that gold is on the whole dying as a store of value and it’s being propped up almost entirely by tradition
I think this is a reasonable assumption to work under.
there is diversification value in BTC
Maybe—that entirely depends on whether BTC actually has value and that hinges on, as you put it, “maintaining constant salience” which is the real issue.
$34000 is my “5% chance it will be above this” target
Ah, so $34K is your 5% (or 3%) quantile for the distribution, right?
Maybe—that entirely depends on whether BTC actually has value and that hinges on, as you put it, “maintaining constant salience” which is the real issue.
Okay, this helps. So “will BTC be able to (i) maintain constant salience, and (ii) be countercyclical in the long term, and if it does what value will it have?” seems like the object level issue; definitely makes things clearer than some abstract notion of replacing gold.
Ah I think I’ve been misunderstanding you. I was thinking in terms of the probability distribution over BTC’s long-term value, but I think you’re referring to about my probability distribution over the probability that BTC will get to the $34k (or more precisely, my probability distribution over what probability estimate I would have on the topic if I knew more and was wiser). Is that closer to correct?
Well, most any kind of asset has some diversification value. I see no particular reason for BTC to be countercyclical (not to mention that the traditional business cycle of the late XX century seems to be dead at the moment, or at least much transformed) and in any case there’s too little data to tell.
And if you think BTC has some extra special value because it will be {un|low|negatively} correlated to the S&P then you need to compare it to a different reference class.
With respect to the probability distribution, no, you were right the first time—we’re both talking about the probability distribution of the value of 1BTC at some long-term point (and you really should define what does “long-term” mean here, in years, for obviousreasons). I’m not talking about hyper- or meta- distribution of your credence.
I think this is a reasonable assumption to work under.
Maybe—that entirely depends on whether BTC actually has value and that hinges on, as you put it, “maintaining constant salience” which is the real issue.
Ah, so $34K is your 5% (or 3%) quantile for the distribution, right?
Okay, this helps. So “will BTC be able to (i) maintain constant salience, and (ii) be countercyclical in the long term, and if it does what value will it have?” seems like the object level issue; definitely makes things clearer than some abstract notion of replacing gold.
Ah I think I’ve been misunderstanding you. I was thinking in terms of the probability distribution over BTC’s long-term value, but I think you’re referring to about my probability distribution over the probability that BTC will get to the $34k (or more precisely, my probability distribution over what probability estimate I would have on the topic if I knew more and was wiser). Is that closer to correct?
Well, most any kind of asset has some diversification value. I see no particular reason for BTC to be countercyclical (not to mention that the traditional business cycle of the late XX century seems to be dead at the moment, or at least much transformed) and in any case there’s too little data to tell.
And if you think BTC has some extra special value because it will be {un|low|negatively} correlated to the S&P then you need to compare it to a different reference class.
With respect to the probability distribution, no, you were right the first time—we’re both talking about the probability distribution of the value of 1BTC at some long-term point (and you really should define what does “long-term” mean here, in years, for obvious reasons). I’m not talking about hyper- or meta- distribution of your credence.