Off-Topic - Just had a meeting with an unvaccinated colleague that recently came out of hospital for COVID-19. He is very fit and was perfectly healthy before he contracted the virus. He was hospitalized for 1 month. Suffered a lot, with serious respiratory problems. He has now tested negative, and has started coming back to work. We met in his car for 10 minutes. He was not wearing a mask, and I was not wearing a mask either (I forgot to take it with me, and didn't say anything, out of politeness)... He coughed a few times while in the car with me. I'm vaccinated.
Hopefully, all will be fine and I'll still be alive to enjoy the
$100k+ $1 million + pump in November. Let's see how this plays out. 干!
FTFY
$100k + is no longer a viable party/celebratory reference point, unless you happen to be a damned ant.. and we don't admit to having ants in these here parts.
#justsayingIn fact, the more people there are that believe the S2F model definitely will happen, the more that whale traders will have an incentive to NOT make it happen and do the opposite, fucking over both leveraged longs and shorts, and trying to shake out more weak-handed hodlers.
So surely the $million question remains whether bitcoin will still end up springing back to something like the S2F model in spite of strenuous efforts (and a lot of resources) striving to invalidate the S2F model. I am surely all in agreement with you in terms of identifying that there are some likely high stakes traditional manipulators that feel that they have quite a bit to lose based on bitcoin success and ongoing success so they are willing to NOT pull any punches when dealing with bitcoin manipulation and to throw a lot of resources at such "problems," yet in spite of such spent efforts, what's going to happen? Will bitcoin revert to something like S2F .. or perhaps S@F gets shifted downwardly on its curve projections a wee bit, but still does not invalidate S2F - beyond appearing that it is invalidated in the short term or even for one or two 4-year cycles and then at some point when we look back at the whole matter instead of doing something like what S2F had projected, we end up having a 1/3 performance level that resembles S2F, but really does not invalidate it beyond the need to shift the price projection curve downward by the necessary amount.
The S2F model is an interesting theoretical model based on looking at past data and projecting the future. But at the end of the day, that's all it is: a projection model. It could end up correct, or it could end up broken at some point.
We might well be on a similar page there, except I seem to be giving the future projection a wee bit more credence than you. I am having trouble with any implication that projecting forward based on the past is like a BIG so what, and suggesting that it would be better to just project forward without getting prejudiced by past performance, and there is something that seems way too deficient with that kind of a perspective.
There is no way you are going to find me attempting to assign certitude to a model, but at this point, I consider stock to flow to be amongst the best of packages of models so long as we couple stock to flow with 1) four-year fractal
(yes, I know somewhat redundant but seemingly necessary for emphasis) and 2) exponential s-curve adoption based on Metcalfe principles and network effects.
So yes, S2F could end up being wrong "at some point," but until it is wrong, it is amongst the best models that we have to give us some decent ideas about where this bad boy is
likely but not guaranteed to go.
The problem I'm having is all these noob acolytes treating it like a self-fullfilling prophecy, and a religion.
Of course, there are some people who are assigning way too high probabilities to the model fulfilling, and also there are some people who talk about the model as a certainty without necessarily giving proper disclaimers.. and we know that people just talk like that in the real world.. I get frustrated as well when so many people talk about certain aspects of the future as if the outcomes were certain, and by definition the future is something that has not happened yet, so it could not be certain.. so the vast majority of folks appreciate that.
They buy a small piece of bitcoin and sit on it, waiting for their delayed lottery ticket to strike a winner X months down the road, all because some chart has "promised" them that a certain price will come true by a certain date. Like that is a 100% certainty.
Apart from the assignment of 100% certainty, I am not having any problems with that approach, so long as people are not necessarily leveraging with the amount that they are investing. What else would you want them to do? I could think of worse behaviors.
Many of us would realize that if we were actually assigning anywhere between 90% and 100% probabilities to something, then that assignment would actually justify the behavior that you describe, and perhaps even leveraging all assets and credit to go "all in" or pretty damned close to "all in", so surely, it would be an error to be assigning those levels of certainty.. even though there is some high probabilities that we could get from where we might be going price wise in the coming 2-12 months.
By the way, about 5 weeks ago (price was very similar) I had already attempted to assign probabilities to future BTC price moves, which I believe those probabilities are still quite applicable (maybe I would tweak them a wee bit?), and from my perspective it was an attempt to assign realistic rather than outrageous values to where we might be going in the upcoming 2-12 months. Bitcoin naysayers or no coiners might believe that my assignment of probabilities and the actual numbers are too bullish, while bitcoin HODLers might consider that I am being too pessimistic... but I was trying to do the best that I could based on information then available and from my own perspective (and each of us likely need to consider from our own perspectives and there are ongoing battles about BTC price and its likely direction based on each of the market participants coming to differing conclusions).
What happens when things don't turn out like they were lead to believe?
They are going to get fucked up the ass because they ended up putting too much psychological and financial value into a scenario that did not end up playing out.
Will they all lose their shit, sell at a loss and become nocoiners again?
Why should "we" care? There are always market winners and market losers, and if they get fucked up the ass, then they have to bear the costs of such punishments.
Do you believe that you and I are going to be hurt by their behaviors? I would think not because bitcoin does not have bailouts, and if we already have adequately and prudently prepared our lil selfies for all kinds of BTC market performance possibilities, then we are already one step ahead of the game and possibly even able to get some advantages from the anticipated extra BTC price volatility that comes from various kinds of outrageous exuberances in the BTC market.
Nothing really new here, Torque. Sure some of the players have changed and become more sophisticated in their taking advantages of newbies and sure there are a lot more variety of liquidation avenues and financial instruments, but so what? Some of us are able to study the space and still sufficiently and adequately prepare ourselves for what we anticipate, including watching some of the expected carnage along the way.. which is inevitable during war and inevitable during various battles in the greatest wealth transfer in history in which some folks are in denial regarding it happening, others are able to make bank on the dynamics, some folks will prosper more than others, and maybe the more prudent investors make 100x, but some of the screw ups only make 10x to 20x, and others cannot even make bank even during such likely ongoing bullish conditions.
We all know that eventually the bitcoin price will rise to new ATHs. It's not a matter of if, but when. Because ongoing money printer go brrr and massive inflation is here to stay. That should be the guide that most investors follow, not some chart projection. It's a long term, lifetime investment.
People use all kinds of indicators, and some of those indicators are more reliable than others, and sure I agree that when squiggly lines are drawn on a chart, then sometimes the mere practice of drawing such squigglies causes more assignment of certainties than perhaps even the author of such squigglies had intended to communicate - but the reader of the chart still has to take responsible for his/her own overly assigning of higher levels of certainty than is deserved..
Furthermore, errors can be made by assigning too low of probabilities (or discarding the information) from such charts too, which seems to be part of where you and I are parting in our ways in terms of how much credibility and value to give to stock to flow and other similar charts that go beyond mere money printer go burr factors.
By the way, you know as well as I do that part of the inspiration for bitcoin did come from money printer go brrr factors in 2008.. and those behaviors continue into the present with even worse and more obvious demonstrations of those behaviors rearing their ugly heads subsequent to the March 2020 pandemic liquidation scare. At the same time, bitcoin's number go up technology is not purely wedded to government irresponsibility theories, even if those government irresponsibility theories are contributing factors... furthermore bitcoin is neither pro-government or anti-government as some libertarian nutjobs try to assign such nonsense frameworks, and I am considering that in the coming years, especially during our lifetimes, we are not going to be getting rid of government but government is going to be having a lot of challenges to adapt to bitcoin dynamics and incentives that are likely going to cause them to be more responsible and responsive in a variety of ways to the changed dynamnics and incentives that bitcoin brings to the table.
