Quote from: Poker Player on Today at 03:45:02 AM

Quote from: Wind_FURY on July 11, 2023, 06:24:56 AM

From an investment perspective, OK, I'm curious if anyone knows, when was the first modern ETF for Gold issued? Wikipedia says it was during 2003.
...
Zoom out Gold's chart to the maximum and look starting at 2003. Merely my two sats, but believe it will be the same for Bitcoin. It will have one of its greatest price trajectory we have ever seen during the next real bull cycle. Perhaps the same as 2015 - 2017, perhaps more?

Correlation does not imply causation. If I fart now and you see that it starts to rain, would you say that it started to rain because I farted?

What? Haha. Your fart has directly nothing to do with the rain, but the billions in new investment going into Bitcoin will definitely have a direct price impact. But just like "correlation does not equal causation", there IS a correlation. Gold's price went up because of the ETF could correlate to Bitcoin's price going up because of ETF.

Cool

Quote from: Who is John Galt? on July 17, 2023, 06:40:18 PM

Quote from: Wind_FURY on July 16, 2023, 04:35:17 PM

Actually no, I'm personally NOT for the debate that Bitcoin should have a hard fork to change the supply cap. I believe that part of the protocol is ossified. I'm asking "what is the threshold", a question/topic that's admittedly a difficult issue. To put it in an extreme situation, if 90% of Bitcoin's supply was under the custody of a cartel of 10 asset managers, could it be said that Bitcoin has failed?

To put that in context with this topic, if truly twelve of the twenty largest banks and asset managers truly want to accumulate as much Bitcoin as they possibly can, then $500,000 per Bitcoin is not really that high.

Let's imagine that your assumption is realized. A few funds have taken and concentrated in their hands almost all bitcoins, because they decided that this is a good investment. As a consequence of this decision, bitcoin will practically stop moving, because it makes no sense for them to sell it, this is a long-term investment. In the absence of movement, miners will no longer be interested in it, difficulty will drop, the risk of a 51% attack will increase, trust in bitcoin will decrease, bitcoin will start to drop sharply in price, and investments in bitcoin will depreciate.

I'm not asking if it fails, it will surely fail. What I've been asking is what is the threshold? How much of the supply must be held by a cartel of asset managers for us to say that Bitcoin has failed?

Because of the ETF, I'm bullish for the price, but I'm not very bullish for the network.

Quote

If some random dude on the forum managed to see this scenario over a cup of hot drink, then the analytical departments of the funds are also quite capable of doing such analyzes. Accordingly, no funds are interested in buying up and hiding all bitcoins, they are interested in participating in the development of bitcoin, but within the limits of not depreciating the asset in which they invest. If they have large enough investments, they may well take an active part in the circulation of bitcoins.

So I don't think the problem is realizable.

You're saying they will control the supply. OK, that will not be very ideal for the network