Saylor is getting shade for his buying pattern
He started stacking in 2020 and has repeatedly bought the top ever since, this has increased his cost basis, and now Peter Schiff is loaded up with his ammo to use against his hard money adversary
Schiff alludes to the current price being the same as Saylor's cost basis spanning years
And comments like, buying treasuries would have been more profitable 📈
Leaving aside the obvious reasons, as a Bitcoiner you wouldnt buy treasuries, it got me thinking about the ngu anomalies that can be extracted from any long duration or 'all' chart
So for example we have, the absolute peak of bull markets and after the Bitcoin winter, the rise back to the previous price, we could call it price repetition
Below are the last 3 notable bull markets, showing the distance or duration of buying the fomo top and waiting to not be underwater again!
13/14 Bull Approx $1.1k in Dec 1313/14 Bull Approx $1.1k in Dec 13
Recovery to Previous High: Feb 17
Time to Recover: About 3 years
17/18 Bull Approx $20k in Dec 1717/18 Bull Approx $20k in Dec 17
Recovery to Previous High: Dec 20.
Time to Recover: About 3 years
21/22 Bull Approximately $69k in Nov 2121/22 Bull Approximately $69k in Nov 21
Recovery to Previous High: Mar 24
Time to Recover: About 2.5 years
But there is another example of price repetition, where it spans multiple bulls and buying the top with post underwater status lasting years.....
I give you the Dec 17 top at around 20K where as I stated it recovers by Dec 20, but long term stackers then saw the bull after covid and the subsequent bear, including the FTX debacle driving the price back down to sub 20 lows and didn’t re-recover until early 2023
Now that is a long time to have just broken even, and gives the haters their peace that they were right to avoid it
I can't think of a longer example of price repetition and illustrates the frustration if you are fixated on price, which leads to all the low time preference rhetoric etc
And arguably all the people who fomo'd in at 100k+ must be thinking that cheap sats come to those that wait, or is timing the market as we have seen for all of trading history just too difficult and dca is the way!
I remember seeing the chart in 2019 and didnt yet understand Bitcoin and hadn't stacked anything, and thinking oh those poor souls who bought the top in 2017/18 and one hand you can say, oh look at the price today, but actually they did suffer, for five long years the price was effectively level
One thing's for sure, to hold Bitcoin long term as a human born into fiatdom and not fully understanding Bitcoin, it can be a truly difficult test to pass
If you bought gold in 1980 you were underwater until 2006, or in 2011 you were underwater till 2020.
In either case break-even was nominal, not keeping up with purchasing power, nor the compounding effect of higher treasury rates.
The current gold run is steeper than either of those runs, given advents in mining (including eventual space mining) and the decade+ long cycles for gold, recent top buyers may never break even.
On the other hand, we may also have to consider Bitcoin may have largely done its job already. It was there as a check on and escape hatch for the loot-the-treasury era of fiscal stimulus, which is now over, if we take Bessent/Warsh/CEA at their word.
It doesn't need to maintain its historical CAGR to be effective as a check on fiscal stimulus returning in future admins. Kevin Warsh seems to understand this better than most Bitcoiners, success is it merely existing to establish a mexican standoff with fiat. They see it as a shadow currency lying in wait can impose an undeniable cost on bad policy.
If that's the case, we may be chopping sideways for years until household savings and economic productivity really to allow supply float to be digested again.
So Saylor's dream's of a 30% cagr may be in for a slight upset 🫣
Yes and I cringe every-time I see someone post that number, its cherry picking and "zooming out" with no practical basis for engineering financial products such as he has.
If we want to cherry pick and zoom out we can also say its only 18% from 2017 to today. That's higher than he's paying on STRC, but still not a lot of margin when you consider his execution prices are terrible, theta risk, and probably other things I can't even think of.
The emission schedule favors higher, capital markets access favors higher, but at the same time the contrarian asymmetry is lower, fiscal regime change favors lower, and ownership concentration creates a new risk on-par with policy risk.
We topped on apathy not exuberance, so when you adjust for that, this bear market is a major channel breakdown of all prior assumptions.
I'm obviously still bullish long term, but we deserve better bull narratives than I'm seeing.
Saylor is a CIA-affiliated spook HQ'd minutes away in Northern Virginia, he's obviously been tapped on the shoulder to play a role and can't tell us exactly what he knows, but neither the Saylor detractors nor the Saylor worshippers are using all the available information.
THAT is juicy, oh yes. Tell us more
Long time "contractor" from publicly available information
Anyone who's been in any intelligence agency rabbit holes knows contractors and front orgs are used for much more than is publicly known.
They practically share a campus
Everything he (and Bitcoin generally) have done wrt access to capital markets takes blocking and tackling at the highest levels to achieve. Game theory may account for some of it sure, but at the same time, there are counter-forces for whom this game-theory is a threat to their incumbency and would crush it at all costs.
One can say there are no conspiracy theories, but to be consistent in saying that you must also conclude there are no coincidences. If Federal intelligence contracts and sharing a campus with the CIA is a coincidence it's also a conspiracy.
So forgive me @justin_shocknet indulge my simplicity for a second
If the above is the case and we go through multiple halvings sideways, would that infer that miners like antpool may give up and move their power elsewhere
And could that by default decentralized the mining pool by removing some of the big miners
Ergo lowering hashrate and easing difficulty adjustment allowing smaller miners to compete?
Institutional mining definitely has to retract, it's so bubbly and centralized it boggles the mind.
Much of the institutional mining was an arb on stranded energy, which AI has squeezed, shrinking datacenter footprints for regular servers, which AI has also squeezed... treasury co proxies which have commoditized, and "provenance" premium for newly minted coins (no chainanal history that can be used to sue an institution later)... and with each block there are less provenancial coins to re-sell... which mean less potential ROI on capex.
Collapsing fee rates are another reason for miners to throw in the towel.
Depreciation on chips cuts into any margin left.
Mining must inevitably be done altruistically or for the waste heat. I see the future as an ASIC powered spaceheater/AC or water heater in every home, barring some institutional adoption that brings fee rates sustainably higher. This would be ideal for decentralization.
Kind of true... at what point do we admit defeat and realize that our dream is (irrepairably?) broken?
That seems like a pretty disingenuous argument from Peter. Anyone can cherry pick timing for any investment and say it was good or bad.
https://twiiit.com/i/status/2017612712340296040