Even if NO increase in difficulty, which is unrealistic, just subsidy decrease would mean a minimal btc price of 683K by 2036, which is doable, of course.
I will admit that I have adjusted my BTC bottom in fairly conservative ways, and in accordance to
my entry-level fuck you status chart, my bottom for 2036 would range anywhere between $345k and $420k, and so I have to go with my numbers if talking about bottoms, especially since projecting based on mining mumbo jumbo does not really fit into considerations of something that needs to be accounted.. .. it will work itself out. one way or another and we likely just stay on some kind of an ongoing upward trajectory, and if we need to tweak it a bit here and there (such as every 6 months) to verify that we are still within the trajectory, and the trajectory is accounting for actual world happenings (such as where the BTC price is - especially the 200-week moving average), then yeah the real world facts may end up changing the trajectory.. .. including that mining likely mostly follows price rather than the other way around.
However, difficulty rose 2.967X in the last two years, which is approximately 72.4% annually.
Assuming this continues in 2024-2036 period, difficulty would increase 689X.
Therefore, bitcoin price would have to be 689X16(subsidy reduction between now and 2036)X42700=$470724800 (~$470 mil) per btc, which seems, obviously, too high (market cap of ~$10^16 or 10000 trillions). Therefore, even if the world's GDP would be 100 tril by 2036 and ALL assets would be 1000 trillion (about double to 2.5X from now), it's does not seem possible, unless the world would have a leap to a much higher productivity and ALL assets would be 10000 trillion (AI, asteroids, etc).
If mining difficulty rise would drop in half in 2024-2036 period to 36.2%/year, then difficulty would only increase 40.75X, so the formula would be 40.75X16X42700=$27840400 (~$28 mil/btc) by 2036, which is 584X10^12 or 584 trillions in the market cap, which would be about half of world's presumed wealth by that year (~$1000 trillion). This is possible.
TL;DR After 2036-a black hole (no visibility)...too small issuance, presumably, but maybe fees would compensate, we shall see how it plays out.
It reads like a lot of gobble-dee-gook (noise) to me.
[edited out]
My policy (since 2001-2002 crash) is to
never invest more than 20% in any one item (in reality, it is usually no more than 5% and at most 10%), BUT
once I invest, I don't re-jig the portfolio to "balance" it. In case of btc, it has grown significantly in %%. I invested in many winning stocks before: AAPL and TSLA are just two examples, but I had a habit of selling them after, say, 10X of my money and/or too much portfolio %%, missing on another 10X as a result. Bitcoin is the first asset where I don't do "balancing" in principle.
Yeah, but how do you get to your initial allocation, and let's just presume that it would have had been 10% for bitcoin, even though I get the sense that you might have initially allocated lower than that... probably closer to 5%.. but let's just imagine that you decided you were going to allocate 10%? how would you get there? How do you lump sum in?
For me, I did not even know what my target was for nearly a year, because I initially assigned myself a 6 month amount (a dollar amount), which happened to be an amount that I knew that I would have available within the next 6 months, and the same thing happened after I had gone through the first 6 months in order to assign myself a similar amount for the next 6 months. So for me, I had not even realized that I had reached right around 10% until after I had been investing for a year.. so then at that point, I had started to consider that I had enough BTC... but still I let circumstances around me to continue to buy since the BTC price was pretty much flat (and even had gone down a bit more between November/December 2014 when I had made the determination that I had enough while being around 10%-ish..
Personally, I think that I was already going through some significant juggling around of my finances around that period, so I was in a kind of unusual place in terms of having cash available that I could assign towards buying BTC during 2014.. and during more typical times, I think that it would have probably taken me a couple of years to get to 10% - and part of my then issue was by 2013, I had already been investing for around 20 years, so getting to 10% as quickly as a year was actually a kind of lucky coincidence... but I could see some circumstances in which I could have had forced the 10% to happen in a year or less, if I had realized that was going to be my goal at the end of 2013 - even though I had not realized it until the end of 2014.
Consider me reckless, but since I have work cash flow, future pension and SSec lined up plus IRAs, why not?
O.k. that was pretty similar to me in regards to having everything else in order in terms of the justification to mostly just let things ride, once they are in place... even though you and I have already figured out that I do have different practices from you in terms of mostly my incrementalism.. as compared with your seeming preference for chuckenism.
Nobody got really rich by following the "balanced" portfolio. On the other hand, if you already "made it", I see some benefit in balancing things out.
A difference between growing and preserving, and I personally had always been conservative prior to bitcoin, so maybe I cannot even see myself investing into bitcoin prior to my having had already built up a pretty decent investment portfolio through years and years and years of conservativism.. and largely around 5.5% average annual returns, even though some years performed better than others.
BTW, Warren Buffet is ridiculously overweight in just a few stocks at 93 (I believe just three stocks, with one being AAPL, are more than 50% of his entire equity portfolio). Is he chasing the performance or just being competitive?
I am not really disagreeing with you on the concentration point, especially once bitcoin was discovered/invented.. I can see how any newbie could start out with just BTC and cash and then ONLY diversify after a few years of building his holdings.. diversification is not needed in the beginning of investing, but it does become more necessary once a person has built up his investment portfolio, perhaps when it starts to get anywhere between 25% to 2x of annual income, then maybe diversification starts to become necessary...
And in regards to Buffet's diversification, isn't Berkshire already diversified within itself? or are you referring to something else?