Jump to content

Perishabull

Administrators
  • Content Count

    3,447
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Perishabull

  1. Ray Dalio's Principles of Investment ""Be radically transparent..." Ray Dalio - New Yorker article about him here Originally: The Ray Dalio area on GEI Started by PositiveDeviant, 31 Oct 2011 ( 17 replies, 1,359 views to the end of Sept. 2013) This is based on Ray Dalio's principles. The purpose here is to create an area where discussions take place whilst keeping in mind Ray's principles. These are found on his Bridgewater Associates website. What I've written about here are some elements of his principles document and since it is quite lengthy I've only chosen what I find to be the most meaningful parts of that, so it's not likely to be an accurate reflection of it, only my interpretation of the important points. Who is Ray Dalio and what are his principles? From Wikipedia; "Ray Dalio (born in 1949 in Jackson Heights, Queens, New York, United States[1]) is an American businessman and founder of Bridgewater Associates. The son of a jazz musician, Dalio began investing at age 12 when he bought shares of Northeast Airlines for $300 and tripled his money when the airlines went through a merger.[2] Dalio received a BA from Long Island University and an MBA from Harvard Business School. After completing his education, Dalio worked on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange and began investing in commodity futures.[2] He was a Director of Commodities at Dominick & Dominick LLC [3] In 1974, he spent a year trading futures as a Shearson Hayden Stone broker. [2] In 1975, he founded the investment management firm, Bridgewater Associates, and his investment advisory service began to attract pension funds worth millions of dollars. [2] Dalio is a practitioner of the Transcendental Meditation technique and resides with his wife in Greenwich, CT.[4][5][2]According to The New Yorker he is the 55th richest businessman in the world, with a net worth of US$6 billion as of 2011.[6] " His most fundamental principle; "Truth —more precisely, an accurate understanding of reality— is the essential foundation for producing good outcomes." and others; "I believe that evolution, which is the natural movement toward better adaptation, is the greatest single force in the universe, and that it is good." "I believe that the desire to evolve, i.e., to get better, is probably humanity's most pervasive driving force." For me, this one is the most interesting; "I believe that the biggest problem that humanity faces is an ego sensitivity to finding out whether one is right or wrong and identifying what one's strengths and weaknesses are." More here; "Most of us are born with attributes that both help us and hurt us, depending on their applications, and the more extreme the attribute, the more extreme the potential good and bad outcomes these attributes are likely to produce. For example, highly creative, goal-­oriented people who are good at imagining the big picture often can easily get tripped up on the details of daily life, while highly pragmatic, task-­oriented people who are great with the details might not be creative. That is because the ways their minds work make it difficult for them to see both ways of thinking. In nature everything was made for a purpose, and so too were these different ways of thinking. They just have different purposes. It is extremely important to one's happiness and success to know oneself—most importantly to understand one's own values and abilities—and then to find the right fits. We all have things that we value that we want and we all have strengths and weaknesses that affect our paths for getting them. The most important quality that differentiates successful people from unsuccessful people is our capacity to learn and adapt to these things. Unlike any other species, man is capable of reflecting on himself and the things around him to learn and adapt in order to improve. He has this capability because, in the evolution of species man's brain developed a part that no other species has—the prefrontal cortex. It is the part of the human brain that gives us the ability to reflect and conduct other cognitive thinking. Because of this, people who can objectively reflect on themselves and others —most importantly on their weaknesses are—can figure out how to get around these weaknesses, can evolve fastest and come closer to realizing their potentials than those who can't. However, typically defensive, emotional reactions—i.e., ego barriers—stand in the way of this progress. These reactions take place in the part of the brain called the amygdala. As a result of them, most people don't like reflecting on their weaknesses even though recognizing them is an essential step toward preventing them from causing them problems. Most people especially dislike others exploring their weaknesses because it makes them feel attacked, which produces fight or flight reactions;; however, having others help one find one's weaknesses is essential because it's very difficult to identify one's own. Most people don't like helping others explore their weaknesses, even though they are willing to talk about them behind their backs. For these reasons most people don't do a good job of understanding themselves and adapting in order to get what they want most out of life. In my opinion, that is the biggest single problem of mankind because it, more than anything else, impedes people's abilities to address all other problems and it is probably the greatest source of pain for most people. Some people get over the ego barrier and others don't. Which path they choose, more than anything else, determines how good their outcomes are. Aristotle defined tragedy as a bad outcome for a person because of a fatal flaw that he can't get around. So it is tragic when people let ego barriers lead them to experience bad outcomes. " So an important part in personal evolution is the realisation that our ego can often get in front of an objective conclusion. Our ego is a barrier towards finding the truth. "Be radically transparent. Provide people with as much exposure as possible to what's going on around them. Allowing people direct access lets them form their own views and greatly enhances accuracy and the pursuit of truth. Winston Churchill said, "There is no worse course in leadership than to hold out false hopes soon to be swept away." The candid question-­and-­answer process allows people to probe your thinking. You can then modify your thinking to get at the best possible answer, reinforcing your confidence that you're on the best possible path. " This is about more in depth questioning taking place where the underlying factors and beliefs that lead to one's viewpoint or conclusion are looked at in more detail. Are they true? So what is this topic on GEI all about then? I think a lot of what Ray has to say makes a great deal of sense and it would be interesting to, first of all, discuss some of his principles and beliefs, including some of the ones that I may not have mentioned here that are part of his "Principles". Are they true? Do they make sense? Perhaps after this initial process, discussions can take place here on specific topics (decided by those who want to post here) whilst keeping these principles in mind. The aim being to reach more accurate conclusions that are closer to the truth.
  2. Cryptocurrency markets are still very immature, arguably they started when the first Bitcoin trade happened, back in 2008. My history in terms of trading is that previously I traded options, then futures, I didn't achieve any real success with futures, so I pulled my money out of my brokerage account December 2016 and started taking a serious look at the Cryptocurrency markets, since I'd bought Bitcoins back in 2014 and they were doing very well. BTC - 10d : 2mos : 32-months : all-data : Some sites I use; http://www.cryptocurrencychart.com/top/100 https://coincap.io/ https://coinmarketcap.com/ My original intention was to make an assessment of the top 100, but there are far too many, so I initially looked at the top 20. Of those I bought; Dash at about $20 on 19th February Ether at about $20 on 2nd March Ripple at $0.01 on 24th March (nearly an historic low) PIVX at $1.88 on 13th April (close to the top) Stellar Lumens for $0.045 on 16th May Humaniq for $0.052 on 16th May (a few days after the ICO) The largest positions I have are in Bitcoin, Dash, Ether and Ripple, I only put 1-2% of my funds into the others. What happened? The charts begin at the point I bought. Dash went up 750% so I sold a third on 24th May (for Bitcoins) Ethereum went up 2000% so I sold 20% on 24th May (for Bitcoins) Ripple went up 3300% so I sold a third on 16th May (for Bitcoins) (the next day it went to 4200%!) [/url] I sold the PIVX for a 45% loss (was originally small hedge for Dash and very small position of 2%). I sold a third of Humaniq on 24th May after a 300% increase to take my risk off the table. I also sold some bitcoins for cash. I am now in the very fortunate position of a having a free ride in the Cryptocurrency markets. These are the craziest, most captivating and lucrative markets I have ever seen in my entire life, these gains are completely absurd. The majority of money in these markets is pure unbridled speculation so there is a very real risk of a huge collapse here. It's very very tricky to value these assets, but because these are new assets with in some cases great characteristics, use cases, communities and backing, they could potentially become extremely valuable, one day. But not yet, I believe it's too early. I think that yesterday may have been a top in the cryptocurrency markets. Why? This is a chart of the marketcap of the top 100 crytpocurrencies. I can tell you from experience that this is not a sustainable direction for asset prices. These assets are overvalued. Current valuations for these assets I think reflect the value they should be once they have significant penetration and use in real world applications. Present valuations reflect an overly optimistic view. Here is how the Cryptocurrency markets looked on 27th November 2013 Very few have survived. There are some incredible dynamics in current cryptocurrencies that bear the hallmarks of reflexive processes. The market price history certainly seems to evidence this - I will try to explain this and post more on this later. Also I will explain what attracted me to the ones I bought. Advice - DO NOT store significant amounts of currencies or funds in exchanges. Anyway - I Must DASH (I used to post a lot on these forums however family work, other interests etc mean I can only pop in now and again.)
  3. There are a series of lectures George Soros has given via his Open Society Foundation, these took place at the Central European University (that he founded). The one I want to open up for discussion here is the first of 5 in the series, it's named "General Theory of Reflexivity" and if you decide to watch it on youtube it's here; or it can be found on the following link, the next link also includes a Q & A session following the talk; http://www.soros.org...s-and-way-ahead In order that you can make a positive contribution to this discussion either, you need to be familiar with reflexivity or, you need to be willing to learn more about it █ Clearly I have an interest and have particular views on it, I will explain more about this in the next few days after the discussion develops some depth. For the moment I would encourage you to watch the talk, since I believe you will get the idea better if you watch the whole talk however you could start the youtube video at 22 mins 14 seconds (it's 52 minutes long), if short on time, this is the part where he introduces his theory of reflexivity and explains what reflexivity is. Those looking to participate more in this website's forum discussions or other topics are especially welcome to join in here now particularly those who have no previous knowledge of reflexivity, this is a great opportunity to hear from you. Details on how to█sign up and become a member█are found on the topic named "LURKERS ! GEI has a message for you.." Regards and I hope you look forward to the discussion.
  4. Well it's been brutal so far, but this is the cryptocurrency markets. i considered selling a further 10% at the turn of the year, but didn't - a very unwise move. Clearly things were manic at year end and I didn't heed these warnings. Still my thesis played out during 2017 - cryptocurrency to go mainstream. Question now is - whether after the regulatory headwinds die down - will this become an investable asset class for institutional investors? I think it will but this will take time. I'm very fortunate having got in near the ground floor at the start of 2017.
  5. Network transactionsto date;
  6. Lessons from the dot.com bubble; CNN November 9 2000; The $1.7 trillion dot.com lesson Index of 280 Internet stocks is down $1.7 trillion from its 52-week high by Staff Writer David Kleinbard NEW YORK (CNNfn) - Call it the $1.755 trillion dot.com investing lesson. It's hard to think of a publicly traded Internet company that is not down at least 75 percent from its 52-week high and that hasn't trimmed its expenses or laid off workers. While industry groups have always drifted in and out of favor on Wall Street, it's rare to see an industry evaporate as quickly and completely as Web stocks did. CNNfn.com asked the market data and research firm Birinyi Associates of Westport, Conn., to calculate the market value of the 280 stocks in the Bloomberg US Internet Index at their respective 52-week highs and their current market value. The combined market values of the 280 stocks had fallen to $1.193 trillion currently from $2.948 trillion at their peak, a loss of $1.755 trillion, most of which occurred between March and September of this year. The Bloomberg Internet Index contains Web retailers, Internet infrastructure firms, Web advertising companies, Web portals and makers of networking equipment. Some of the largest losses on a dollar-value basis came from networking equipment giant Cisco Systems (CSCO: Research, Estimates), which has lost $210 billion in market value from its peak; the Internet incubators CMGI(CMGI: Research, Estimates) and Internet Capital Group (ICGE: Research, Estimates), which have lost a combined $100 billion from their apex; the Web portal Yahoo! (YHOO: Research, Estimates), which shed $102 billion, and America Online (AOL: Research, Estimates), which is worth $92 billion less than at its highest point. Of the 280 stocks in the index, 79 are down 90 percent or more from their 52-week high. Another 72 are down 80-89 percent. Only five are down less than 5 percent. "It's not a correction � it's a crash," said Fred Wilson, managing partner at Flatiron, a New York-based venture capital firm dedicated to investing in the digital economy. The collapse of the Internet bubble, perhaps one of the largest financial fiascoes in U.S. history, came after a three-year period, starting in January 1997, when investors would buy almost anything even vaguely associated with the Internet, regardless of valuation. Investors ignored huge current losses and were willing to pay 100 times expected earnings in fiscal 2002. They were goaded by bullish reports from sell-side securities analysts� and market forecasts from IT research firms, such as IDC, Gartner and Forrester Research. "The venture business is all about excess and then correction," said Steve Bengston, a managing director at PricewaterhouseCoopers in San Jose, Calif., who advises early-stage companies. "It's like disk drives in the 1980s, when venture capitalists funded 50 disk-drive makers when the world needed three." "Stocks that skyrocketed north in a fashion never seen before will plummet south in a fashion never seen before either," Bengston added. "A lot of companies that don't have path to profitability or a leading position in their market will be shut down rather than receiving second or third rounds of funding." "When there were not very many Internet companies, the supply of Internet companies to the market was small and the appetite for them was large," said Flatiron's Wilson. "Therefore, if you were in the business of creating Internet companies in 1996-98, you had a market that provided massive demand for that." When public markets became glutted with new, money-losing Web companies in 1999, that picture changed rapidly. Venture funds are very reluctant to sink more money into struggling privately held Web companies that would be difficult to take public. "All of us in the venture capital area are going through a triage, where we have to decide which portfolio companies are so wounded we will never save them," Wilson said. "As horrible as it is to go through that process, it's a cleansing process. To have some branches grow and bear fruit, you have to trim others."� The boom in Internet IPOs Most industry sector booms, such as the biotech bubble of 1991, feature a large volume of IPOs in the hot sector, with the highest quality companies being the first to go public and the quality of offerings degrading as the boom reaches its later stages. The Internet bubble was no exception to that trend. Yahoo!, considered to be one of the highest quality, most blue-chip Internet stocks, went public in April 1996, becoming one of the first to trade in public markets. Amazon.com (AMZN: Research, Estimates), the giant of Web retailing, went public in May 1997 � still early in the cycle. According to the New York-based securities data firm Commscan, Web companies raised a total of $1 billion in 34 IPOs in 1997, rising to $2 billion in 45 deals in 1998, and then exploding to $24.1 billion in 292 IPOs in 1999. Investors who bought Web IPOs early in the cycle are still sitting on large gains. The combined market value of the 34 companies that went public that year is 330 percent higher than their offering prices, even after this year's Internet stock plunge, according to Commscan. Each day more bad news The collapse of the dot.com bubble has resulted in bad news about layoffs or losses being issued almost every day. On Nov. 7, for example, Pets.com (IPET: Research, Estimates), an online pet-supply retailer that had spent millions promoting its brand, decided to shut its doors and laid off roughly 255 of its 320 employees. One day later, Internet Capital Group said that it plans to cut its staff by 35 percent and take a fourth-quarter charge of $25 million to $30 million in a move to strengthen its financial position. ICG cut back its new investments in the third quarter to $120 million, from $417 million in the previous quarter. The announcement caused ICG's stock to plunge $5.06 to $11.19 Thursday; it's now down 95 percent from its 52-week high of $212. Few turtles reach the sea The high rates of consolidation and failure that Web companies are going through now is typical of many newly emerging industries throughout American economic history. Whenever a new technology comes along that has the potential to dramatically change the competitive landscape, hundreds of companies are formed to try to exploit that opportunity, including many with weak management or poorly thought out business plans. Intense competition ensues, returns on capital fall, and most of the new entrants either merge or go bankrupt. The consolidation of the U.S. railroad industry in the 20th century shows this pattern. In 1929, there were 163 "Class I" railroads in the U.S. Today, there are seven Class I railroads remaining, and they carry more than 90 percent of the rail freight in the U.S., according to the Association of American Railroads in Washington, D.C. The Penn Central Railroad was formed from 600 previously independent railroads. Merrill Lynch analyst Henry Blodget, one of the leading bulls on Web stocks, warned about a shakeout in the Internet industry in a 330-page report issued last June. "As the shakeout continues, we continue to believe that the Internet spoils will go to the few, not the many," Blodget wrote. "As one investor we respect put it, anytime a new industry emerges, many turtles hatch, few make it to the sea." There were about 300 public business-to-consumer Web companies trading last June, only five of which were profitable at that time. Blodget believes that in three years, only 15-20 will be profitable. Failure at Internet speed While high rates of consolidation and failure among Web stocks aren't at all surprising, the speed and severity of those failures has caught some investors off guard. Businesses that launched and operated at Internet speed have failed at Internet speed. For example, the name-your-own-price Web discounter Priceline.com (PCLN: Research, Estimates) went from $94 per share to less than $4 per share within the space of eight months.� PaineWebber began coverage of Priceline last January with a "buy" rating and a 12-month price target of $95, saying that Priceline "is truly revolutionizing commerce as we know it, providing a way for sellers to dispose of unwanted product while maintaining the integrity of their existing price structures." Eight months after that research note was issued, Priceline announced plans to close its gasoline and groceries operations, called WebHouse Club, after they burned through most of the $360 million they raised over the past two years. The grocery industry proved to be reluctant to eat the cost of discounts offered by WebHouse, forcing the new venture to subsidize the cost of its customers' groceries. � Ironically, Priceline's revenue in the quarter ended Sept. 30 was 18 percent higher than PaineWebber had forecast it would be, and its operating loss was smaller than forecast. What had changed was investors' perceptions about the future growth of the company and the popularity of the name-your-own-price business model.� The lessons learned Web-based retailers and Web sites supported by advertising revenue have proven to be the two most failure-prone types of Internet business, and there are lessons to be learned from each segment. Web retailers underestimated how much infrastructure they would have to build and how much logistics work they would need to do to duplicate traditional brick-and-mortar retailers. Companies that were supposed to be "virtual operations" ended up with warehouses and inventories almost as large as those of traditional retailers. Amazon.com (AMZN: Research, Estimates), for example, held about $164 million of inventory and had more than $350 million in property, plant and equipment as of Sept. 30. "I don't see how Amazon is really a dot.com," said Anitesh Barua, an assistant professor at the University of Texas at Austin, who has done an extensive study of the Internet economy. "It's really a very traditional operation, and it's not Amazon's fault, since the publishers that supply Amazon can't operate in a virtual mode themselves." "Dot.coms aren't good at logistics," Barua added. "How can they be? They have been in business for only three or four years." In some cases, Web retailers have found that customer-acquisition costs were much higher than they anticipated. And, to make matters worse, traditional retailers have launched their own Web operations and proven to be formidable competitors. "The legacy retailers are really waking up and going after the Net big time, so the competitive landscape has changed for the pure dot.com companies," said PricewaterhouseCoopers' Bengston. "Huge venture funds have been formed to help traditional companies create Web operations." Finally, businesses that are narrow margin in the brick-and-mortar world, such as books and consumer electronics, have proven to be narrow margin on the Web too. Amazon had about $638 million in revenue in the quarter ended Sept. 30; after deducting its cost of goods sold, marketing and selling expense, and general and administrative expense, only about $3 million is left over. Too many sites, too few advertisers With the exception of about 15 major Web destinations, Web sites supported by advertising are fighting for their lives and, in many cases, losing. The IT research firm Jupiter Research estimates that $3.5 billion was spent on Web advertising in 1999, rising to $5.3 billion this year and expected to hit $7.3 billion in 2001. While that growth rate is much faster than competing forms of advertising, most of the advertising dollars are going to a few large sites, leaving thousands of smaller sites to starve. According to Charles Buchwalter, vice president of media research at AdRelevance, an Internet advertising tracking firm, 80 sites comprise 80 percent of all the hosted advertising on the Web. "There is a gradual move away from concentration, but the numbers still are really small," Buchwalter said. "The ebullience that many companies had 12 months ago has been disabused by now. Advertisers have found that branding plays a role and coming up with a business model in this new world is not a slam dunk." A small part of the Internet economy While the plunge of the roughly 300 publicly traded Internet companies has generated a substantial amount of press coverage, those companies and the layoffs they have made represent only a tiny percentage of the overall Internet economy. Most of the Internet economy consists of old-line industrial companies that are using the Web to trim billions of dollars in costs from their operations and better serve customers. It also includes networking equipment companies that have generated billions of dollars in profits selling the routers, hubs and switches needed to direct the exploding amount of traffic over the Internet. "There is still a Gold Rush mentality out there, and the companies selling the pickaxes and dynamite are the ones who are consistently successful," said Matt Stamski, a senior analyst at Gomez Advisors in Lincoln, Mass., referring to the networking companies. The Internet economy added 650,000 jobs in 1999 as revenues soared to over half a trillion dollars, according to the University of Texas at Austin's Center for Research in Electronic Commerce. The Internet economy now directly supports 2.476 million workers, more than the insurance, communications and public utilities industries According to the human resources consulting firm Challenger Gray & Christmas Inc., some 22,267 dot.com job cuts have been announced since December 1999, when the firm began tracking such data. Of the 274 companies tracked from December 1999 through October 2000, 44 of them -- or 16 percent of the total -- have since failed. Still, people fired from dot.coms should have no problem finding another job, said John Challenger, the company's CEO. "I think companies will spend billions of dollars over the next several years building their e-commerce structures, and these dot.com employees will be leaders in helping them do that," Challenger said. "A handful of highly publicized dot.coms are failing," said the University of Texas' Barua. "They never employed that many people to begin with, so the displacement is quite small. Sure, it's unfortunate for the investors who lost money, and the people temporarily being laid off. Their dreams of becoming multi-millionaires overnight just got shattered." "There are still an incredible number of opportunities that will get funded related to the Internet � they're just different," said PricewaterhouseCoopers' Bengston. "We're in the second inning of a nine-inning game. The Dells of the Internet business have not even been founded yet." Still, risk-averse investors would be well advised to remember the turtles heading for the sea.
  7. Amazing chart showing correlation between transactions squared and marketcap for bitcoin. (Transaction volume used as proxy for number of users on network)
  8. Here are the billionaire Winklevoss brothers explaining how they believe that Bitcoin should be valued according to Metcalfe's law (from 4:10);
  9. Yeah and centralised exchanges are a weak point. Roger Ver and Craig Wright seem to think bitcoin cash will hit the big time next year. I didn't sell any of those when I sold down my bitcoin this year. Who knows, maybe bitcoin cash will eclipse bitcoin one day....
  10. It does seem very overheated, yet at the same time I cannot think of a more global accessible asset as bitcoin. Spencer Bogart who is a respected Wall Street bitcoin analyst said in a recent interview that ownership among institutional investors wasn't even at 1%. Retail ownership is at 2%. I believe that bitcoin is not correlated with any other asset class therefore a small holding (low single digit %) might actually be quite attractive to these investors. Bubb what do you think? (I'll try and find the interview) Found it
  11. I've been following Michael Novogratz quite closely, he has an amazing instinct for trading/investing. He bought ether at $1 and sold at $400, made about $250 million. Gave half to charity and bought himself a jet!
  12. Probably a good point to exit, when did you get in?
  13. How crazy? My god, have you heard of cryptokitties? CATS Ethereum price and how to buy – what are CryptoKitties and is the cryptocurrency worth as much as Bitcoin? https://www.thesun.co.uk/money/5087162/ethereum-price-cryptokitties-cryptocurrency-bitcoin-currency-trading/
  14. Americans Are Taking Out Mortgages to Buy Bitcoin - http://www.altcointoday.com/americans-taking-mortgages-buy-bitcoin/ What could possibly go wrong. Hey maybe Wall Street could securitise mortgages taken out to buy bitcoin. Then we could have CDOs MBS etc for these mortgages...
  15. This is really interesting - I would not have the guts to buy at the levels you did but am really interested in what you are seeing in the long term charts; I've used bitcoinwisdom.com to create the charts below. Logarithmic Bitcoin - September 2014 to present (Bitstamp) An upward double step change in the linear trend. Linear Bitcoin - September 2014 to present (Bitstamp) A significant upward divergence from the trendline. Based on this basic price analysis, fair value relative to long term trend appears to be in the $8K - $11K range. I still have the license for a brilliant trading platform - Multicharts - so I will need to see if I can get data for Bitcoin and use that to do some proper professional charting and price analysis. When I used to trade futures I developed an algorithmic trading system that used genetic optimization for price analysis - I reckon it might be possible to create an effective bitcoin trading strategy.
  16. Litecoin Approaches $200 in Monster Rally - The Merkle via BTCnews on iOS. https://themerkle.com/litecoin-approaches-200-in-monster-rally/ Go Hector! I missed Litecoins, was targeting them prior to implementation of segwit but was caught out by the initial rise from $4 to $15, which came earlier than I expected, so I never got in.
  17. Bitcoin today Coinbase prices Linear chart- Apr to present Log chart - May to present The price looks insane even on a log chart! Bitcoin defying gravity here surely!
  18. I've not heard of that. I bought in as it appeared to be quite revolutionary technology, using a Directed Acyclic Graph rather than Blockchain. You're probably right - people buying due to hype thinking it's the best new thing out there.
  19. A cryptocurrency I bought earlier this year has increased in value by 13X, IOTA. Bought for $0.40, now trading at $5.30. They announced partnership with Microsoft. These market opportunities are a once in a lifetime situation. https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/iota-price-explodes-after-microsoft-partnership-announcement/amp/
  20. It is possible we are witnessing and participating in something really different here, since the value of these networks isn't just determined just by supply and demand,but also network growth. Network growth creates network effects which perpetuates further growth. The growth of a network is defined by Metcalfe's law which I've posted about before, back in 2014 when discussing cryptocurrencies. My god, if I'd properly thought through the implications of that insight as it applies to cryptocurrency markets, I would have likely been financially independent by now (my goal) since I would have bought a lot more Bitcoin. I did buy in 2014, but not many. Still I haven't sold any crypto since moving to 2 : 1 ratio of crypto to cash in August, and it's not possible for me to lose anything as I already cashed out 3X my original investment. If things keep moving according to Metcalfe's law then we all ought to be enjoying very merry christmasses and prosperous new years to come. I now think that John McAfee's predictions are probably based on Metcalfe's law. Normally you can predict tops in markets by looking at parabolic moves however this is different in the sense that; These are brand new asset markets They appear to be following the growth defined by Metcalfe's law - and as above Metcalfe's law states that the value of a telecommunications network is proportional to the square of the number of connected users of the system (n2) In addition to this dynamic of Metcalfe's law we have an additional dynamic of reflexivity which I've posted about before. (http://www.greenenergyinvestors.com/index.php?showtopic=16736&p=256245) So this means that when prices run way ahead of value as suggested by Metcalfe's law it may be a sell signal, and when prices are below it may be a buy signal. Further reading; Business Insider; Analyst says 94% of bitcoin's price movement over the past 4 years can be explained by one equation Zerohedge; Gold, Bitcoin, And Metcalfe’s Law
  21. Milton Friedman predicting cryptocurrencies back in 1999;
  22. This will be a very interesting dynamic since bitcoin prices are currently defined by unregulated exchanges, if volume gets to a significant level in futures it could end up being Wall Street/institutions setting the price via high volume futures trading. What do you reckon? Could be risk of significant manipulation of price.
  23. John McAfee has upped his 2020 bitcoin forecast from $500K to $1 million. Another sign. http://www.newsbtc.com/2017/11/29/john-mcafee-ups-2020-prediction-1000000-btc/ How'd you get on with your short? Who are you shorting with? Earlier this year I sold some crypto leaving me at a 2 : 1 ratio of crypto to cash. The ratio is now 6 : 1 due to the parabolic rise in the cryptocurrency marketcap.
  24. I hereby declare an interim top in the cryptocurrency markets. Crazy spike today in many cryptoassets bears hallmarks of a top. Bitcoin was $11000, now $9700.
×