Bitcoin rally pushes BlackRock ETF over $10B in record time
ft.com
ft.com
A lot of asset management is for pensions. This means that long term stability is quite important, and when designing portfolios negative or neutral correlations are highly desired (square deviation sigma goes down with weighted sum of correlation coefficients here [1]).
One one hand all companies rely on energy, electricity and gas and oil. To transform matter, to transport goods. Despite being a few percent GDP, energy is a multiplier/enabler of economic activity. Electricity's price is also being defined at the margin by peaker gas plants. And gas price is also highly linked to oil.
On the other hand, Bitcoins being mostly 'hodled' their price would be greatly defined by the block rewards. Which cost of is function of electrical scarcity. The highest the electricity price, the more it cost to produce the same amount of Bitcoin as per the consensus hash rate adjustments.
It's not perfect analysis, and I have not crunched the numbers; but I would not be surprised for Bitcoin to have negative or neutral correlations to a lot of assets because of energy.
Bitcoin is still the same (mostly) it was a decade ago, so who/what changed in order to make the ETFs happen? It doesn't seem to have been the protocol at least.
Now it's just, an asset, that's worth money, for reasons?
What was once a network for universities to communicate and share information, became something much more than that, for better or worse, as one example.
Not sure if counting it as a currency, asset, technology or whatever changes anything regarding if Bitcoin ETFs are a "win" for Bitcoin or not.
The total cluelessness belied here in an effort to discount bitcoin as though it's unthinkable that anyone would want it is such a silly posture to take.
Before the transaction pool wasn't crowded, now it is because it's highly valued around the globe.
It's a vehicle for scarcity, and functions like a money or foundational asset similar to a US treasury which serves as the base asset for the USD (along with gold to some extent until the federal government debased those holdings through profligate spending). In some sense a US treasury is a token, it's as money by banks, which is probably how bitcoin could end up, while also being a much more transparent system that individual can use to some extent though not "for buying a coffee".
Coffee shops don't accept gold bars either, yet gold has certainly been money (not so much these days).
This is true but it's largely because of the logistics. It's not that coffee shops don't want gold, it's just that it's too inconvenient to accept it. Bitcoin, on the other hand, is incredibly easy to accept. And unlike gold, Bitcoin can't be counterfeited. I know, in the USA at least, "digital gold" is the current narrative. But "daily currency" is just around the corner.
Wrong. There are multiple narratives for Bitcoin. I'd argue the most popular narrative in the United States today is that it is digital gold. But if you follow closely, a LOT is happening on the currency front. The digital gold narrative will converge with the daily currency narrative in the next ~2 years, I'd estimate.