Topic: Stock-to-Flow Model: Modeling Bitcoin's Value with Scarcity - page 8. (Read 5758 times)

https://medium.com/coinmonks/a-little-math-and-a-bitcoin-forecast-bcaddc17d252

here is a good analysis by Pisu on medium, that is proving S2F theory, and provides additional analysis regarding growth, taking in account actual data, and current S2F formula provided by PlanB

I will attach two graphs from the article, first one is analysis of growth phases from last halving cycle (2013-2017) and this one (2018-2021), where one can see how this curves are similar and growth is related to exponential curve (linear on logarithmic graph), until the halving, and the double-exponential after the halving, since both increased demand and decreased supply are taken into account and the actual BTC price is following the curve, with some exceptions, that could be seen as small bubbles during the road (we are actually in one of them, judged by the graph)

and here is a second one, where updated S2F formula graph is compared to actual data and @pisu666 graph, and one can see that actual target for 2021 is a little lower than $288k, but much similar to it

according to article and financial theory, each double-exponential growth is seen as a bubble, but BTC will get to those heights again in next halving cycle, due to constant exponential growth

interesting article, but certainly not financial advise, what is your take on this @fillippone

@100TrilllionsUSD celebrates the 2020 with the following tweet:




https://twitter.com/100trillionUSD/status/1344600849243320320?s=20

This tweet references to the Stock to Flow Cross Assets model, where PlanB describes various assets acting as a Store of Value all lying on the same S2F straight line. As Bitcoin is becoming scarcer and scarcer it's moving up on the line.

As I said on the last few weeks, new ATH are not surprises, as market has been following the S2F model quite closely.

Something new happened wit this ATH thou:



New ATH is slightly higher than model price!



The S2F multiplier >1 means that the market is actually higher than S2F model!


This is not to be considered a trading indicator: even if we are quite behind in the halving cycle, I think we will see higher S2F multiplier levels, but  this do not imply an immediate correction!


EDIT:
Actually @PlanB tweeted the same observation!

https://twitter.com/100trillionUSD/status/1342849642531328001?s=20

Because your are likely seeing what you want to see from a likely perspective of a bitcoin denier..  or perhaps a shitcoin bagholder or perhaps a no coiner, or perhaps a fence-sitter (precoiner - better perspective).  

One or more of those are the more likely of explanations for why you came up with such nonsense superficial assessment, and seemingly not even trying to understand anything beyond some kind of superficial idea that you likely made up in your vacuous noggen.  

Stock-to-Flow Model:


why does that sound so click baity?

Another interesting fact about S2F model: while the model seldom predicted lower values for Bitcoin, than actual market price, on the upside this has been quite conservative.

Consider this following image:



The horizontal line is the level of 1 for the S2F multiple. What does it means?

• A multiple =1 means that the ratio Market Price/Model price is =1: this means that model predicts the market correctly.
• A multiple >1 means that the ratio Market Price/Model price is > 1: this means that model predicts a price below the current market price. Market is overshooting, model is cautious.
• A multiple <1 means that the ratio Market Price/Model price is < 1: this means that model predicts a price above the current market price. Market is lagging, model is optimistic.

If we consider the orange line, the one considering the more stable 463days S2F, we see that the market overshoot the model  to 28 maximum, then 14, then 3, in the various price cycles. on the downside the model have very less explosive behaviour, and the minimum level lies at 0,49.

This means that the market never fell below of 49% of the forecasted price.

If we believe the model is reliable also on the future, then 11,000 USD is never to be seen again.


EDIT: The above post got a like from PlanB on Twitter. My life is now complete!

I definitely agree that the stock-to-flow model seems to capture a lot of the btc price dynamics, and surely no one should be leveraging out of reliance upon strict interpretations of the suggested BTC price direction from the model, but also the model should also be able to demonstrate that leverage is not even really needed to become richie as fuck - even with relatively modest amounts invested.

Surely many of us likely recognize that some people do happen to have cash flow problems, whether it is due to youth and still building their income, or due to being in a situation in which they have never really been able to build a large disposible income or maybe other cashflow situations that they had caused upon themselves by making bad bets or using debt for consumption goods rather than investments, and because of these kinds of different people, the ones who have higher cashflows and discretionary income (and value) are going to be able to profit more from likely btc price dynamics - as long as they see the value and they take some kind of meaningful stake in bitcoin even if it is ONLY 1% of their investments.

Funny that these days there are a lot of recommendations to invest way heavier in bitcoin, and usually my top end of the investment was to invest up to 10%, but I can see the justifications for investing more and just find it ironic that so many people are so much more bullish than my historical approach.. even though I still stick with a 1% to 10% investment allocation into bitcoin as my starting recommendation, but of course peeps can customize their allocation once they become more familiar with bitcoin and even are forced to really look at their own finances to figure out how much would be reasonable and/or prudent for their BTC allocation.

Is that magic? It could be!
As of today that is the most accurate model one could have ever produced for bitcoin. We're set to reach the next stage which is $100k.
Look at the bitcoin shortage which is happening in every exchange. Corn hunger.
Unbelievable.

New ATH, everyone get excited about that, but really nothing we all  didn't see coming:



We are pretty much in line with Stock to Flow model.
The fun has yet to come.

You see it, eventually some common ground to be shared together. I will be burying the hatchet and I hope you will do that too.

After finishing the Bitcoin Standard I came to the realization that what Saifedean Ammous says about bitcoin truly supports what is going to be its deserved and inevitable success. Whatever the model, bitcoin will revolutionize the world we live in, but I agree with you that all the ones you have mentioned are certainly complementing each other.

Must be your way of extending an olive branch, acquafredda.   

Regarding donald trump's support of stock to flow's predictive model... fuck that guy - he don't know nuttin about nuttin.. even if he may consider himself a perfect genius.

I have frequently attempted to supplement my explanation of how to explain price pressures on BTC, and surely some peeps might suggest that stock to flow is a totally comprehensive attempt to capture whatever dynamics are present to attempt to predict BTC's price direction and the pressures upon its price.  I still like to suggest that the four-year fractal model (which is merely the overlaying of previous four year patterns) and exponential s-curve adoption based on metcalfe principles and network effects also are influential to the stock to flow model in such a way that they need their own separate explanation - even though some may argue that stock to flow already captures those concepts.  I still like to present them as a threesome set of ideas... and also to say something like this: "who fucking knows what will happen, but the combination of these three BTC price prediction models give pretty decent ideas of what might happen better than any other models and better than just throwing your hands in the air or otherwise guessing."

I got you buddy, No need to be serious at all times but it is a natural reaction of any members to comment about it. No one could tell actually on what you meant about your sarcastic posts but you had already defended it in your case with your replies.

Anyway, in my opinion selling bitcoin while knowing the OP's post on stock-flow model seeing bitcoin liquidity of bitcoin supply in the future will be go down. As it was already predicted and the ATH could attract more bitcoin investors and we do not know what will going to happen on what development of that bitcoin will make.

You can not be serious, come on. What part of my sarcastic reply was not clear to you? I was joking, Jay.

Don't you see that even Donald J. Trump confirms the validity of the Stock-to-Flow Model?

What do you know, you patronizing fucktwat?

Does your kind of vague-ass purported "honest talk" ramblings make you feel MOAR better?  Lovey dovey and contributing to the bitcoin dialogue?



Your dates are vague as fuck, and my earlier response should have already highlighted the problematic nature of the way you framed this particular matter.


Does someone have to hold your hand and guide you through some kind of more representative and honest presentations... look who is the argumentative fuck who fails/refuses to present honest and specific information.


Good.  Let them talk.  There are all kinds of wrong people in this space spewing out guesses... maybe you should disclose who these supposed people are?  might be helpful, but I doubt it.. random peeps say all kinds of nonsensical shit.



Good look at you, the realistic contrarian.. starting to impress because you are NOT just going along with the claims of random unspecified peeps..

I am very proud of you.


Get where?  Where are we trying to go?  Have you put forth a theory yet?  Last I saw was that you were asking a question about some vague dates and vague data that you set forth.  I did not know that you had a theory, too.. No wonder you were setting forth nonsense information because you were not attempting to get the facts to talk, but instead you were attempting to spout out some kind of theory that you have.  Maybe you want to explain that?  Since you like to put things out there and let them dangle.. may was well have one more vague piece of half ass theory dangling out there... would not hurt to have one more, right? What is one more lame, vague ass theory in the whole scheme of things?


Oh, and now you are giving advices, too.. whew.. You seem to wear many hats, especially accounting for the niceness of peeps on the interwebs.. we should all be nice to each other, right?
 Even to guys who spout out nonsense, right?  Looking good, HabBear.... Looking good.  

Looks like you're developing a reputation for developing arguments here. I'm just here for honest talk.

The dates I pulled are very intentional, their as precise as the dates used in the chart I included in the post. The dates I offer correspond with the price highs in that chart (the thick multi-colored line). People are talking about the next logarithmic peak happening very soon, I don't think it'll come that quickly. I think it'll take longer to get there than we've seen in the past...just based on the data.

Try not to lead with insults, and always be hodling.

At least you admit it.. so you are stepping in the right direction.. good luck with your sale "at the top."

I am sure that you will call the top, after it had already happened, and then say that is where you sold, blah blah blah... heard it a million times (or close to a million times).

 

JayJuanGee, there is no point replying you here as I went full retarded. My life is ruined, I am going to sell at the top and start afresh.
/s

I said the model would work either way so there was no reason for you to show-off.

You seem to be randomly picking dates and price points to try to tell some kind of story that you want to tell that does not seem to be based on the actual data.

But good luck staying poor if you choose to NOT invest in BTC or inadequately invest in BTC or fail/refuse to prepare yourself in more realistic kinds of ways in terms of looking at the past numbers more realistically and fairly - rather than skewing them with a kind of seemingly self-selection story.

By the way, nothing is guaranteed in bitcoin, even PlanB's stock to flow model is giving a kind of probability set that seems to suggest pretty decent chances that we get to $100k-ish or more in this particular cycle... whether it goes straight up from here in a kind of one shot that looks like 2017 and brings us to $100k plus in the upcoming year (2021) or it perhaps follows a 2013 kind of model that has two UPpity periods and a bit of a long correction in the middle or it could follow an alternative path too..

In any event, anyone invested in BTC should be prepared financially and psychologically for a variety of scenarios, including a possibility that the next UPpity cycle drags out longer and lower than previously expected or suggested by the stock to flow model.. or the other models such as the four-year fractal or the exponential s-curve adoption based on metcalfe and networking principles..... that are somewhat accounted for in the stock to flow model, too.

If this chart is logarithmic, we need to consider that the time it takes to reach the next peak gets drawn out. People look at these charts and think we'll hit 100,000$ by next year...i think it's more like 2022 or 2023 to get to that point. If you notice the duration it took to get to each new all time high, the time period expands by 30-50% each time.

• 1.5 years to surpass $10 - 2010-20111
• 2.5 years to surpass $1,000 - 2011-2014
• 4.0 years to surpass $10,000 - 2014-2018
• HOW MANY? years to surpass $100,000 - 2018-

Based on the data it would have to be at least 4 years, which would be 2022. But given the trend that the timeline gets longer to grow 10x, we're looking at more like 6-8 years so 2024-2026 by the time that happens.

Ok smart people...where is my logic off?

I don't disagree with you fillippone, but I would frame a response a wee bit differently, even if we may well be saying some kind of similar thing.

Mine would go something like this:

"Fuck that!!!  Why would anyone want to handicap themselves or their model in terms of attempting to understanding what the fuck is going on by removing material and relevant data? If you remove data, then your model likely becomes less accurate. 

In other words, removal of material and relevant data is nearly retarded, if not full blown retarded."



In other words, Italian "used to be stallion"** you are much nicer than me.  #nohomo

**referring to a prior self-disclosure of yours. hahahahahaha