Topic: The American doomsday by Tom Lee (Read 538 times)
Is the money in circulation ample enough to defend Tom Lee's prediction? The S&P 500, the Dow Jones and the Nasdaq are in their all time highs, I reckon the rally must end somewhere.
First of all, people who live there still need bolivar so that is the answer of your question. As long as shops and stores there require bolivar instead of bitcoin people there will need bolivar, there is no question of "who needs bolivar" because that is a nations currency, its like saying "who needs dollars", I understand bitcoin is much more global and will always be more global but bolivar will always be the national currency for them and that is important
Technically, we don't know how things really are in Venezuela
I mean, with respect to your assumption that people still need bolivars for everyday needs. But I can tell you how it was in other countries that went through the periods of hyperinflation in their past. It is exactly as assumed here, with shops and merchants refusing to accept local currency. It doesn't of course mean that they are ready to accept cryptocurrencies, but the latter is rather a problem of cryptocurrencies, not merchants as such (let's be honest here, there is still plenty of room for improvement)
Typically, the US dollar is being asked for payment in these circumstances but it can be some other stable currency which is circulating in the area. And if the local government is unable to efficiently squash hyperinflation, the end result is just that, i.e. local currency being completely abandoned, at first by simple people and then by the government itself. The most notorious and well-known example of such an outcome is Zimbabwe (and their Zimbabwean dollar), but it is definitely not the only one
First of all, people who live there still need bolivar so that is the answer of your question. As long as shops and stores there require bolivar instead of bitcoin people there will need bolivar, there is no question of "who needs bolivar" because that is a nations currency, its like saying "who needs dollars", I understand bitcoin is much more global and will always be more global but bolivar will always be the national currency for them and that is important.
However, that doesn't mean bitcoin investment wasn't better, it was miles better for people and even if it lost value it didn't lose as much as bolivar, the only reason people still use bolivar instead of bitcoin is that they need to pay for stuff to stay alive in bolivar and can't do that in bitcoin, that is the only reason.
However, that doesn't mean bitcoin investment wasn't better, it was miles better for people and even if it lost value it didn't lose as much as bolivar, the only reason people still use bolivar instead of bitcoin is that they need to pay for stuff to stay alive in bolivar and can't do that in bitcoin, that is the only reason.
If we assume that a certain Venezuelan had bought bitcoins at 10k, which is a lot more plausible given the short span of time that Bitcoin was trading above that mark, he would have had his purchasing power halved by now (a little more than that but for simplicity's sake let it be so). Then the real question is, how much would he have lost if he had kept the local currency, i.e. the Venezuelan bolivar, all that time?
https://tradingeconomics.com/venezuela/currency
I believe "he" would have kept more value by buying Bitcoin at $10,000 than holding all that in Bolivar. Haha.
I didn't check yet, but visually the chart shows that the Bolivar is losing much more value than Bitcoin.
Quote
And we are not taking into account the fact that there is virtually no chance for his bolivar stash to regain its purchasing power in the future, while Bitcoin stash definitely can, and with a vengeance at that
Plus it will always be more in demand than the Bolivar.
Who wants to hold Bolivars? Hahaha.
The same basically applies to people in Venezuela using their native fiat currency. Today you can buy your groceries with X amount of fiat, while the next week you need twice as much in fiat to buy the same groceries.
The Bolivar lost way more of its value than Bitcoin from its near $20,000 peak to where we are right now. In other words, buying Bitcoin at near peak levels (most people buy way lower since only a few people buy and sell the top) and holding it till today was a better deal than holding X amount in Bolivars within the same time frame. The good thing here is that Bitcoin will be going up again so your paper losses will turn into paper profits, while the Bolivar will keep tanking.
Even a can of tuna with a limited shelf life is a better store of value than the Bolivar.
Sure, losing 80% of your value is better than losing nearly all of it, but still it's pretty bad. Imagine someone from Venezuela putting their savings in Bitcoin at the ATH and now having only 20% of the original investment - this can be extremely devastating
This is a possible scenario but statistically not a very likely one
If we assume that a certain Venezuelan had bought bitcoins at 10k, which is a lot more plausible given the short span of time that Bitcoin was trading above that mark, he would have had his purchasing power halved by now (a little more than that but for simplicity's sake let it be so). Then the real question is, how much would he have lost if he had kept the local currency, i.e. the Venezuelan bolivar, all that time?
And we are not taking into account the fact that there is virtually no chance for his bolivar stash to regain its purchasing power in the future, while Bitcoin stash definitely can, and with a vengeance at that
The same basically applies to people in Venezuela using their native fiat currency. Today you can buy your groceries with X amount of fiat, while the next week you need twice as much in fiat to buy the same groceries.
The Bolivar lost way more of its value than Bitcoin from its near $20,000 peak to where we are right now. In other words, buying Bitcoin at near peak levels (most people buy way lower since only a few people buy and sell the top) and holding it till today was a better deal than holding X amount in Bolivars within the same time frame. The good thing here is that Bitcoin will be going up again so your paper losses will turn into paper profits, while the Bolivar will keep tanking.
Even a can of tuna with a limited shelf life is a better store of value than the Bolivar.
Sure, losing 80% of your value is better than losing nearly all of it, but still it's pretty bad. Imagine someone from Venezuela putting their savings in Bitcoin at the ATH and now having only 20% of the original investment - this can be extremely devastating.
Of course Bitcoin will recover and will eventually surpass the previous ATH, but it takes time, maybe years, and poor people might not have it, as they struggle to survive every single day in Venezuela and other extremely poor countries. It's only easy to say "HODL" when you've put a small amount of your savings and wouldn't get too hurt even if Bitcoin goes to zero.
With Bitcoin you don't know what its value is going to be tomorrow or next year. People assume it will go up, and it likely will, but what if it doesn't? It's too much of a risk since there are no certainties here.
The same basically applies to people in Venezuela using their native fiat currency. Today you can buy your groceries with X amount of fiat, while the next week you need twice as much in fiat to buy the same groceries.
The Bolivar lost way more of its value than Bitcoin from its near $20,000 peak to where we are right now. In other words, buying Bitcoin at near peak levels (most people buy way lower since only a few people buy and sell the top) and holding it till today was a better deal than holding X amount in Bolivars within the same time frame. The good thing here is that Bitcoin will be going up again so your paper losses will turn into paper profits, while the Bolivar will keep tanking.
Even a can of tuna with a limited shelf life is a better store of value than the Bolivar.
You think they posses wealth at all ? I mean you think a Venezuelan who is having trouble finding food is going to just put their "wealth" into bitcoin somehow ? This is a whole country that lost weight because of how poor they are, do you really think all they care about is money at this moment ? I mean think about it, even if you had all the money in the world, the country itself is running out of food constantly, whenever they manage to gather enough money together they try to get food from other countries and than it ends very quickly and they are hungry yet again.
People died of starvation there every single day since this problem started. You think those people should just put their money into bitcoin? What money, what wealth ? We are talking about people who die of starvation, there is no wealth there at all.
People died of starvation there every single day since this problem started. You think those people should just put their money into bitcoin? What money, what wealth ? We are talking about people who die of starvation, there is no wealth there at all.
Venezuela is in a financial crisis, not in armageddon hehehe.
@BitHodler. However, it might be safer to hold a volatile but valuable asset or currency than to hold a fiat currency that cannot hold any value or has no value.
Their people might not use bitcoin as currency for daily necessities, but they can use it to store their wealth unless gold or the US dollar are easier to buy.
I'm sure that there is a small percentage of people there with enough capital to park a chunk of it in gold or Bitcoin, but what can you do with it when you run out of funds at one point? What people there need is the US dollar, which is easier to buy into, and easier to utilize in case you need it, because it's possible to spend it almost everywhere. Stability is a key element, and that's what the US dollar offers.
With Bitcoin you don't know what its value is going to be tomorrow or next year. People assume it will go up, and it likely will, but what if it doesn't? It's too much of a risk since there are no certainties here.
I cannot stop laughing.
I thought after that:
NOV 28, 2018
Fundstrat's Tom Lee: Bear Markets Are a ‘Golden Time’ to Be in Crypto
DEC 13, 2018
Fundstrat’s Tom Lee Says Fair Value of Bitcoin to Reach $150K Per Coin
the guy would stop appearing on news channels, because those erroneous predictions are destroying his reputation
NOV 20, 2018
Tom Lee Maintains $15,000 Year-End BTC Prediction Despite Market Crash
we are already in 2019 and the price is below $4000
You think they posses wealth at all ? I mean you think a Venezuelan who is having trouble finding food is going to just put their "wealth" into bitcoin somehow ? This is a whole country that lost weight because of how poor they are, do you really think all they care about is money at this moment ? I mean think about it, even if you had all the money in the world, the country itself is running out of food constantly, whenever they manage to gather enough money together they try to get food from other countries and than it ends very quickly and they are hungry yet again.
People died of starvation there every single day since this problem started. You think those people should just put their money into bitcoin? What money, what wealth ? We are talking about people who die of starvation, there is no wealth there at all.
People died of starvation there every single day since this problem started. You think those people should just put their money into bitcoin? What money, what wealth ? We are talking about people who die of starvation, there is no wealth there at all.
Tom Lee should go be an Uber driver, he killed his reputation with idiotic predictions. If bitcoin doesn't cross 6 figures in a couple years, Mcafee and Draper will join him as crypto analyst clowns.
When the bitcoin price was near 20.000$ we were all dreaming it will moon further to 100.000$ which didn't happen. Maybe after the next halving we will see the 6 digits? Initially, I thought it to also be true about Bitcoin not really being useful in these countries. Never mind Venezuela, finding someone providing a useful service or product in my own country isn't easy, and it's among the most technologically developed in the region.
But speaking to Venezuelans, and now even Iranians and Turks facing inflation, simply being able to hold value in Bitcoin, being able to then transfer that value abroad, and now finding it relatively easy to find a willing buyer for us dollar or euro... Makes Bitcoin absolutely a viable alternative.
But speaking to Venezuelans, and now even Iranians and Turks facing inflation, simply being able to hold value in Bitcoin, being able to then transfer that value abroad, and now finding it relatively easy to find a willing buyer for us dollar or euro... Makes Bitcoin absolutely a viable alternative.
You basically repeat what I have been telling here for years
That it is unlikely we are going to see mass adoption of Bitcoin as a means of exchange in the near future. But it doesn't in the least mean that Bitcoin is useless and worthless. It is perfectly equipped for remittances as you don't depend on third parties (read, rogue banks and governments alike) as well as the fee you have to pay doesn't depend on the amount transacted (so-called flat fees). If this area of application expands dramatically in the coming years, we may also expect the prices to stabilize and Bitcoin's use as a store of value expand as well
So the correction was short lived or even one-off only probably due to liquidation of someone or something. Does that answer your question? Why are you so unhappy with it, really?
You're the one who starting arguing with me. All I said was that gold fell during the 2008 crash, just like everything else. You denied it, so I just gave you the facts.....
Wasn't it you who asked about the reasons why gold fell in 2008?
Actually, I didn't start arguing with you either. I just questioned the validity of your claim, and then I admitted that I was not going to quarrel over that point. Regarding your question, I see no reason why gold should have fallen in value on its own. To make things clear and not to engage in further futile debates, by falling in value on its own, I mean demand evaporating, not supply surging for some unspecified reason (e.g. due to massive sell-offs)
Basically, the abrupt (relative to a decade long growth) crash looks to me more like a sudden explosion in supply, not demand running low. And if you have to sell something in amounts which the market can't easily absorb, you would do better and get better price if you start selling slow allowing the market to rebuild itself and provide firm support. It is exactly how the Mt. Gox custodian had been selling bitcoins, without crashing the price (too much)
Holding bitcoin in these countries is a reasonable solution, I reckon, which also might make it a better investment outside of those countries.
It depends on how you look at it. It's easy to say for an outsider that Bitcoin is a reasonable solution and/or hedge, which is true, but the majority of the people there can't do anything with Bitcoin.You can't pay for your daily necessities with Bitcoin, which is what they actually need because they live from day to day not knowing what the next one will bring. News outlets have been fooling people about crypto adoption there.
If one local store accepts payments in Bitcoin, they directly refer to it as 'Venezuela Bitcoin adoption growing' where they add tons of gibberish to the story to spice things up. Not cool.
However, we should remember that these countries are Venezuela and Zimbabwe. Countries which are suffering or have suffered from hyperinflation. Their people might not use bitcoin as currency for daily necessities, but they can use it to store their wealth unless gold or the US dollar are easier to buy.
Initially, I thought it to also be true about Bitcoin not really being useful in these countries. Never mind Venezuela, finding someone providing a useful service or product in my own country isn't easy, and it's among the most technologically developed in the region.
But speaking to Venezuelans, and now even Iranians and Turks facing inflation, simply being able to hold value in Bitcoin, being able to then transfer that value abroad, and now finding it relatively easy to find a willing buyer for us dollar or euro... Makes Bitcoin absolutely a viable alternative.
Holding bitcoin in these countries is a reasonable solution, I reckon, which also might make it a better investment outside of those countries.
It depends on how you look at it. It's easy to say for an outsider that Bitcoin is a reasonable solution and/or hedge, which is true, but the majority of the people there can't do anything with Bitcoin.You can't pay for your daily necessities with Bitcoin, which is what they actually need because they live from day to day not knowing what the next one will bring. News outlets have been fooling people about crypto adoption there.
If one local store accepts payments in Bitcoin, they directly refer to it as 'Venezuela Bitcoin adoption growing' where they add tons of gibberish to the story to spice things up. Not cool.
However, we should remember that these countries are Venezuela and Zimbabwe. Countries which are suffering or have suffered from hyperinflation. Their people might not use bitcoin as currency for daily necessities, but they can use it to store their wealth unless gold or the US dollar are easier to buy.
High: $1,032.35
Low: $681.75
= 33.96% decline in value
Low: $681.75
= 33.96% decline in value
What does this chart show exactly? What is it, futures or spot market, and whose fixing, to begin with?
Physically settled daily futures (London gold market). Feel free to try and find HLOC data from another liquid gold market that looks any different. Daily futures and spot are very tightly correlated, but futures markets have much better historical data and are more liquid anyway.
Why do you keep repeating that? The question is: "What was the effect of the 2008 financial crisis on the gold market?"
And you're responding with: "Gold was in a long term bull market." That doesn't answer the question, nor does it address what actually happened to gold prices during the last financial crisis (a 34% crash in value).
And you're responding with: "Gold was in a long term bull market." That doesn't answer the question, nor does it address what actually happened to gold prices during the last financial crisis (a 34% crash in value).
I thought I explained it in my post. Did you read it?
Yes, gold was in a long term bull market, and there was no reason for it to crash due to loss of value. The part which you missed or chose to miss in my post was exactly about that. If someone or some entity dumped massive amounts of gold into the market at heavily discounted prices (as the gold market doesn't look very elastic to absorb so much gold in so little time span), you would get precisely this effect.
LOL, the market dumped 34% over 9 months. It's ridiculous to claim this loss of value is due to temporary lack of market liquidity. It's much more logical to look at the significant global financial crisis and market contraction that was occurring at the time.
So the correction was short lived or even one-off only probably due to liquidation of someone or something. Does that answer your question? Why are you so unhappy with it, really?
You're the one who starting arguing with me. All I said was that gold fell during the 2008 crash, just like everything else. You denied it, so I just gave you the facts.....
this person often makes predictions that make a scene in the community, but after he said about his predictions in 2018 I would never believe what he said again.
High: $1,032.35
Low: $681.75
= 33.96% decline in value
Low: $681.75
= 33.96% decline in value
What does this chart show exactly? What is it, futures or spot market, and whose fixing, to begin with?
Why do you keep repeating that? The question is: "What was the effect of the 2008 financial crisis on the gold market?"
And you're responding with: "Gold was in a long term bull market." That doesn't answer the question, nor does it address what actually happened to gold prices during the last financial crisis (a 34% crash in value).
And you're responding with: "Gold was in a long term bull market." That doesn't answer the question, nor does it address what actually happened to gold prices during the last financial crisis (a 34% crash in value).
I thought I explained it in my post. Did you read it?
Yes, gold was in a long term bull market, and there was no reason for it to crash due to loss of value. The part which you missed or chose to miss in my post was exactly about that. If someone or some entity dumped massive amounts of gold into the market at heavily discounted prices (as the gold market doesn't look very elastic to absorb so much gold in so little time span), you would get precisely this effect. So the correction was short lived or even one-off only probably due to liquidation of someone or something. Does that answer your question? Why are you so unhappy with it, really?
There's no coincidence that these were 2 of the biggest icos in history, and both were endorsed by Draper. They were both also complete fucking failures for anyone participating in them. Rationalize it any way you want, but Draper's credibility went down the toilet afaic. He's just another shady name in the shadiest market the world has ever known.
they just said he was an "investor" right? that shouldn't mean much at all. i understand that it might have made gullible investors feel better about dumping money in, but it really doesn't indicate any involvement whatsoever.
i assume every successful venture capitalist has made a boatload of failed investments anyway. most startups are destined to fail. draper isn't immune to that at all and no offering in this industry will be.
i do think he's a bit of a loon, one example being his obsession with breaking california into multiple states. so i never took him that seriously anyway.
Jump to: