A statistic quoted from an outsider like stanley duckenmiller takes nothing into account, like lost BTC or Satoshi's coins (I am assuming).
Does that significantly change your argument? Instead of having 86% of bitcoin HODLers not moving their coins, instead you have 76% or maybe 66%?
How much does that contribute to your argument in which the liquid supply of bitcoin that is moving around is still a minority of the available coins - even though surely I can see the difference between 86% and 66%, if that were a realistic change in the numbers.
$27 trillion is coming...
Haha, buddy what are you saying, do you really know?
$27T are they going to sell all their assets to just buy Bitcoins, Yeah this is my dream as well to watch Bitcoin the most capital-holding asset ever in my life but 27T is not at all possible in the coming 2 halvings at least.
Just Imagine 1% Only which can be a reality if if SEC doesn't fuck up the ongoing ETF approvals, I will be $270B currently exchanged or you can say the Liquid supply available in the market for these Giants is just 11% to 12%. According to the current market price it is worth only around $300B.
Now enjoy the moment of joy, if they bring this capital directly in the Bitcoin boom you'll see a new ATH just lead by this investment of 1%, hope so you've got it.
Yes.. I was going to make a similar kind of commentary to Out of mind... which would be that 1% to 10% ($270 million to $2.7 trillion) would be feasible for these kinds of institutions to invest into bitcoin if they were really putting their money where their mouths are (or at least in terms of recommending that clients allocate in that kind of a 1% to 10% kind of a way), even if the funds might be restricted to how much they can recommend in regards to certain kinds of non-traditional assets (including something like bitcoin) whcih might be the lower numbers,
....and even though I recommend individuals (newbies, lowcoiners or no coiners) to consider getting the fuck off of zero with an allocation into bitcoin of anywhere between 1% to 25% to start with, and of course, each person has to figure out the specific number / percentage out for their lil selfies... including taking responsibility for the number that they choose - which could be on the more aggressive side (such as 25%) if they are really bullish about bitcoin or even on the more whimpy side and closer to 1% if they are a more scared lil cat.. while at the same time, individuals (aka normies) also have to figure out their discretionary budget, and if they even have enough income that they are able to invest into anything (whether bitcoin or anything else) without devolving into gambling practices... .
...so institutions do NOT have the ability to be anywhere as close to the level of aggressive as individuals (when it comes to percentages that that they might be able to allocate into bitcoin or to recommend that their clients allocate into bitcoin)..... one of the reasons that individuals are so easy to front load institutions and even rich twats who might only feel that they are able to invest through something like an ETF rather than merely buying bitcoin directly (which is surely better for people to own the direct underlying asset, even though some folks are restricted in the ways that they can use some of their investment funds - namely investment funds that might have access to something like an ETF - but not legally allowed to buy bitcoin directly).