...Peter R had his own transactions version. That seemed like it could work back in 2014. In both cases I believe we've seen at least 100% increases while the market cap has not quite followed.
I'm curious what both charts would look right about now but I'm afraid it would invalidate both theories. The reason might be that no one knows exactly how to quantify the amount of users in the network.
I'm curious what both charts would look right about now but I'm afraid it would invalidate both theories. The reason might be that no one knows exactly how to quantify the amount of users in the network.
Sure.
You are a master at decorating a plot with arbitrary fluff as though it means something.
...
In this plot, the trends are mildly non-linear _against_ the point you are trying (probably successfully) to make. And there was no particular block size pressure at the arbitrary point where you choose to point the arrow.
Oh come on Tvbcof. The winky face means that I'm admittedly pushing it with what I wrote in red on that plot. It was designed to tease Brg444 and I don't necessarily believe it myself.
What do you believe. Sorry to derail a bit but the apparent unlinking itself is reasonably interesting.
The relationship between TXs^2 and market cap held remarkably well until 2014. Since then, the two time series have become anti-correlated. I have several hypotheses, the two that I think are most likely being:
1. The remarkable Metcalfe value relationship was just random luck (and will now permanently deviate).
2. The Metcalfe value relationship is actually expressing something fundamental about human behaviour and money. The relationship will re-assert itself when the block size limit is lifted and if growth resumes.
Both hypotheses will be tested over the coming months and years.