Quote from: deisik on Today at 07:41:05 PM

Quote from: fiulpro on Today at 07:07:30 PM

Unfortunately if the natural selection we are talking about will go according to a virus which can mutate anytime I do not think we will have a better chance of surviving this selection that you are taking about

This virus is nothing compared to what humanity went through (smallpox, plague, polio, to name but just a few)

Regardless, as the overall opinion seems to be mostly anti antifragile, could anyone come up with anything which would however remotely count as antifragile, whatever that might be? Just to make sure that we go a little bit beyond a simple "I do not agree with this"

Agreed re terrible viruses mankind has had to deal with over the millennia.

* * *

Re antifragile, I believe the concept of "antifragile" can be looked at as a matter of degree. That is, something might be more antifragile (in relation to the stock market say) or less so. In that sense, BTC is clearly antifragile, it tends to be relatively stronger as other assets are often weaker. Not a 100% (inverse) correlation, but BTC has held up well all things considered.

There are no assets I can think of right now that is 100% inversely-correlated with other assets.

N. N. Taleb himself has written that gold is antifragile.

Gold is some 10% - 11% below its all-time high price (US$, ATH in 2011). Our (US) stock market would be some 19% below (ATH in February 2020). Gold is inversely correlated with stocks, though not 100%. BTC is down some 63% from its ATH in late 2017. Note that all three of these asset classes reached their ATH's in completely different years.

Great thread, by the way.