Would love to talk more about this. UTXO analysis is something I haven't fully drilled down yet.

Wouldn't more efficient miners allow the price to be lower? More hashpower for less $$, plus old miners retiring gear?

Has anyone else developed a model for valuing Bitcoin? What number did you reach?

Context: I believe Bitcoin is currently overvalued by around $500. I have been playing with some valuation models recently (have a quant/finance background) and have been measuring relationships between wallet growth, tx info like volume and fees, and transaction velocity against social sentiment over time, which got me to a "true" value of ~$5812. This isn't exactly speculation, but it's not baseless either so I'm interested in how you guys have approached the problem.

Theyr'e just guessing hashes all day anyway - isn't it better to get a 2k BTC reward than 12?

Full thoughts here: https://twitter.com/Brotsu/status/1052003667484626945

Basically costs $100k to get listed on an exchange where $100k can let you control full volume of your coin. Seems like you can manipulate the market super easily especially if you control the supply. Bid the price up by buying from yourself, let the algo bots catch on, and sell much higher. Are there failsafes to prevent this?

My recent take on how crypto and tokenization is going to turn asset valuation into an exact science:
https://medium.com/@kalexotsu/pixelalpha-and-the-valuation-of-everything-acfe0ecf9b37

Main points:

• Fractional asset offerings reduce initial capital requirements for investors
• Common blockchain backbone consolidates trading assets
• New products, indices can be created that will continue to refine price discovery

I agree. There is a lot less distance from $0.01 to $0.00 than $1.00.

Which would you prefer and why?

My big problem with most projects' tokenomics is that they are at odds with user acquisition. If a fixed number of tokens are minted, and users need tokens to operate the platform, new user incentives (a cheap platform) and token holder incentives (increased token price) are totally misaligned.

Do you guys have anything, positive or negative, that you always look for when researching a project?

Are speculators so hungry to see some product, any product, that the xRapid announcement was enough to propel XRP to #2? Or are there are more factors at play?

For example, one of mine is availability of founders. I don't really care about huge Telegram groups or anything (actually smaller is better because I can get in earlier), but if I have a genuine question and reach out to a cofounder and they don't respond/respond with canned jargon, it's very suspect

What are some red flags you watch for that other people don't pay enough attention to? Bonus points if you only noticed them after investing

Awesome post. In some ways can't blame them, and in the long term practices like this will be phased out. Part of the problem is that there is no such thing as "ICO Expert" - domain experts in the company's industry should be trusted to judge the quality of the product instead of people who just look for checkmarks like team, social media presence, etc that any bot could do

Good time for innovating ways to accept fiat. Otherwise no one wants to put their long-held ETH/BTC in ICOs when they believe the price will increase, especially when we have seen ETH and BTC as better SoV's than 95% of recent ICOs.

Not at all. The 'experts' are no more knowledgeable than anyone else who is marginally plugged into the crypto scene. The sites basically only serve confirmation bias, as the projects that can afford their 'listing fees' (anywhere from 2-20ETH) will be on there and those that can't, won't.

Agreed - there also need to be better services for less sophisticated traders to make money. The best part about crypto is that it democratizes asset ownership, but people who want to passively participate shouldn't be forced to become advanced traders. That's what we are working on at my project, PixelAlpha

The story of Spoofy: this is really incredible research that shows we need more diverse players in the space if it will ever be taken seriously.

https://hackernoon.com/meet-spoofy-how-a-single-entity-dominates-the-price-of-bitcoin-39c711d28eb4?gi=53c30f01c13b

Generally, it's just good business to do that. They want to convert their holdings to something they can spend ASAP because bounty hunting is a game of numbers - do as many bounties as you can and hope a few do well. Especially during this market

Yes and no. Cryptocurrency is the only usecase which justifies the price of blockchain.

Unfortunately blockchain is a very expensive state machine. There are ways to do most things blockchain can do (especially at the enterprise scale) with a good API. It's possible it will become a new infrastructure standard for inter-company or inter-machine communication, but that's a long ways away.

Price only matters for Ethereum in that it supports it as a development platform for longer. If devs keep using it then it still has a chance to be a dominant smart contract platform, but this definitely leaves the door open for competitors.

What do you use when the market is falling? Are you shorting, or just selling what you have?