It is not worth $5.7B, don't multiply huge amounts of shares, stocks, or coins by their market value, as it is impossible to cash out at that price. If he tries to do large sell orders it will sink to 1-10% of its current price.
With my dismal math skills I won't be making any profitable trades though.
At the very least you could create a commemorative diamond hands NFT collection and walk away with a few million.
A Japan dotcom bubble billionaire, Yasumitsu Shigeta, went from $42 billion at the peak in 2000, down to $600m by 2009 as his shares of Hikari Tsushin (mobile phone distributor) sank. Still extraordinarily rich, however that's a remarkable $41 billion decline. He went from being worth $1b to $25b in one year in 1999.
Masayoshi Son rode Softbank down by something around $75b after the dotcom bubble. Softbank lost 98% of its stock market value.
There were obviously a lot of billionaire wipeouts during the US dotcom bubble as well, as people held and sank, although none quite as dramatic as those two declines.
But I really like those examples. Decreases the survivorship bias you have when this term is usually referred to.
go back to reddit
It just tells you that the nature of the beast does not change. We make fun of crypto but the same kind of shilling goes on in the supposedly more sophisticated investor circles as well.
It's not a "bait-and-switch", per se, it's just an information asymmetry -- that speed will be achievable on speedtest.com alone, that transfer speed looks great just as long as you haven't put more than 128gb (or whatever it is) onto the drive, if you cover the SOC in copper heatsinks (sold seperately) you can get some performance back, and the motherboard can be replaced but that rig'll play LoL just fine. If you know these things, then the game is navigable; the statements about speed or capacity or value are "true", there's "just" important and missing information about what happens once t>0 or the feeding frenzy starts or capacity is exceeded or whatever.
Most actual professionals laugh at this kind of valuation, which is what makes the whole affair funny since a large portion of the industry is nevertheless happily using it.
I suppose one doesn't have to go too far for the reason: it benefits a large portion of the industry to value things this way, because they are implicitly inflating the value of their own investments.
Honestly, if I were to interview a quant and they claimed with a straight face that this is a sensible thing to do, I'd immediately thank them for their time and bid them farewell. It's that ridiculous.
Finally, I don't consider internal systems at banks to be some sort of benchmark for valuation. Most systems at banks are utter garbage. There are a few exceptions (option/exotics desks), but the rest is basically ran out of excel sheets.