I appreciate the perspective of this post and would like to offer an additional viewpoint.
While both Bitcoin and the S&P 500 are influenced by global liquidity, their primary growth drivers differ. The S&P 500’s growth is largely driven by economic expansion and corporate earnings. In contrast, Bitcoin’s growth is significantly influenced by market consensus and adoption.
There may come a time when Bitcoin achieves a level of consensus and integration into the financial system that its value becomes more directly tied to economic growth, similar to traditional assets like the S&P 500. And I'm certainly hoping for this to be true.
Its amazing how the S&P500 tracks the money supply growth (M2). Which implies you're not getting ahead but not losing either. Everything is going to 0 versus Bitcoin.
This only accounts for debasement...when you add inflation which we all know is higher than reported, the hurdle rate to grow you wealth is at least 10% above market returns. BTC is the way!!
This paints an incomplete picture. The S&P had a great year say 2x STD. You can not depend on compounding those returns although theoretically you can HF returns. When it comes to BTC you need to have superhuman risk tolerance to deal with 70%+ draw downs. Most investors do no find it fiscally responsible to put their nest egg in an asset that may be down 70% at the time the need it most. While your argument for long term investing may be rational, the biggest single mistake all economical models make is that people act rationally. Take my wife...please
Pretty weak crypto argument. If both gold and the S&P were so reliant on the same thing they would be highly correlated. Spoiler alert they aren't. This isn't hard to verify.
Also saying that a new asset that has went nuts within the last decade and can be wiped out by 50% overnight from regulation is the new standard is pretty ridiculous.
Even more ridiculous is implying that if your investments aren't beating a yearly Bitcoin return they are failing behind. I guess those dudes not getting a 1300% return can GTFO. But wait. The next year they returned nothing so much better then a 73% loss?
What I’m curious about is- Jordi Visser in your recent podcast said that although a house in Vancouver price has increased over the last 30 years, it’s relatively stable in terms of gold. So it’s mostly rising in price due to currency debasement. On average this seems to be the case in the U.S. too. Although the increase in price for housing relative to gold is higher, it’s not that different. So much of the perceived price surge is attributable to currency debasement rather than increase in intrinsic value of the house
I appreciate the perspective of this post and would like to offer an additional viewpoint.
While both Bitcoin and the S&P 500 are influenced by global liquidity, their primary growth drivers differ. The S&P 500’s growth is largely driven by economic expansion and corporate earnings. In contrast, Bitcoin’s growth is significantly influenced by market consensus and adoption.
There may come a time when Bitcoin achieves a level of consensus and integration into the financial system that its value becomes more directly tied to economic growth, similar to traditional assets like the S&P 500. And I'm certainly hoping for this to be true.
Its amazing how the S&P500 tracks the money supply growth (M2). Which implies you're not getting ahead but not losing either. Everything is going to 0 versus Bitcoin.
This only accounts for debasement...when you add inflation which we all know is higher than reported, the hurdle rate to grow you wealth is at least 10% above market returns. BTC is the way!!
or the new Vix?
Outstanding commentary, Anthony, and Happy New Year!
Question: what does 'stability' look like for bitcoin?
Meaning, after the global markets grasp its value, what kind of volatility would you anticipate?
Love the macro thesis and Jordi’s perspective. Thank you!
This paints an incomplete picture. The S&P had a great year say 2x STD. You can not depend on compounding those returns although theoretically you can HF returns. When it comes to BTC you need to have superhuman risk tolerance to deal with 70%+ draw downs. Most investors do no find it fiscally responsible to put their nest egg in an asset that may be down 70% at the time the need it most. While your argument for long term investing may be rational, the biggest single mistake all economical models make is that people act rationally. Take my wife...please
Pretty weak crypto argument. If both gold and the S&P were so reliant on the same thing they would be highly correlated. Spoiler alert they aren't. This isn't hard to verify.
Also saying that a new asset that has went nuts within the last decade and can be wiped out by 50% overnight from regulation is the new standard is pretty ridiculous.
Even more ridiculous is implying that if your investments aren't beating a yearly Bitcoin return they are failing behind. I guess those dudes not getting a 1300% return can GTFO. But wait. The next year they returned nothing so much better then a 73% loss?
Its not getting wiped out from regulation if BlackRock and other whales have their money in it. Read the room
Pomp, could you post an update to Bitcoin vs Real Estate. Would like your take
What I’m curious about is- Jordi Visser in your recent podcast said that although a house in Vancouver price has increased over the last 30 years, it’s relatively stable in terms of gold. So it’s mostly rising in price due to currency debasement. On average this seems to be the case in the U.S. too. Although the increase in price for housing relative to gold is higher, it’s not that different. So much of the perceived price surge is attributable to currency debasement rather than increase in intrinsic value of the house