Here's a vega-positive strategy. Purely academic as you need a liquid options market:

If M is the bet amount, buy N calls of strike K with premium C such that M = N * (20k - K) and C <= 20k - K. If bitcoin touches 20k, sell the calls. Your profit will N * C' - M >= N * (20k - K) - M = 0, where C' is the new premium. If doesn't touch, you gain M - N*C >= M - N * (20k - K) = 0.

You can optimize the EV over N and K depending on C is in the market place and your subjective probabilities of Bitcoin.

what exactly do you mean by "AI will crush btc"

quantum computer will crack the code, i invest in commodities now rather than technology. I am no tech expert but i know commodities will go up. Not saying you can't outperform with tech over commodities.

Don't confuse his narrative with facts!

When I mean commodity, I meant precious metals. Don’t confuse the past with the future

Unfortunately gold is the new silver

And the new gold is...

In all fairness, gold is probably a solid bet with a lot less volatility than BTC. I respect it, it's very lindy and has a very long, interesting and crazy history. I don't own it myself because BTC is a lot more interesting right now, and I'm not a boomer.

Put the current bitcoin price of ~$10K into your formula and it simplifies to mine.

proof of concept... bitcoin... isn't the future, it is merely an experiment.

And yet:

According to a new study by mainstream American news network CNN, Bitcoin is by far the most profitable asset class of this decade. The news network reviewed the performance of investments over the past decade to come to this conclusion. USD 1, if invested at the beginning of this decade, would be USD 90,000 today, while an investment of just USD 11.12 would have become a million.

Bitcoin easily overshadowed the other competing assets. The stock market was in a bull market for the last ten years and yet USD 1 invested into American stocks only grew into USD 3.46. On the other hand, USD 1 invested into bonds would have grown into USD 2.08. People usually favor bonds as they are safer investments than Bitcoin. Looking at more traditional assets like gold and petrol, USD 1 can only grow to USD 1.34 while oil dropped from USD 1 to USD 0.74.

Pretty sure some of the altcoins/shitcoins were the most profitable asset classes of the decade. Went from cents to thousands way faster. For example, Ethereum went from 50c to $1300 in less than two years.

Bitcoin choking like a dog again with merely this little uptick in interest. $4.50 to send a transaction, incredible. Bitcoin is useless as a currency at that fee level.

Large price increases (fed by feeding frenzy ponzi interest) are self limiting with this huge roadblock. It came sooner than I expected. Not a good sign.

Have you sent or received a Lightning transaction?

I know you believe it won't work in the long run, but it is live and functional right meow. Basically instantaneous and free.

It's not a bad sign either. There hasn't been a bull case in years that includes low on-chain transaction costs.

BTC was NEVER intended to be a currency... it's a store of value. If you want an enterprise scale coin, it's XRP or Ethereum. It's that idea of using it as a currency that is completely wrong.

XRP is going to win the daily transaction adoption.

I've been told hundreds of times that bitcoin will moon because people will use to buy stuff, receive pay, transmit back to their home countries, etc. That hundreds of millions of poor people will take it up in the third world. But let's just say that's the dumber bulls and the smarter bulls see the out in "store of value".

So bitcoin is just a store of value in the bull case. Why would bitcoin win then over something that can be both a currency and a store of value? This is what I don't get. Ultimately people will store value and buy into a transacting currency over some esoteric "store of value". Bitcoin has no natural bid like gold does for jewelry to hold it up; it's purely made up.

Miners will also shift their weight to a transacting currency over a store of value because transactions mean return, such that the transacting currency has greater stability, higher throughput, better security. Are people going to pay big fees to move from their unstable "store of value" back to the transacting currency, back and forth losing money each time. That's just silly. The money flows to where the action is, and if the digital transaction action can't be in bitcoin long term, then it's done for.

The long term $10 trillion "store of value" argument that the bitcoin bulls put forward doesn't make any sense.

You're both wrong

But TS actually believing gold is worth $10 trillion because of jewellery is next level stupid

Imagine central banks storing tonnes of gold because some people like gold necklaces

You can buy gold, silver and platinum bullion from probably the largest bullion dealer in the world(APMEX) with bitcoin. They don’t take payment in all the other smaller crypto currency, just bitcoin. There’s about 3-4 major bullion dealers that accept bitcoin as payment. Bitcoin will always be the top dog in the crypto world.

Anyone can replicate/clone Bitcoin's technology or make it "better", but they can't replicate the hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of hash power that is dedicated to securing the Bitcoin network. Ultimately, that hash power is what sustains Bitcoin's current market cap.

That is not to say that if hashpower dropped 99% the Bitcoin network would stop working. It would still work, but the network itself would be worth significantly less due to the reduced security.

Let's say entity A wants to transfer $100m to entity B. Perhaps they're more than happy to pay $5 in fees to use the BTC network as opposed to $0.01 to use the XRP network. But let's say someone waves a magic wand and every BTC miner gets turned off and hashpower is reduced to 2011 levels. Then perhaps entity A will prefer to use the Ethereum or Ripple network instead.

@mschu

Eh the white paper is literally subtitled "peer to peer electronic cash system".

It's definitely been shifting to a store of value but i think to really succeed it will need to be both. With the currency transactions on a 2nd layer.

Lol xrp

That's exactly why they store it - the reliable bid from the populace, which ultimately flows from its longstanding value as highly desired ornamentation (of buildings, women, furniture). Gold is worth $10 trillion because it shines in a pretty way.

That you can't see this is garden variety stupid. A lot of people are as silly as you on this topic. The Mises assclowns who think gold is valuable because it has the properties of money and is rare (seashells, bro!) are the best of all and really amuse me. That's up there with them predicting hyperinflation for 30 years.

Gold is valuable for the same reason hot marriage-age daughters are valuable in bride-dowry societies - because they're pretty and rare. Central banks would store hot women if they didn't require maintenance. All the value comes from the real-world bid which comes from non-money properties.

Gold itself is actually very rare too. Seems obvious, but in the past few thousand years humans have only managed to get a remarkably small amount out of the earth due to its scarcity. 171,300 tonnes is the estimate. it sounds like a lot but thats for the entirety of humans mining gold on earth EVER.

in comparison we probably pull that much in iron ore out of the ground in less than 1 day, probably more. (130 million tonnes of iron ore is pulled out per year)

compared to virtually every metal/precious metal/diamonds its extremely rare.

Also, for TheMVP,.
Because I'm in a generous mood today I'm going to help you become a tiny bit less silly on this topic. Here's average gold demand by sector:



Industrial + jewlery is 61% of gold demand - that's a giant decentralized bid that sustains its value and has for 2000 years. Central banks are 6% of gold demand.

Yet according to TheMVP, gold is valuable not because of the 61% constant decentralized bid component, but because of the minority investment component. Really bro?

If I could wave a wand and give gold a slight poo colored sheen, do you think it's value would:

a) Stay this high
b) Crash

It would obviously crash, forming a new equilibrium based on its new far lower jewelry demand. Central banks would not matter because the decentralized bid from the broad populace would have collapsed.

Always gotta trust World Gold Council pie charts that spell it Jewellry