Skip to main content

Bitcoin: An Ornately Compelling Transfer of Wealth

In a 2017 interview with Fox Business, venture capitalist Peter Thiel identified bitcoin (XBT) as the "cyber equivalent to gold." 

While talk of this comparison has endured for just about as long as the cryptocurrency itself, Thiel's statement showcases more acutely just how highly imaginative and seductive the mental gymnastics have become: not only have successful entrepreneurs bought into its functionality, they have also endorsed a comparison between one asset that is usable in and of itself, absent trade, and another whose usability stems exclusively from its tradability.

The fact that these figureheads are so confident plainly speaks volumes about an experimental asset, or cryptocurrency, whose identity, use case and value change by the minute. 

Of course, when the value of any asset proves wildly unpredictable, so, too, diminishes the tradability of that asset, especially when bidders intend to exercise that vaunted store-of-value feature.

Ultimately, a store of value depends upon the intrinsic utility of the asset, meaning that it must serve some utility in and of itself before serving incidentally as a reliable medium of exchange. 

If an asset stores value, that implicitly places a floor above zero to ensure that the asset will inherently always retain a measure of value on which the holder can rely, should it fail to be tradable on his or her time preference. 

Bitcoin fails this important test, as its value depends exclusively on the appraisal of some other bidder on whom the holder, or hodler, cannot rely. 

Going one step further, Thiel characterized bitcoin as "very underestimated." 

Interestingly, Thiel is correct, but for alternative reasons. 

Bitcoin is, indeed, extraordinarily underestimated... its downside potential, that is. 

Oddly enough, the XBT cohort has popularly abandoned the "cryptocurrency" label to instead rally around the "crypto asset" classification. 

Unfortunately, it is neither. 

Bitcoin serves as neither an efficient medium of exchange nor a store of value, while it certainly doesn't produce earnings, deliver a dividend or offer any particular utility beyond that inefficient medium. 

Insofar as bitcoin is an asset, it is a speculative risk asset widely employed as a momentum trade, owned primarily by a tiny segment of wealthy speculators and institutional investors who carry enough weight to materially manipulate the market to their favor. 

Across its lifespan, heavy-hitting traders have even strategically plotted their trading around expectations of low volume timeframes, in order to paint the tape or to project the illusion of substantive momentum. 

All of this amounts to a trade that the average investor is unlikely to win, or unlikely to have won in the past, if not for a tremendous measure of fortune, by timing or blind faith as an early adopter, and discipline, by way of restraint, especially near the top in December of 2017, when it held above $20,000 for precisely 30 minutes before embarking upon its 50-percent decline over the ensuing month, thereafter surrendering an additional 40 percent over 19 days to trade just above the $6,000 handle. 

Still, claims abound from staunch bitcoin believers out there who claim to have cashed out near the top. 

For one, very few people actually took advantage of that 30-minute window, and the true believers legitimately believed that bitcoin was headed to $100,000, en route to the moon, so they had no reason to abandon ship. 

In fact, a great measure of them bought on the way up and again on the way down, believing they were simply buying the dip, just before it tumbled below $10,000 just 45 days after the peak. 

This means that those believers are either lying about cashing out in time or, otherwise, about actually believing in the concept.

Whichever case applies, it's purely characteristic of a mania in which people want to appear smarter and richer than they really are.

As the old saying goes, don't confuse brains with a bull market.

What's more, despite the oft-echoed talking points of its advocates, bitcoin has not served as a store of value, as it remains both non-correlated to market developments and tremendously volatile, tumbling intraday as much as 17 percent as recently as Wednesday, November 14, 2018, trading as low as $5,358 before entering a trading range between $5,498 and $5,657 for the remainder of the week.

While a highly speculative asset is always poised for a sudden jolt in either direction, the end game will eventually yield capitulation, bringing the price of bitcoin closer to its utility value, dragging a lot of desperate defenders through the mud, and exposing the trade for what it has been all along: an ornately compelling transfer of wealth between consenting parties who wanted to make money. 



If only they knew the definition of its terms.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Kaepernick Craze: Exposing the Nation's Fools One Conversation at a Time

The Kaeparnick craze and other viral movements haven't merely pressured people into becoming simpler caricatures of their prior selves, but they have manifestly exposed people for how foolish and uninformed they've been all along. 



In his final year in the NFL, Kaepernick ranked 17th in passer rating and 34th the year before that. 

He played through an entire season in only two of his six years in the league, and his best full-season performance ranks far outside of the NFL's top-250 single-season passing performances in the league's history. 

For reference, the oft-criticized Tony Romo posted a career passer rating of 97.1, as compared to Kaepernick's 88.9. 

Romo's passer rating dipped below 90 for only one season of the eleven seasons he played, whereas Kaepernick failed to eclipse the 90 mark on three of his six seasons, a full 50 percent of his time in the NFL. 

In fact, Kaepernick accomplished this feat only once if we are to discard those other two seasons in …

Institutional Racism: The Sasquatch of Political Folklore

A great confusion has arisen out of the clamor of political debate, one which presupposes that any dismissal of the merits of “institutional racism” somehow equates to one’s rejection of personal struggle. 

Whereas the struggle of any individual remains always and everywhere unique and wholly personal, his common bond of complexion with others who have struggled serves inadequately as the basis for any argument which regards this commonality as the cause, or as the reason, for that veritable struggle. 

To condemn the unidentifiable and nebulous abstraction, then, by castigating an unnamed institution which persists beyond our specific capacity to recognize its power, serves only to absolve individuals of their personal responsibility, to shift blame and culpability to a specter which exists only by the creative designs of our imaginations, which exists as the scapegoat for all outcomes popularly maligned as undesirable. 

This unactionable practice, then, swiftly and categorically excuses…

Homelessness More Lucrative than $150,000/Year Job in SF Bay Area

Most people in the United States long for a $150,000-per-year salary. This makes sense, as the nation's median personal income is roughly 80 percent below that mark. 

It's a lot of money. 

In fact, this income level qualifies for the top 4 percent of Americans and the top 0.1 percent of the world's population; it is 109 times the global average.

If this is true, how could an unemployed homeless person possibly make more money? Well, the federal, state and local governments: that's how!

Let's take a look at the numbers.

A single Bay-Area Californian earning $150,000 per year pays an effective income tax rate of 32.23 percent: this figure is inclusive of a 7.20-percent effective state income tax (and 9.30-percent marginal rate), an 18.27-percent effective federal income tax (and 24.00-percent marginal rate), and a 6.76-percent effective rate for Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) taxes. 



In addition to income taxes, the homeowner incurs an annual mortgage cost amou…