Author Topic: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation  (Read 22599 times)

Rosy

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2587
  • Location: Florida
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #650 on: November 21, 2021, 07:11:15 AM »

There certainly are no 100Xs any longer, no one even expects a 3X or 5X except for the moon boys. Perhaps the institutional investments will have an effect on price stability...
It hurts your case that Bitcoin tripled in the last 12 months.  Nobody expects what happened now to happen again?  Historical data doesn't support your claim.
https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/BTC-USD/

In case BTC changes price soon, note that GBTC quadrupled last year, in 2020:
1. Sorry, I wasn't clear - the 100X referred to the past and the part about the 3X or 5X is meant to refer to the present as in going forward from right now.
As in from today to the end of this cycle.
Based on what data?  You claim nobody "expects a 3X or 5X except for the moon boys".  Is that insult supposed to prove your point without data?

In the past 12 months, Bitcoin tripled.  I provided evidence.  I think it's reasonable to assume it could triple in the future.  Right now, the data is on my side, not yours.  Feel free to add data to support your view... a viewpoint without data strikes me as weaker than a point backed by data.

No insult intended here and certainly not to you. My statement reflects my opinion which was originally a response to Malcat's post.
Of course, I've seen the same data you have - there is no disagreement about that either. 

My viewpoint is more conservative because I see the data only as a starting point. There will be no more 100X going forward surely you agree on that.
No, I do not think it is reasonable to assume bitcoin could triple again 'in this cycle' - in the future, absolutely.
There are plenty of predictions and charts wherever you look, 3X is popular but I am not convinced. 

I don't see the point in arguing about which projection is more reasonable.
Past data did not include the effect of institutional adoption and the approval of BITO Futures ETF has on the current bitcoin market since neither one existed. If it does 3X great, I'd love that but I think it is more reasonable to assume it will do $98K to around $135K in this cycle.
Nobody knows what bitcoin will do until it happens.
Just my two cents.

MustacheAndaHalf

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4373
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #651 on: November 21, 2021, 09:33:24 AM »

There certainly are no 100Xs any longer, no one even expects a 3X or 5X except for the moon boys. Perhaps the institutional investments will have an effect on price stability...
It hurts your case that Bitcoin tripled in the last 12 months.  Nobody expects what happened now to happen again?  Historical data doesn't support your claim.
https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/BTC-USD/

In case BTC changes price soon, note that GBTC quadrupled last year, in 2020:
1. Sorry, I wasn't clear - the 100X referred to the past and the part about the 3X or 5X is meant to refer to the present as in going forward from right now.
As in from today to the end of this cycle.
Based on what data?  You claim nobody "expects a 3X or 5X except for the moon boys".  Is that insult supposed to prove your point without data?

In the past 12 months, Bitcoin tripled.  I provided evidence.  I think it's reasonable to assume it could triple in the future.  Right now, the data is on my side, not yours.  Feel free to add data to support your view... a viewpoint without data strikes me as weaker than a point backed by data.

No insult intended here and certainly not to you. My statement reflects my opinion which was originally a response to Malcat's post.
Of course, I've seen the same data you have - there is no disagreement about that either. 

My viewpoint is more conservative because I see the data only as a starting point. There will be no more 100X going forward surely you agree on that.
No, I do not think it is reasonable to assume bitcoin could triple again 'in this cycle' - in the future, absolutely.
There are plenty of predictions and charts wherever you look, 3X is popular but I am not convinced. 

I don't see the point in arguing about which projection is more reasonable.
Past data did not include the effect of institutional adoption and the approval of BITO Futures ETF has on the current bitcoin market since neither one existed. If it does 3X great, I'd love that but I think it is more reasonable to assume it will do $98K to around $135K in this cycle.
Nobody knows what bitcoin will do until it happens.
Just my two cents.
I expect many people expect Bitcoin to go 3X or more, which is why I got argumentative over the term you used.  But with that out of the way, I'm open to being corrected if my 3X or greater estimate (based on past data) is unrealistic.  If I was 100% certain Bitcoin is growing at just 2x in the next 4 years, I'd sell my holdings.  That would only be a 19% rate of return for something that could lose almost all it's value.

While I would also worry about institutional adoption, I don't think it's happened yet.  Take the new BITO ETF with $1.4 billion and GBTC with $8 billion.  Compare that to the 24h volume of Bitcoin, which is $25 billion.  Even if that number is inflated, BITO's assets are nothing compared to a month of BTC trad volume.  And GBTC has been around for years, so the comparison is even more stark there.  If you have a different source of institutional Bitcoin investing, I could be wrong - and that I'd like to know.  Institutional billions is a danger sign for me.

Last year Bitcoin dropped about twice as much as the stock market, and several years ago it fell by about 80%.  Bitcoin recovered both times, as it has in the past, and made new highs later.  Why?  Well, that's speculation for you.  But the past high returns were also accompanied by steep drops, suggesting Bitcoin might still have price gains to make.

BicycleB

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3731
  • Location: Live Music Capital of the World
  • Older than the internet, but not wiser... yet
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #652 on: November 21, 2021, 12:40:58 PM »
Read the quote again - that's not what you said.  You said of this thread, "solve non-existent problems they didn't understand".  That's an insult, not curiousity.  You claim others "didn't understand", implying you do?  And you said "non-existent problems" covering every post in this thread?  That comes off as arrogant and trolling.

Perhaps your definition troll differs from mine. I feel like I’m being gaslit here.

Reread the thread. There are examples of: Ticketmaster replacements, supply chain tracking, etc. And they all fall into the “the poster did not understand the problem at hand. And blockchain is also an non-solution”. I do not believe you are debating in good faith. I won’t recognize any further bad-faith responses from you.

It's all he does welcome to the debate about words because the real debate can't be debated. 

Ive decided this poster is toxic to actual conversations so I've quit talking to them. All they do is claim personal attack and then debate the words that were said and what was meant and do not actually have productive conversations about what's going on.

I come to a different conclusion fwiw. The same person you're talking about has repeatedly tried to apply precise terms and reasoning not just to crypto but to other investing questions, such as:

1) whether to hedge stock index investments or even speculate using defensive SPY options (puts?) in Feb 2020 due to COVID (he did it, explained his actions and reasons in real time; made a few bucks, narrowly missed a huge win, timed the trough within days in his first timing exercise);
2) whether continued analysis of COVID growth could generate continued useful investing theses;
3) whether investments based on the theory that we would bounce back from COVID could be profitably done (see his Experiment series, where he detailed 200%+ gains in real time over numerous posts using 3 example picks of individual stocks);
4) in this thread, I have seen him respond with precision, misunderstand others' words, and apologize after clarification was made.

Finding precise definitions of terms and then reasoning from them is just how he thinks, as far as I can tell. Sometimes very productively.

Overall, it appears to me that he:
5) argues in good faith, but sounds so vehement that some people who look at individual examples suppose he's a troll when he really isn't;
6) is exactly the same as several other posters on this thread, in that several posters meet the description in 5 - I think you are one of them, and I probably am too sometimes;
7) has a lot to say, as do you and several others;
8) adds to the discussion by his questions, just as you do by yours.

Fwiw, this thread has gone to greater depth than many others by continuing discussion instead of assuming bad faith on others' part. I hope the assumption is something that fades and that the discussion, the most informative I've seen so far, continues.
« Last Edit: November 21, 2021, 02:40:31 PM by BicycleB »

MustacheAndaHalf

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4373
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #653 on: November 23, 2021, 01:21:28 AM »
Read the quote again - that's not what you said.  You said of this thread, "solve non-existent problems they didn't understand".  That's an insult, not curiousity.  You claim others "didn't understand", implying you do?  And you said "non-existent problems" covering every post in this thread?  That comes off as arrogant and trolling.

Perhaps your definition troll differs from mine. I feel like I’m being gaslit here.

Reread the thread. There are examples of: Ticketmaster replacements, supply chain tracking, etc. And they all fall into the “the poster did not understand the problem at hand. And blockchain is also an non-solution”. I do not believe you are debating in good faith. I won’t recognize any further bad-faith responses from you.

It's all he does welcome to the debate about words because the real debate can't be debated. 

Ive decided this poster is toxic to actual conversations so I've quit talking to them. All they do is claim personal attack and then debate the words that were said and what was meant and do not actually have productive conversations about what's going on.
Yet you can't stop attacking me, can you?  I started a thread to debate factor investing with you, and what did you do?  Attack me for discussing GME options, which wasn't being discussed.  Attacked me for posting about crypto, which also wasn't being discussed.  You can play the victim and deny it - after you deleted the evidence - but it's still quoted in my replies.
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/investor-alley/factor-investing-(small-value-momentum-quality-investibilty-)/msg2925111/#msg2925111

Yes, I quote people's words when they say the wrong thing - like you just did.  Where in this thread did I "claim personal attack"?  Like I said before, quote me - don't misinterpret what I said.

MustacheAndaHalf

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4373
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #654 on: November 23, 2021, 11:55:37 AM »
I wasn't the only one who thought you were attacking me, @boarder42.  To refresh your memory, this is the moderator warning you got less than 4 weeks ago:

...
...
You're arguing with someone who is citing the last 10-15 years as reasons for investing strategy in multiple threads on here. Also someone trading gme options I'm not sure it's worth the effort.

MOD NOTE: Attack an argument, not a person, please.