stock has nothing to do with supply and demand. It relies on non-arbitrage condition that determine the unique price. Not saying this model relies on non-arbitrage hypothesis, but no, price is equal to match of supply and demand is not 1+1.



sorry i don't get it: why will the price eventually hover around the model price?

Model cannot micro-estimate or precisely track the bit on. Price, but if you want it to be right, in the long run price has to recover to model price. That’s it. Not too scientific.

I have proclaimed on many occasions that the S2F model either presumes demand as a kind of constant or presumes that demand is just going to go up with whatever the conditions and pressures of the market that are contained in looking at supply pressures.  Maybe my way of conceptualizing and phrasing is not correct either?... and personally, I have also considered the S2F model to be a valid way of attempting to give odds to what is likely to happen in bitcoin in terms of ongoing price dynamics - even if actual facts might end up causing the curve of the S2F model to have to end up getting shifted down or up based on what ends up actually happening (or as the data flows in)...

How do you account for demand in the future anyhow beyond just attempting to treat it as some variation of a constant?  I bet that the S2F ends up beating the pants off of any model that attempts to account for demand in any kind of way that takes much of anything away from the supply emphasis aspect that is already contained in the model....

Another vague concept that seems to attempt to explain demand and underly what is pushing underlies bitcoin price dynamics is the exponential s-curve adoption based on Metcalfe principles and networking effects.. which surely those kinds of ideas account for a kind of ongoing onward trajectory of demand that is going up with ongoing adoption and the ideas do not seem incompatible with S2F in terms of being able to use (or even presume) such ideas to consider what is happening with demand as an ongoing upwardly trajectory in a way that complements s2F's attempts to tell us where we are likely going based on where we have been and where we are at.  
legendary
Activity: 2380
Merit: 17063
Fully fledged Merit Cycler - Golden Feather 22-23

price is determined by supply and demand, isn't that a fact like 1 + 1 = 2 ? [

The price of an option on a stock has nothing to do with supply and demand. It relies on non-arbitrage condition that determine the unique price. Not saying this model relies on non-arbitrage hypothesis, but no, price is equal to match of supply and demand is not 1+1.



sorry i don't get it: why will the price eventually hover around the model price?

Model cannot micro-estimate or precisely track the bit on. Price, but if you want it to be right, in the long run price has to recover to model price. That’s it. Not too scientific.
full member
Activity: 154
Merit: 177
According to this model, demand is not in the equation.
For you it is part of the equation, not for the model. For the model price is not the result of demand and supply, but ultimately only a function of S2F, or supply.
price is determined by supply and demand, isn't that a fact like 1 + 1 = 2 ? the model is wrong if it claims to predict the future price without looking at demand

The model can be wrong for sustained amount of dollars, for sustained amount of times, but price will eventually hover around the model price in the long run, like a “dog on a leash” or “ drunk man walk”.
sorry i don't get it: why will the price eventually hover around the model price?
legendary
Activity: 2380
Merit: 17063
Fully fledged Merit Cycler - Golden Feather 22-23
i fail to see how "a model exists that doesn't take into account demand" proves that the model predicts the future, ignoring one side of the equation it wants to predict

According to this model, demand is not in the equation.
For you it is part of the equation, not for the model. For the model price is not the result of demand and supply, but ultimately only a function of S2F, or supply.


it doesn't provide longterm price prediction cause it won't hold in some years (planb himself said that)

The model can be wrong for sustained amount of dollars, for sustained amount of times, but price will eventually hover around the model price in the long run, like a “dog on a leash” or “ drunk man walk”.

This is why you shouldn’t trade in this model, as it can stay wrong for bigger amounts of dollars or longer periods than you can remain solvent.
full member
Activity: 154
Merit: 177
  • The reference to CAPM, and in another interview to the Black&Scholes model, it is not meant to refer to their respective inventors winning the Nobel Prize, rather referring to the fact a class of models that don’t take demand in account does exist, and works, or worked, pretty well for a few decades. So, the lack of demand in the factors of the S2F model is not per se and indicator that the model is flawed
i fail to see how "a model exists that doesn't take into account demand" proves that the model predicts the future, ignoring one side of the equation it wants to predict (price is nothing else than supply and demand). more generalized: how do ~10 years of data and ~3 cycles from the past predict the future? especially if we don't know the demand, which of course is impossible, because no one knows the future...

  • S2F models, without taking on consideration the demand, has an explanatory power of the 95% of the variance of bit pin price. Hence, modelling demand into this, a really cumbersome task, would improve the model of only 5%, at a great complexity cost. Are you sure this is going to dramatically change the global picture? Take into account S2F has never been a trading model, only a “final state” model, providing long term predictions.
it doesn't provide longterm price prediction cause it won't hold in some years (planb himself said that)
legendary
Activity: 2380
Merit: 17063
Fully fledged Merit Cycler - Golden Feather 22-23

my critique would be: how can you predict the future price of something without taking demand into account? that is the second side of price. supply and demand


Well, I had a thought on this point and I think there is at least a couple of points to mention:

  • The reference to CAPM, and in another interview to the Black&Scholes model, it is not meant to refer to their respective inventors winning the Nobel Prize, rather referring to the fact a class of models that don’t take demand in account does exist, and works, or worked, pretty well for a few decades. So, the lack of demand in the factors of the S2F model is not per se and indicator that the model is flawed
  • S2F models, without taking on consideration the demand, has an explanatory power of the 95% of the variance of bit pin price. Hence, modelling demand into this, a really cumbersome task, would improve the model of only 5%, at a great complexity cost. Are you sure this is going to dramatically change the global picture? Take into account S2F has never been a trading model, only a “final state” model, providing long term predictions.

Hope this clarifies a little bit.
This is anyway my comprehension of the matter: happy to discuss if further.
full member
Activity: 154
Merit: 177
yesterday i watched an interview with pomp and planb
(i watched it, mainly cause according to pomp his youtube channel was shortly deleted because of the video, although this is just speculation and the two hours were a waste of time imo)

my critique would be: how can you predict the future price of something without taking demand into account? that is the second side of price. supply and demand

One of the most important tweet  bt @100trillionUSD answering the most debated question: Why isn't demand factored in the Stock to Flow model?
Quote
Some say S2F(X) model must be wrong because #BTC BTC price is determined solely by scarcity (supply) and demand does not play a role.

However Nobel prize winning Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM) determines asset returns solely based on risk (volatility, dd) .. no demand, no supply
this is a rather stupid explanation. just because a nobel prize winner makes the same mistake doesn't prove it is the right thing to do

i more or less read everything in here, but maybe i missed something. i am also no mathematician or someone with a statistical background. i am open to change my mind. the model might be right some more years, cause i think the demand for bitcoin will rise in the future. but the demand is still an unkown in the equation and doesn't "show the future". any thoughts?
legendary
Activity: 2380
Merit: 17063
Fully fledged Merit Cycler - Golden Feather 22-23
While Stock to Flow is "suffering", Stock to Flow Cross Asset Model is still in play:



Bear in mind this model is inherently different from Stock to Flow: this model compares the ratio Stock to Flow ratios across several asset classes with each asset class market valuation, without taking time into consideration. Essentially, SXF takes a picture of the relative price of each Stock to Flow ratio: turns out you can buy Bitcoins, with his 56 Stock to Flow, cheaper than Gold, which has a similar S2F ratio of 60, but an order of magnitude bigger market valuation.
legendary
Activity: 2310
Merit: 1422
It looks like we're back on track again and the S2F model keeps marching on: July closing price @$41,490 means that the S2F bounced from the lows, like clockwork.
Also realized cap (average price at which all 18.77M BTC were last transacted) is rising again (calculated over all UTXO's). Last but not least, the few sellers at the moment sell at a profit.
More, of course, at https://twitter.com/100trillionUSD
legendary
Activity: 3920
Merit: 11299
Self-Custody is a right. Say no to"Non-custodial"
Is market really starting to deviate from the model?

If I'm reading the chart correctly, the answer would be no. As of today, there is a divergence between what the model predicts and the price on the downside, but in the past there was on the upside and the price returned to the median.

Another thing is whether we doubt that the model is correct or not, but as a model that explains quite reliably the behavior of the price as a function of supply, I do not think that the price today falsifies it.

As PlanB himself states, this situation, albeit new, is still within the boundaries of the functioning of the model:


https://twitter.com/100trillionusd/status/1407620265475989506?s=21

As someone in the comments recalled, the 1SD band means that 33% of the value should lay outside the darker band. So no major issue unless we  don’t cross the model line before the first months of the next year.

I did a quickie glance at the comments from the tweet too, and sure if the dark blue is 1 standard deviation and then maybe the lighter blue is 2 standard deviations, I am thinking that the commenter is probably suggesting that there can be "up to" a certain amount of going outside the 1 standard deviation bond (which he stated as 33%) in order for the model to still be valid.  It seems a bit off to be proclaiming that there has to be deviation of 33%.. that is almost ridiculous if you think about the matter.

Surely when I do a quickie eyeballing of the chart, probably we are lucky to have even up to 10% of the price points to be outside of 1 standard deviation, and actually that seems like so far the model remains solid as fuck.. In other words, the less deviation the better, but some deviation is expected "up to a point" that is far from even close to being reached.

Even if we were approaching 33% of the data outside of 1 standard deviation, that might start to cause some justifications that there may be ways to tweak the model a wee bit to make it more in line with the data rather than proclaiming that the model is actually broken.. I am not even sure what kind of tweak might be reasonable without accusations of trying to conform the data to the theory.. but whatever, punchline still seems to remain that the amount of deviation that we have experienced to date is actually surprisingly low and perhaps even a deviation level for ants.   hahahahaha
legendary
Activity: 2380
Merit: 17063
Fully fledged Merit Cycler - Golden Feather 22-23
Is market really starting to deviate from the model?

If I'm reading the chart correctly, the answer would be no. As of today, there is a divergence between what the model predicts and the price on the downside, but in the past there was on the upside and the price returned to the median.

Another thing is whether we doubt that the model is correct or not, but as a model that explains quite reliably the behavior of the price as a function of supply, I do not think that the price today falsifies it.



As PlanB himself states, this situation, albeit new, is still within the boundaries of the functioning of the model:


https://twitter.com/100trillionusd/status/1407620265475989506?s=21

As someone in the comments recalled, the 1SD band means that 33% of the value should lay outside the darker band. So no major issue unless we  don’t cross the model line before the first months of the next year.


legendary
Activity: 1372
Merit: 2017
Is market really starting to deviate from the model?

If I'm reading the chart correctly, the answer would be no. As of today, there is a divergence between what the model predicts and the price on the downside, but in the past there was on the upside and the price returned to the median.

Another thing is whether we doubt that the model is correct or not, but as a model that explains quite reliably the behavior of the price as a function of supply, I do not think that the price today falsifies it.

legendary
Activity: 2380
Merit: 17063
Fully fledged Merit Cycler - Golden Feather 22-23
It's official: according to digitalik.net data, stock to flow multiple has never been so low:



Quote
What is stock to flow multiple?

This chart is showing Bitcoin stock to flow model price compared to actual close price for a given day. Stock to flow is a value calculated when total number of Bitcoins in circulation is divided by number of Bitcoins generated in a day and then divided by 12. It shows how many years is needed in order to produce all Bitcoins currently in circulation. The higher the number the higher scarcity. If the scarcity is higher then the price goes up. Why is this important? Because every 210.000 blocks there is an event called "halving" which means that reward for mining Bitcoin is cut by half which means monthly production is also cut by half. That makes stock to flow ratio (scracity) higher so in theory price should go up.

On the chart above, X axis is showing days and Y multiple value of current price against model price. Different colors represent number of days until next halving (see color bar on right side).

As you can see, we are at the minimum value ever of 0.46. This means that for the first time in history model price is more than twice the market price.

Is market really starting to deviate from the model?





legendary
Activity: 2562
Merit: 1414
Those prices look weird to me: where they come from? he also predicted a small dip in August, due to worsening of "fundamental conditions".
I'd like to know more.

Im quite confused of what he meant with " weakness" in June and July but well some people ( tradingview ) are saying that we are going down in July probably below 30k. On top of that , he seems pretty confident with that tweet. He used the word 'my worst case scenario' instead of best case scenario so that show that he is confident with the price will not go anything lower than $47k on August , thats sick though.

So what would happen if somehow this S2F model breaks and we are not heading to anything higher than lets say, 50k this year or probably next year? Alot people seems to trust this S2F model alot though
legendary
Activity: 2380
Merit: 17063
Fully fledged Merit Cycler - Golden Feather 22-23
Apparently, I am not the only one getting nervous with Stock to Flow: PlanB is trying to spread some hopium, while market price still struggles to grow back above 50% of model value.


https://twitter.com/100trillionusd/status/1406577006230245376?s=21

I don't know the fundamental reasons but he's going to publish an article later this year.

Those prices look weird to me: where they come from? he also predicted a small dip in August, due to worsening of "fundamental conditions".
I'd like to know more.






legendary
Activity: 3920
Merit: 11299
Self-Custody is a right. Say no to"Non-custodial"
All is still good with Stock to Flow.
The drunk man walks with his sill walking his dog on a leash:


https://twitter.com/100trillionusd/status/1403701397774811138?s=21

Link to image

288K still in play. Hopefully. I am personally getting a little bit nervous with price fiddling with 50% of the model value for so long.

I do understand that if you observe that the BTC price is deviating a certain magnitude from a price prediction model, such as 50% below such model, and the deviation endures for a certain period of time, whether that is 3 months, 6 months, a year or longer, then likely the model need to be adjusted to take that long standing and relatively large deviation into account.

At the same time, I personally doubt that we should be giving too many shits about how far or how long that the BTC price might be deviating from such line (or expectations that are shown in the model), and any good model will just attempt to take that into account and to adjust accordingly.  Sure, one thing would be to conclude that the model is broken, and another thing would be to attempt to take into account of new facts (to the extent that they are sufficiently material and sustainable) to tweak the model. 

I give very little weight to any model having high degrees of certainty to future performance of something like BTC price dynamics which includes a variety of factors (including somewhat game theory plays of human behavior) that go beyond merely assessing historically how those various factors have affected BTC price... even while at the same time the stock to flow model does seem to contain a lot of extractability powers to show likely future performance by already had happened past happenings.

Of course, one question remains regarding how much deviation and for how long would be necessary in order to justify a BIG ASS tweakening of the model.. and even the worse case scenario of conceding that the whole model is broken.  Of course, Plan B does like to frequently and regularly plot new data points into the model in order that we are able to see how far we might be deviating from where the model says we should be and we should also be able to figure out long such deviation has been taken place - including attempting to assess whether such ongoing deviatening rises to a material and substantive level that justifies tweakening or completely reassessing the model in terms of maybe a shift in the line might become appropriate, at a certain point, and sure maybe there is some math that can be applied in terms of if the model is deviating for x quantity for y amount of time then a tweakening or rethinkening is justified. 

Any of us who attempt to appreciate the model can surely proclaim that it is the worst model out there, except for all the other models, and surely, I like to reduntantly describe the necessity to give weight to the four year fractal (which of course is already in the model), and considerations of how well is exponential s-curve adoption based on metcalfe principles and networking effects coming along - which is not contained in the model, but who cares, we can still assess the model in terms of thinking about those kinds of additional considerations.. and perhaps even saying that the model should be adjusted up or down because demand is higher or lower than we had thought--- blah blah blah... demand is not in the model, but still does not break the model to tweak it a bit, if necessary.. we do not seem to be close to being there.. but maybe I don't know... how long do you think that our staying 40-50% of the model or even going down from here and reaching higher levels of deviation would justify some kind of "oh sheeeiiittt, maybe we need a tweakening?"

Sure, the answer could get addressed, if the BTC price were to recover back into the upper $40ks and even into the lower $50ks, and we could proclaim, hey even though the price is still below where the model says it should be, at least we are not 40% to 50% where the model says we should be, so then the urgency of the need for a tweakening becomes less compelling to carry out.

Of course, I prefer UP to DOWN, so it would kind of suck to end up either having $64,895 serve as the high for this cycle resulting in a long period of down below what the model says that lasts for a year or longer, right where the model says we should be going UP, then we either go sideways or end up experiencing further correction that lasts well into the period where the model shows that we should be UP higher or going UP.  I personally still proclaim that it is a BIG so fucking what.  Don't get so goddamned attached to models predicting future performance and just try to plug those new facts into the model and see if some variation of it still works or could work.. in order to both account for facts.. and to give some kind of expectation of "where this thing might go." 

I know that I am rambling a bit, but I still think that we are going to need a pretty decently sized deviation from the model to take away our hopes and dreams of UPpity.... while at the same time, each of us better be taking these kinds of models with a large enough grain of salt in terms of both our financial and psychological expectations.
Pages:
Jump to: