You're math is pointless because it is based on assumptions.
And this shows you never even took the time to read my post. I said the results appear to hold for all sets of rational assumptions I've come up with to date. Bitcoin is a store-of-value tool that can reduce risk.
Please, find a set of reasonable assumptions where it wouldn't be wise for Bob to move at least a small portion of his wealth into bitcoin. Argue your case mathematically.
Ok if I bought in a few months ago at 800 - 900 USD I would now be at a 50% loss. Is that a store of value? No, it's not. So if Putin had invested his 40 million, or whatever number because it really doesn't matter, he would have lost half his personal assets. This is not the first time it has happened. If you look at historical data, if you came in when BTC was the most popular you're getting destroyed. Now if you were in from the beginning, like the gold owners back in the 90s, then yes you're up.
The only winners right now are the original players. They have a store of value, the rest of us have a volatile investment tool.
Now I guess we could take all that and fudge it and say "If you look at BTC since it's inception" then yes, BTC is the smart choice. I will admit that I'm going off of early Decemberish time frame when I feel that BTC was truly beginning to become popular.
Deadbit, what do you mean by "short term" in this context? I want to be clear what you mean exactly. What time frame are you referring to?
Days? Maybe a few weeks at most. Short term is a bad word for what I'm trying to explain. I apologize.