Quote from: boumalo on December 21, 2023, 06:15:16 PM

Quote from: xzy887 on December 21, 2023, 05:48:52 PM

If you invested $1,000, 10 years ago:

Google: $5,000
Facebook: $6,000
Amazon: $7,500
Tesla: $25,000
Bitcoin: $44,000
BM

Google 8000$

1000$ invested in BTC 6 years ago, 2000$ now Grin

Hahahahaha

What a negative Nancy.

Let's try to be bit more realistic and not give to much credit to the dummies in this world.

Hopefully there were not very many people who were so fucking dumb to do a lump sum investment at the top of a cycle that was right around 78x from late 2015 to late 2017 and then just sit on their hands for the next 6 years.

The more realistic and smart scenario would have been that someone who front-loaded their investment in November 2017, might have bought right around 0.5 BTC for a $10k investment, and then if that same person would have had DCAd about $1k per month or $250 per week from November 1, 2017 until now, then he would have invested an additional $80,250 and accumulated an additional 6.86925 BTC (average cost per BTC of $11,700 and currently valued at $302,250), so his total amount invested would be $90,250 ($10k + $80,250), and his total amount of BTC would be 7.36925 (0.5 BTC + 6.86925) (average cost per BTC of $12,250 and currently valued at $324,247). Surely not a bad place to be.

Quote from: philipma1957 on December 21, 2023, 06:43:21 PM

so btc is godlike 2012 to 2023

and great 2013 to 2023

and good 2017 to 2023

Of course, the longer that any of is in BTC then the better the numbers are going to look, and there is a certain value to persistence too, and even 2017 to 2023 looks pretty great to me, but yeah, not as great as having the investment compound over a few more cycles.

Quote from: OutOfMemory on December 21, 2023, 06:43:30 PM

Quote from: d_eddie on December 21, 2023, 03:15:42 PM

This "in cash" thing about the ETF is ticking me off. They're just looking for a way into paper btc, which as of now isn't a (real) thing. They will have their way, I'm sure.

I hope they get burned by the mightiest short squeeze on the "underlying" the Earth has ever seen. That will teach them and enrich others (notably, some of the people reading these words).

I suppose they had to give in to the pressure of the SEC, which preferred the in-cash method, while ETF applicants were in favor of the in-BTC method of doing business.
This isn't written in stone, however, and therefore subject to change at some future point in time. The expectations of paper-investors seem to be high, so why would ETF applicants risk another "no-no" by the SEC? I think they want to get things started, and take the compromise. Once BTC is established and trusted enough in these realms (it's still considered to be an alternative asset, imo), things may change fast again, as it currently does with the ETFs.
No?

(EDIT: Or just my wishful thinking?)

If short squeezed to death, the investing world will likely fall back to push the good old "it's a risky scam" narrative.

It seems that if SEC is approving products that are inferior to directly owning BTC, then BTC is built upon incentives, and so therefore the free market may well decide that some people are going to prefer to own BTC directly rather than dealing with inferior products... sure some people are going to be stuck with the more apparently inferior product because they have restrictions on how they are able to use their funds.. but it likely is not really going to damaged king daddy bitcoin, and king daddy might end up teaching some of them some lessons in regards to if they have intentions to play around.