Satoshi Nakamoto Nominated for the 2016 Nobel Prize in
Nobel Laureate Economist Predicts Bitcoin Price "Won't Go
Why a Nobel laureate in economics thinks bitcoin is toast
Nobel Economics Prize Winner Robert Shiller Says Bitcoin
Suggestions for a better Bomb community
Hello, Bombinos. First of all, huge thanks to all the team, mods and people working on the project. I'm writing some suggestions aiming to organize and grow our community and increase awareness about the project. It's divided in three specific topics related to strategy, communities and marketing. But first, I'll suggest some aesthetic changes in this subreddit to make it look more friendly. A) The font color in the topic on the front page is too dark in my desktop screen. The background is black and the font is dark gray, making it almost unreadable. It has to be changed to a lighter tone. B) The text on the sidebar is incomplete. I made some alterations in the new text below. "Bomb, the original and first deflationary currency experiment, was born after an airdrop in the end of 2018 aiming to answer one simple question: Can a deflationary cryptocurrency work as a store of value? The Bomb currency works by destroying 1% from every transaction recorded in the Ethereum blockchain. Only 1,000,000 tokens were minted. There will never be newly minted tokens." C) The sidebar should include a price ticker similar to the one used in the Telegram group and include our etherscan address. D) The sidebar should also include links to the Telegram and other communities. 1- Strategy: A) First deflationary currency and importance of the Bomb Token against governments printing money. The economist Friedrich Hayek from the Austrian school, in his acceptance speech titled "The Pretense of Knowledge" at the Swedish Nobel Academy, emphasized the importance of letting the economy free of government interference, specifically in the case of a continuous injection of additional amounts of money at points of the economic system where it creates a temporary demand, which generates a future imbalance after the artificial demand ceases. We are seeing this today with the interference of governments on the economies after the coronavirus. Trillions of dollars are being given to companies that don't have any idea how the consumers will react when the economies restart. The irrationality of the human behavior must be considered in this case, because there's no scientific theory to guarantee how the people will react after the restrictions are over. With all this new money on the market, we are risking a long term inflation that devalues national currencies like we have never seen before. That's where a deflationary currency becomes important as a hedge against this anomaly created in the market and this enormous sum of new money. B) Increasing the network effect to protect the asset To have a chance against its competitors, Bomb must protect its network against copycats and bad actors. The best way to do this is to increase the number of holders and, subsequently, wallets, to squash the power of any holder to manipulate the price and even crash it. We have to protect our network the same way Bitcoin did, increasing the number of financially interested people to a point where it's not productive to manipulate the price. Bomb has another quality that makes it prone to manipulation and volatility. One person (or entity) holding a lot of tokens can game the system using an exchange that runs off-chain transactions to crash the price. We are seeing this today. The transactions are happening but there's no burn and the price keeps going down. The only way to protect against this kind of bad actor is to increase the network effect and spread the tokens to a lot more holders, people interested in defending the currency. C) Increase the total holders and wallets to improve liquidity in exchanges and awareness Increasing the total number of holders would reduce the capacity of bad actors to wash trade. More people interested means more transactions, more transactions generate smaller spreads. Smaller spreads make it harder for bad actors to manipulate the price through wash trading. D) Evaluate new listings or removing old ones Yes, we need at least on more good exchange like Kraken. We should first wait for more holders before going after new listings. And we should look forward removing Bomb from bad exchanges. 2- Communities: A) Focus decisions on Reddit and Telegram (only three communities: news, price discussion and Bombassadors) and sharing everything published on Facebook and Twitter. Voting and decisions should be centralized in only one place. We can share the discussions everywhere else, but the voting and decisions must be centralized to one platform. B) Elect mods to these communities to increase decentralization I don't know how the Bombassadors program work, but we need to keep the current mods and choose new ones to run things more smoothly. Reddit and Telegram take a lot of time and we absolutely need more people. 3- Marketing: A) Use the small war chest wisely because Bomb is deflationary and becomes more and more scarce by the minute. We have to extended the war chest as long as we can to reach a more valuable network. Any marketing campaign must consider the increase in the network effect. We should focus on campaigns that attract outside interest. Example: each 15 days somebody could be rewarded with 50 bombs for an article shared on Reddit, Twiter, Facebook and 4chan. The prize must be voted and awarded to the best article that was shared, not only published. Articles or content that eventually reach a lot of engagement could be awarded outside of this prize with 100 bombs, discretionarily, by the mods. B) Use the funds only in campaigns that bring new people to the project instead of distributing it in the existing community to produce meaningless burns. Again. Burning will not increase the network value. After meaningless burns we will have the same number of interested people, but less tokens on the market. This way Bomb will never reach the store of value status. C) Reward people that generate quality content (like Pedro's 3D printed bombinos) and people that share this quality content and generate a lot of awareness. D) All campaigns must answer positively the question: Does this increase the network effect and represents quality content? E) Kill proposals that value meaningless token burns to create pumps. F) Don't forget to have fun! Good memes could be rewarded every 15 days, after voting, with 20 bombs. Suggestions are welcome. Let's find some common ground and move forward. And thanks for reading!
The Intellectual Foundation of Bitcoin比特幣的智識基礎. By Chapman Chen, HKBNews
https://preview.redd.it/w6v3l8n3zxu41.jpg?width=2551&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=fb0338a36a1a321d3781f43ff5eb6929d8b92edc Summary: Bitcoin was invented by the anonymous Satoshi Nakamoto as recently as 2008, but it is backed up by a rich intellectual foundation. For instance, The 1776 First Amendment separates church and state, and contemporary American liberation psychologist Nozomi Hayase (2020) argues that money and state should similarly be separated. Just as Isaac Newton’s study of alchemy gave rise to the international gold standard, so has the anonymous creator Satoshi Nakamoto's desire for a “modernized gold standard” given rise to Bitcoin. Indeed, Bloomberg's 2020 report confirms Bitcoin to be gold 2.0. Montesquieu (1774) asserted that laws that secure inalienable rights can only be found in Nature, and the natural laws employed in Bitcoin include its consensus algorithm and the three natural laws of economics (self-interest, competition, and supply and demand). J.S. Mill (1859) preferred free markets to those controlled by governments. Ludwig von Mises (1951) argued against the hazards of fiat currency, urging for a return to the gold standard. Friedrich Hayek (1984) suggested people to invent a sly way to take money back from the hands of the government. Milton Friedman (1994) called for FED to be replaced by an automatic system and predicted the coming of a reliable e-cash. James Buchanan (1988) advocated a monetary constitution to constrain the governmental power of money creation. Tim May (1997) the cypherpunk proclaimed that restricting digital cash impinges on free speech, and envisioned a stateless digital form of money that is uncensorable. The Tofflers (2006) pictured a non-monetary economy. In 2016, UCLA Professor of Finance Bhagwan Chowdhry even nominated Satoshi for a Nobel Prize. Full Text: Separation between money and state The 1791 First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution enshrines free speech and separates church and state, but not money and state. "Under the First Amendment, individuals’ right to create, choose their own money and transact freely was not recognized as a part of freedom of expression that needs to be protected," Japanese-American liberation psychologist Nozomi Hayase (2020) points out (1). The government, banks and corporations collude together to encroach upon people's liberties by metamorphosing their inalienable rights into a permissioned from of legal rights. Fiat currencies function as a medium of manipulation, indulging big business to generate market monopolies. "Freedom of expression has become further stifled through economic censorship and financial blockage enacted by payment processing companies like Visa and MasterCard," to borrow Hayase's (2020) words. Satoshi is a Modern Newton Although most famous for discovering the law of gravity, Isaac Newton was also a practising alchemist. He never managed to turn lead into gold, but he did find a way to transmute silver into gold. In 1717, Newton announced in a report that, based on his studies, one gold guinea coin weighed 21 shillings. Just as Isaac Newton’s study of alchemy gave rise to the international gold standard, so has the desire for a “modernized gold standard” given rise to Bitcoin. "In a way, Satoshi is a modern Newton. They both believed trust is best placed in the unchangeable facets of our economy. Beneath this belief is the assumption that each individual is their own best master," as put by Jon Creasy (2019) (2). J.S. Mill: free markets preferable to those controlled by governments John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) the great English philosopher would be a Bitcoiner were he still around today. In On Liberty (1859), Mill concludes that free markets are preferable to those controlled by governments. He argues that economies function best when left to their own devices. Therefore, government intervention, though theoretically permissible, would be counterproductive. Bitcoin is precisely decentralized or uncontrolled by the government, unconfiscatable, permissonless, and disinflationary. Bitcoin regulates itself spontaneously via the ordinary operations of the system. "Rules are enforced without applying any external pressure," in Hayase's (2020) words. Ludwig von Mises (1958): Liberty is always Freedom from the Government In The Free Market and its Enemies, theoretical Austrian School economist Ludwig von Mises (1951) argues against the hazards of fiat currency, urging for a return to the gold standard. “A fiat money system cannot go on forever and must one day come to an end,” Von Mises states. The solution is a return to the gold standard, "the only standard which makes the determination of the purchasing power of money independent of the changing ideas of political parties, governments, and pressure groups" under present conditions. Interestingly, this is also one of the key structural attributes of Bitcoin, the world’s first, global, peer-to-peer, decentralized value transfer network. Actually, Bloomberg's 2020 report on Bitcoin confirms that it is gold 2.0. (3) Von Mises prefers the price of gold to be determined according to the contemporaneous market conditions. The bitcoin price is, of course, determined across the various global online exchanges, in real-time. There is no central authority setting a spot price for gold after the which the market value is settled on among the traders during the day. Hayek: Monopoly on Currency should End Austrian-British Nobel laureate Friedrich Hayek’s theory in his 1976 work, Denationalization of Money, was that not only would the currency monopoly be taken away from the government, but that the monopoly on currency itself should end with multiple alternative currencies competing for acceptance by consumers, in order "to prevent the bouts of acute inflation and deflation which have played the world for the past 60 years." He forcefully argues that if there is no free competition between different currencies within any nation, then there will be no free market. Bitcoin is, again, decentralized, and many other cryptocurrencies have tried to compete with it, though in vain. In a recently rediscovered video clip from 1984, Hayek actually suggested people to invent a cunning way to take money out of the hands of the government:- “I don’t believe we shall ever have a good money again before we take the thing out of the hands of government, that is, we can’t take them violently out of the hands of government, all we can do is by some sly roundabout way introduce something they can’t stop” (4). Reviewing those words 36 years hence and it is difficult not to interpret them in the light of Bitcoin. Milton Friedman Called for FED to be Replaced by an Automatic System Nobel laureate economist Milton Friedman (1994) was critical of the Federal Reserve due to its poor performance and felt it should be abolished (5). Friedman (1999) believed that the Federal Reserve System should ultimately be replaced with a computer program, which makes us think of the computer code governing Bitcoin (6).[\](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Federal_Reserve#cite_note-:2-12) He (1970) favored a system that would automatically buy and sell securities in response to changes in the money supply. This, he argued, would put a lid on inflation, setting spending and investment decisions on a surer footing (7). Bitcoin is exactly disflationary as its maximum possible supply is 21 million and its block reward or production rate is halved every four years. Friedman passed away before the coming of bitcoin, but he lived long enough to see the Internet’s spectacular rise throughout the 1990s. “I think that the Internet is going to be one of the major forces for reducing the role of government," said Friedman in a 1999 interview with NTU/F. On the same occasion, he sort of predicted the emergence of Bitcoin, "The one thing that’s missing, but that will soon be developed, is a reliable e-cash, a method whereby on the Internet you can transfer funds from A to B, without A knowing B or B knowing A." (8) “Of course, Friedman didn’t predict the block chain,” summed up American libertarian economist Jeffery Tucker (2014). “But he was hoping for a trustless system. He saw the need.” (9). Bitcoin Computer Code as Constitution in the Buchananian Sense American economist cum Nobel laureate James Buchanan (1988) advocates constitutional constraints on the governmental power to create money (10). Buchanan distinguishes a managed monetary system—a system “that embodies the instrumental use of price-level predictability as a norm of policy”—from an automatic monetary system, “which does not, at any stage, involve the absolute price level” (Buchanan 1962, 164–65). Leaning toward the latter, Buchanan argues that automatic systems are characterized by an organization “of the institutions of private decision-making in such a way that the desired monetary predictability will emerge spontaneously from the ordinary operations of the system” (Buchanan 1962, 164). Again, "Bitcoin regulates itself through the spontaneous force of nature, flourishing healthy price discovery and competition in the best interest of everyone" (Hayase 2020). Shruti Rajagopalan (2018) argues that the computer code governing how the sundry nodes/computers within the Bitcoin network interact with one another is a kind of monetary constitution in the Buchananian sense. One of Buchanan's greatest inputs is to differentiate the choice of rules from the choice within rule (Buchanan 1990). One may regard the Bitcoin code as a sort of constitution and "the Bitcoin network engaging in both the choice of rules and choice within rules" (Rajagopalan 2018) (11). Tim May: Restricting Digital Cash may Impinge on Free Speech Cypherpunks are activists who since the 1980s have advocated global use of strong cryptography and privacy-enhancing technologies as a route to social and political liberation. Tim May (Timothy C. May [1951-2018]), one of the influential cypherpunks published The Crypto Anarchist Manifesto in September 1992, which foretold the coming of Bitcoin (12). Cypherpunks began envisioning a stateless digital form of money that cannot be censored and their collaborative pursuit created a movement akin to the 18th Enlightenment. At The 7th Conference on Computers, Freedom, and Privacy, Burlingame, CA. in 1997, Tim May equated money with speech, and argued that restricting digital cash may impinge on free speech, for spending money is often a matter of communicating orders to others, to transfer funds, to release funds, etc. In fact, most financial instruments are contracts or orders, instead of physical specie or banknotes (13). Montesquieu: Laws that secure inalienable rightscan only be found in Nature In his influential work The Spirit of Laws (1748), Montesquieu wrote, “Laws ... are derived from the nature of things … Law, like mathematics, has its objective structure, which no arbitrary whim can alter". Similarly, once a block is added to the end of the Bitcoin blockchain, it is almost impossible to go back and alter the contents of the block, unless every single block after it on the blockchain is altered, too. Cypherpunks knew that whereas alienable rights that are bestowed by law can be deprived by legislation, inalienable rights are not to be created but can be discovered by reason. Thus, laws that secure inalienable rights cannot be created by humankind but can be found in nature. The natural laws employed in Bitcoin to enshrine the inalienable monetary right of every human being include its consensus algorithm, and the three natural laws of economics (self-interest, competition, and supply and demand) as identified by Adam Smith, father of modern economics. Regarding mathematics, bitcoin mining is performed by high-powered computers that solve complex computational math problems. When computers solve these complex math problems on the Bitcoin network, they produce new bitcoin. And by solving computational math problems, bitcoin miners make the Bitcoin payment network trustworthy and secure, by verifying its transaction information. Regarding economic laws, in accordance with the principle of game theory to generate fairness, miners take part in an open competition. Lining up self-interests of all in a network, with a vigilant balance of risk and rewards, rules are put in force sans the application of any exterior pressure. "Bitcoin regulates itself through the spontaneous force of nature, flourishing healthy price discovery and competition in the best interest of everyone," to borrow the words of Hayase (2020). A Non-monetary Economy as Visualized by the Tofflers In their book, Revolutionary Wealth (2006), futurists Alvin Toffler and his wife Heidi Toffler toy with the concept of a world sans money, raising a third kind of economic transaction that is neither one-on-one barter nor monetary exchange. In the end, they settle on the idea that the newer non-monetary economy will exist shoulder-to-shoulder with the monetary sector in the short term, although the latter may eventually be eclipsed by the former in the long run. What both the Tofflers' The Third Wave (1980) and Revolutionary Wealth bring into question is the very premise of monetary exchange. The vacuum left over by cash in such a non-monetary economy may be filled up by Bitcoin as a cryptocurrency. Satoshi Nakamoto Nominated for Nobel Prize by UCLA Finance Prof. UCLA Anderson School Professor of Finance Bhagwan Chowdhry nominated Satoshi Nakamoto for the 2016 Nobel Prize in Economics on the following grounds:- It is secure, relying on almost unbreakable cryptographic code, can be divided into millions of smaller sub-units, and can be transferred securely and nearly instantaneously from one person to any other person in the world with access to internet bypassing governments, central banks and financial intermediaries such as Visa, Mastercard, Paypal or commercial banks eliminating time delays and transactions costs.... Satoshi Nakamoto’s Bitcoin Protocol has spawned exciting innovations in the FinTech space by showing how many financial contracts — not just currencies — can be digitized, securely verified and stored, and transferred instantaneously from one party to another (14). Fb link: https://www.facebook.com/hongkongbilingualnews/posts/947121432392288?__tn__=-R Web link: https://www.hkbnews.net/post/the-intellectual-foundation-of-bitcoin%E6%AF%94%E7%89%B9%E5%B9%A3%E7%9A%84%E6%99%BA%E8%AD%98%E5%9F%BA%E7%A4%8E-by-chapman-chen-hkbnews Disclaimer: This article is neither an advertisement nor professional financial advice. End-notes
The Day Advances | Monthly FIRE Portfolio Update - January 2020
The day advanced as if to light some work of mine Thoreau, Walden This is my thirty-eighth portfolio update. I complete this update monthly to check my progress against my goal. Portfolio goal My objective is to reach a portfolio of $2 180 000 by 1 July 2021. This would produce a real annual income of about $87 000 (in 2020 dollars). This portfolio objective is based on an expected average real return of 3.99 per cent, or a nominal return of 6.49 per cent. Portfolio summary Vanguard Lifestrategy High Growth Fund – $813 282 Vanguard Lifestrategy Growth Fund – $45 802 Vanguard Lifestrategy Balanced Fund – $83 162 Vanguard Diversified Bonds Fund – $110 472 Vanguard Australian Shares ETF (VAS) – $178 121 Vanguard International Shares ETF (VGS) – $34 965 Betashares Australia 200 ETF (A200) – $272 399 Telstra shares (TLS) – $2 046 Insurance Australia Group shares (IAG) – $8 970 NIB Holdings shares (NHF) – $6 492 Gold ETF (GOLD.ASX) – $106 701 Secured physical gold – $17 252 Ratesetter (P2P lending) – $14 755 Bitcoin – $153 530 Raiz app (Aggressive portfolio) – $18 365 Spaceship Voyager app (Index portfolio) – $2 534 BrickX (P2P rental real estate) – $4 477 Total portfolio value: $1 873 325 (+$94 067) Asset allocation Australian shares – 42.8% (2.2% under) Global shares – 22.6% Emerging markets shares – 2.4% International small companies – 3.1% Total international shares – 28.1% (1.9% under) Total shares – 70.9% (4.1% under) Total property securities – 0.2% (0.2% over) Australian bonds – 4.5% International bonds – 9.5% Total bonds – 14.0% (1.0% under) Gold – 6.6% Bitcoin – 8.2% Gold and alternatives – 14.8% (4.8% over) Presented visually, below is a high-level view of the current asset allocation of the portfolio. Comments This month saw exceptional growth in the portfolio, with a net increase of $94 000 after a small fall last month. [Chart] This is the fastest growth in the past half year. It is also the second largest absolute increase in over three years of measurement. [Chart] As the histogram below - which counts the frequency of occurrences in a specified range of monthly value changes (with red denoting losses) - makes clear, this is one of the most positive outcomes in the three year record. [Chart] The sources of portfolio growth were generally buoyant global and Australian share markets. Just under half of the growth was also due to an increase in the price of both gold securities and Bitcoin. In addition, even bond holdings increased in value over the period. Distribution payments from the Vanguard retail funds, as well as the exchange-traded funds VAS, VGS and A200 were made through this month. These totalled around $14 000 and have begun to be gradually fed back into the portfolio. This is a process which will occur through to June - with new investments twice per month. So far this has led to additional purchases in Vanguard's Australian shares exchange-traded fund (VAS) to maintain the target allocation of Australian equities making up 60 per cent of all equity holdings. The bond allocation of the portfolio continues to be notionally under its target, but has not yet reached a position where further balancing investments are warranted. Fully excluding the value of Bitcoin, for example, it still sits on its target allocation of 15 per cent of the portfolio. If the same calculation is done for equities, they sit just above their target, at 77 per cent, and have drifted higher since early last year. Over the past months my position has been to take no portfolio balancing actions based purely on the volatile value of Bitcoin over time, and this remains my approach. There is no perfect answer to this issue - assigning no value to Bitcoin and ignoring it for asset allocation purposes is inconsistent with its role in the portfolio. Pushing either equity or bond allocations sharply out of target boundaries merely due to short-term Bitcoin movements is also not warranted. Taking a backcast 'moving average' approach might be one statistical solution, but I am not yet convinced it would do more than moderate the appearance of the issue. While expenditure has been higher over the holiday period, on average the gap between the rolling three-year average of distributions and credit card expenditure continues to close, and sits at just over a $300 per month gap at present. Flags of convenience - estimating hedging in the portfolio This month, out of a curiosity carried over from my recent review of my bond holdings, I have found the time to review of the overall currency hedging position of the portfolio. There are some excellent online research papers (pdf) and blog pieces, such as this one from Passive Investing Australia, for those interested in learning more about some of the associated issues. Currency risks have never previously been an object of much detailed thought on the journey. Rather, I had tracked a basic measure of broader exposure to foreign assets (including foreign equities, property securities, gold and more recently Bitcoin). The additional issue of whether my exposure to these assets was unhedged (meaning exposure to gains and losses from the relative movement in the Australian dollar and the foreign currencies) or hedged was not really front of mind. I suppose I had a dim awareness that some elements of the Vanguard retail funds that have until recently dominated the portfolio were hedged (for example, around 30 per cent of the Vanguard High Growth Diversified funds equity position is currency hedged), and judged that there was likely a well-considered rationale behind the amount of this hedging. The first step to understanding where any exposures exist is to understand and measure the current state of affairs. As of today, this is broadly as set out below:
Around 35 per cent of all portfolio assets are effectively unhedged - This includes Bitcoin, unhedged gold holdings, and unhedged international equities and bonds. All other things being equal, if the Australian dollar falls, the value of this part of the portfolio rises in relative terms.
The remaining 65 per cent of assets are either hedged or Australian-held assets - This includes Australian equities, Australian bonds, as well as international equities and bonds hedged back to the Australian dollar.
International equities are partially hedged - The portfolio has around $525 000 in international equities currently. Of this, around $140 000 is hedged back into Australian dollars - a hedging position of 27 per cent.
International bonds are nearly fully hedged - consistent with their portfolio role and discussed here.
The decision to invest in Vanguard's International Shares ETF (VGS), which is unhedged, is a significant event in this regard. The chart below shows the overall level of currency hedging in the international equity portfolio. Investments in VGS commenced from July 2019, and have started to affect the level of hedging. [Chart] As future contributions flow into VGS - absent any other action - a historically quite stable level of hedging will continue to fall. So far this is just a trend I am monitoring, until I have completed more research and thinking on the best approach in this area. There are many complicated, and some unknowable, issues to consider and balance in hedging decisions, such as the likely denomination of future costs, and the historical and future relationships between domestic currencies and equity markets. None avail themselves of short or easy answers. Until I have thought my way through them more fully, I remain hesitant to make any definitive decisions. Progress Progress against the objective, and the additional measures I have reached is set out below. Measure Portfolio All Assets Portfolio Objective – $2 180 000 (or $87 000 pa) 85.2% 115.9% Credit card purchases – $71 000 pa 103.9% 141.4% Total expenses – $89 000 pa 83.3% 113.3% Summary This month has seen rapid progress, propelling the portfolio closer to both old and new goals. The portfolio gains this month have already closed nearly half of the additional distance created by increasing my portfolio target at the beginning of the year. The psychological forward push from distributions performance across 2019 (including, pleasingly, seeing it recognised here) has added to this sense of momentum. Additionally, this month I have also crossed the threshold to the target portfolio size needed to achieve 'credit card FI', a long-standing measure I have tracked. The long summer break that has just ended in some ways seemed like a foretaste of what some versions of financial independence could feel like. With the minimum of planning there was time to read, rest, exercise and write largely as I pleased. Returning to work following this has been infused with an unusual sense of being a temporary visitor in a new workplace. There is a greater philosophical detachment, in observing its rituals and rhythms, and less of a desire to seek to shape or resist its minutiae. Rather, what I have focused on is seeking to more deliberately make use of the freedoms it does not constrain, and pursue the best and most interesting use of the time that is outside of work hours. Through these recent strong Australian and US equity markets, this article has been a useful reminder of the 'survivorship' risks of focusing a FI target too narrowly on past performance. This excellent recent piece from Aussie HIFIRE has also, from another direction, usefully focused on separating out the decisions that do, and do not, materially matter in planning and executing on a passive indexing strategy over the long-term. For a challenging and entirely heterodox view on the potential long-term movement of equity markets upwards from here, this article has been thought-provoking. Finally, this month I have been discovering the Jolly Swagman podcast, which has long and fascinating interviews with the ex-head of the Reserve Bank of Australia, and Nobel Prize winning US economist Robert Shiller speaking on bubbles and narrative economics. During the long restful hours of summer break, the day has advanced. Though clouds may come in time, as the year starts - at least - the way forward looks bright. The post, links and full charts can be seen here.
Top-60 bitcoin/crypto quotes of the last decade, because reading them makes you feel good, and it feels good to feel good. Also one trading tip
First, number one trading tip for the next decade (in my opinion): XXA/XLM trading pair, price is 5.20 XLM (0.3588 USD). Ixinium XXA is so undervalued right now. Target profit +300% for this year. Backet by precious metals. Precious metals 100% insured by Lloyd's of London. Target price levels for this year because of precious metals base value: 12.0 XLM (0.83 USD, +130.6%) 18.8 XLM (1.30 USD, +261.5%) 23.2 XLM (1.60 USD, +345.9%) Price up since Coinmarketcap listing 7 days ago: 47.26% XXA/XLM trading pair on Stellarport and StellarX exchanges with zero trading fee. It's not too late to become an Ixinium whale :) My favorite bitcoin/crypto quotes, last ten years:
Came into Bitcoin for the short-term dollar gains. Stayed in Bitcoin for the long-term bitcoin gains.
Fiat addicts you to spending. Bitcoin addicts you to saving.
There are 1,900x more dollars in existence today than there was less than a hundred years ago. Bitcoin has no top because fiat has no bottom.
Most investors would be better off if they lost the password to their account and couldn’t log in for a few years.
How I learned to stop worrying and love the bear market: Value your wealth in bitcoin not fiat.
If I had a Bitcoin for every time someone asked me if I know who Satoshi is... I'd be Satoshi.
Every second bitcoin stays out of the spotlight, is another second we get to build unopposed. We can't take this time for granted.
You can't be excited about Bitcoin and fear the bear market. It's like being excited for Christmas but fearing winter. The bear market is a natural part of Bitcoin's mass adoption.
Crypto is the only money that works on the internet. But it's also the only money that works in space. It's really expensive to bring gold bars to Mars.
The fact that your normie friends don't think Bitcoin is cool yet is the reason why there is still massive upside potential.
Feel free to print (fiat money) as much as you need, as I am already all in crypto.
Satoshi walks in to a bar. Nobody knows.
Fiat supply: unlimited. Gold supply: unknown. Bitcoin supply: 21 million.
Most people still don’t know anything about Bitcoin except its price. But they don’t know why Bitcoin has a price in the first place. Hence the skepticism. When you don’t know why something has a price, it is impossible to understand how much it can really be worth.
There can never be more than 17 million people who own 1 full bitcoin. But in practice, there will be far fewer.
Internet allowed you to never have to go to the library. Bitcoin will allow you to never have to go to the bank.
Google's CEO is Indian
Nokia's CEO is Indian Adobe's CEO is Indian Amazon's BOD is Indian MasterCard's CEO is Indian Microsoft's CEO is Indian Pepsico's CEO was Indian indra nooyi Nasa has 58% Indian employees Do something towards $Btc bans in India! ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.
When you trade trends, you can be the last person to join the trend & first person to leave the trend & you can still outperform everyone else in long term simply because others will keep guessing the tops & bottoms while you will keep riding confirmed trends.
You don't need to fomo into positions, if you accumulate early.
If your "financial advisor" doesn't advise you to buy crypto, fire 'em.
Bitcoin doesn't care about your feelings. It also doesn't care about your gender, ethnicity, sexual preference or religion. Bitcoin just is.
Want to prove to an investor that your crypto product is needed? Get people to use it. It is really hard to argue with usage.
Is it possible to be a BTC maximalist and be Vegan? Asking for a friend..
If you think that bitcoin is not going to the mainstream, think again.
Most people don’t know what money is. This is why Bitcoin is still underrated. First, learn what money is. Then, you will be able to leverage the massive opportunity that is Bitcoin.
If you think the people in charge know exactly what they’re doing, do nothing & continue on with your life. If you think those in charge may NOT actually be as smart as they want us to think, buy a little Bitcoin. The status quo is a bet on humans, but Bitcoin is a bet on math.
Bitcoin is only risky to those who don’t understand it.
Short term volatility doesn’t phase long term investors.
If you manage your risk, your profits will take care of itself. If you don't, your parents will take care of you.
For every person in the world, there are only 0.00225764 bitcoins.
If you did your research, this bear market was expected. Bear or bull market, it’s business as usual for true Bitcoiners.
For Bitcoin to succeed, the whole world doesn't need to understand its value proposition. Those who do will profit from its monetization. Those who don't will naturally adopt this better money.
Economic reality imposes itself onto the world whether you're aware of it or not.
This is not financial advice. This is life advice. Buy Bitcoin.
If Banks & Fiat are horse carriages, then Bitcoin isn't merely cars, it's fucking teleportation.
How Bitcoin enables global prosperity:
Bitcoin makes you future-oriented Bitcoin makes delaying gratification easier Bitcoin makes saving & capital accumulation easier Bitcoin makes investing easier Bitcoin makes global trade easier Bitcoin makes advancing civilization easier
Bitcoin is the ultimate marshmallow experiment. People who are able to hodl for longer will tend to have better life outcomes.
Other than your human time, Bitcoin is the scarcest thing on earth. Human time will become more abundant as life expectancy increases. Bitcoin, however, will only become scarcer.
The energy cost of Bitcoin mining will pale in comparison to the improvements in the world’s productivity and prosperity that are enabled by Bitcoin.
Pros of bear market:
-You can buy more Bitcoin -Devs more productive than ever -Weak hands driven out+hodler base strengthened -Focus on fundamentals, not short-term price -Overvalued shitcoins deflated -Critical Infrastructure being built out, making next bull run even fiercer
The more productive we are during the bear market, the harder Bitcoin will pump in the next bull market. Ignore short-term price action. Focus on Bitcoin fundamentals.
Bitcoin bear market is the best time for buying, learning and staying miles ahead of the normies who will once again be late to the game and will buy the top.
Before you invest in Bitcoin, invest in educating yourself about Bitcoin. Understanding Bitcoin will make your conviction much stronger and enable you to maximize your gains.
There are 2 ways you can adopt Bitcoin:
Early on & willingly-> result: allows you to capture upside as Bitcoin grows & becomes widely used or
Much later & not having another choice-> result: failing to capture most upside from Bitcoin's monetization.
The choice is yours.
The overwhelming majority of highly intelligent people I talk to still have no idea why Bitcoin is valuable. We are extremely early. The ability to identify opportunity before others and take advantage of the information asymmetry is key.
Bitcoin will succeed with or without you. Don’t be left behind.
In the 90s people couldn’t imagine that the Internet would replace newspapers, TV, phone calls, shops & many other things. Today, people can't imagine Bitcoin becoming mass adopted money. Bitcoin will do to money what Internet did to information. And money is a way bigger market.
If every millionaire in the US wanted to have just 1 bitcoin they wouldn't be able to. There will always be fewer bitcoins than there are millionaires in the US (let alone the whole world). Ignore this at your own risk.
The corporations & institutions that stand to lose from Bitcoin adoption are made up of individuals who stand to benefit massively from Bitcoin adoption. Realizing that every group or entity is made up of self-motivated individuals is key to realizing why Bitcoin will succeed.
Bitcoin self-selects for people with:
* Low time preference * Long attention span * Commitment * Authenticity * Patience * Persistence * Ability to focus * Ability to go against the mainstream Bitcoin is a marathon, not a sprint.
If you don’t have a deep understanding of:
What money is
Functions of money
Money properties that fulfill its various functions
Then don’t you dare criticize Bitcoin.
Bitcoin doesn’t care:
- what color you are - what sex you are - what age you are - what your religion is - who your parents are - which university/school you went to - who you’re friends with - how expensive your lawyer is Bitcoin cannot discriminate.
You chase money every single day. You stress over money all your life. You worship money.
But you have no idea why money is valuable. Money controls your life because you have no understanding of what it is. Once you ask yourself “What is money?”, Bitcoin will make sense.
Satoshi Nakamoto deserves:
- Nobel Prize in Economics - Nobel Peace Prize - Nobel Prize in Physics But thankfully the last thing Satoshi needs is the validation of the establishment.
Bitcoin is doing better than corporations & altcoins though it never had:
- CEO - Marketing - Salaries - ICO - Partnerships - Headquarters - Customer support Bitcoin is an emergent superorganism. Members contribute according to their ability, driven by passion more than greed.
July 2011 - $31
- “Damn, I should've bought bitcoin earlier” Apr 2013 - $266 - “Damn, I should've bought bitcoin earlier” Nov 2013 - $1,242 - “Damn, I should've bought bitcoin earlier” Dec 2017 - $19,891 - “Damn, I should've bought bitcoin earlier” 2022-2023 - ... - “Damn..”
Successful crypto trading boils down to correctly predicting how the whales will torture the normies next.
Bitcoin doesn’t wait for anyone. It’s up to you if you want to learn this the hard way.
Percentage of world using the Internet in 1995 = 0.4%
Percentage of world using the Internet in 2019 = 58.8% Bitcoin is to money what the Internet is to information. Percentage of world using Bitcoin in 2019 = 0.4% If you thought you are late to Bitcoin, think again.
I didn't choose the dollar.
I didn't choose the euro. I didn't choose the pound. I didn't choose the yen. I didn't choose the ruble. I didn't choose fractional reserve banking. I didn't choose central banks. I didn't choose quantitative easing. I choose Bitcoin.
Go to location
Social Security #
Proof of address
Unreadable legal docs
Wait a week for your funds
Which one will the next generation choose? Many of these wisdom quotes are from the author of the new book called “This ₿ook Will Save You Time”, and he's donating all of the proceeds from the book sales to a Bitcoin developer.
James Heckman 1944 – Present Born: United States Resides: United States · Professor in Economics at the University of Chicago. Professor at the Harris Graduate School of Public Policy Studies. Director of the Center for the Economics of Human Development (CEHD). Co-Director of Human Capital and Economic Opportunity (HCEO) Global Working Group. Heckman is also a Professor of Law at ‘the Law School’, a senior research fellow at the American Bar Foundation, and a research associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research. · In 2000, Heckman shared the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences with Daniel McFadden, for his pioneering work in econometrics and microeconomics. · As of February 2019 (according to RePEc), he is the next most influential economist in the world behind Daniel McFadden. · Heckman has received numerous awards for his work, including the John Bates Clark Medal of the American Economic Association in 1983, the 2005 and 2007 Dennis Aigner Award for Applied Econometrics from the Journal of Econometrics, the 2005 Jacob Mincer Award for Lifetime Achievement in Labor Economics, the 2005 Ulysses Medal from the University College Dublin, the 2007 Theodore W. Schultz Award from the American Agricultural Economics Association, the Gold Medal of the President of the Italian Republic awarded by the International Scientific Committee of the Pio Manzú Centre in 2008, the Distinguished Contributions to Public Policy for Children Award from the Society for Research in Child Development in 2009, the 2014 Frisch Medal from the Econometric Society, the 2014 Spirit of Erikson Award from the Erikson Institute, and the 2016 Dan David Prize for Combating Poverty from Tel Aviv University. “The best way to improve the American workforce in the 21st century is to invest in early childhood education, to ensure that even the most disadvantaged children have the opportunity to succeed alongside their more advantaged peers” Janet Yellen 1945 – Present Born: United States Resides: United States · Successor to Ben Bernanke, serving as the Chair of the Federal Reserve from 2014 to 2018, and as Vice Chair from 2010 to 2014, following her position as President and Chief Executive Officer of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco. Yellen was also Chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisers under President Bill Clinton. · Yellen is a Keynesian economist and advocates the use of monetary policy in stabilizing economic activity over the business cycle. She believes in the modern version of the Phillips curve, which originally was an observation about an inverse relationship between unemployment and inflation. In her 2010 nomination hearing for Vice Chair of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, Yellen said, “The modern version of the Phillips curve model—relating movements in inflation to the degree of slack in the economy—has solid theoretical and empirical support.” · Yellen is married to George Akerlof, another notable economist, Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences laureate, professor at Georgetown University and the University of California, Berkeley.. · In 2014, Yellen was named by Forbes as the second most powerful woman in the world. She was the highest ranking American on the list. In October 2015, Bloomberg Markets ranked her first in their annual list of the 50 most influential economists and policymakers. In October 2015, Sovereign Wealth Fund Institute ranked Yellen #1 in the Public Investor 100 list. In October 2010, she received the Adam Smith Award from the National Association for Business Economics (NABE). “In the long run, outsourcing is another form of trade that benefits the U.S. economy by giving us cheaper ways to do things.” “I'm just opposed to a pure inflation-only mandate in which the only thing a central bank cares about is inflation and not unemployment.” Jared Polis 1975 – Present Born: United States Resides: United States · 43rd governor of Colorado since January 2019. Polis served on the Colorado State Board of Education from 2001 to 2007 and was the United States Representative for Colorado's 2nd congressional district from 2009 to 2019. · Polis is the first openly gay person and second openly LGBT person (after Kate Brown of Oregon) to be elected governor in the United States. · In 2000 Polis founded the Jared Polis Foundation, whose mission is to “create opportunities for success by supporting educators, increasing access to technology, and strengthening our community.” Polis has also founded two charter schools. · Polis was named Outstanding Philanthropist for the 2006 National Philanthropy Day in Colorado. He has received many awards, including the Boulder Daily Camera's 2007 Pacesetter Award in Education; the Kauffman Foundation Community Award; the Denver consul general of Mexico “Ohtli”; the Martin Luther King Jr. Colorado Humanitarian Award; and the Anti-Defamation League's inaugural Boulder Community Builder Award. “Having alternative currencies is great, right, because, historically, government's had a monopoly on currency.…At the end of the day, why should only politicians—either directly or indirectly—control the currency?We can reduce transaction cost, provide an alternative, and—look, I don't know whether it'll be Bitcoin or not—but I think the concept of digital currencies is here to stay, and the fact that a politician would write to try to ban them in their infancy is just the wrong way to go about it.Let the market determine whether there's any value there or not.” Jeff Bezos 1964 – Present Born: United States Resides: United States · Best known as the founder, CEO, and president of Amazon, Bezos is an American internet and aerospace entrepreneur, media proprietor, and investor. The first centi-billionaire on the Forbes wealth index, Bezos was named the “richest man in modern history” after his net worth increased to $150 billion in July 2018. In September 2018, Forbes described him as “far richer than anyone else on the planet” as he added $1.8 billion to his net worth when Amazon became the second company in history to reach a market cap of $1 trillion. · Bezos supported the electoral campaigns of U.S. senators Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell, two Democratic U.S. senators from Washington. He has also supported U.S. representative John Conyers, as well as Patrick Leahy and Spencer Abraham, U.S. senators serving on committees dealing with Internet-related issues. · Bezos has supported the legalization of same-sex marriage, and in 2012 contributed $2.5 million to a group supporting a yes vote on Washington Referendum 74, which affirmed same-sex marriage. · After the 2016 presidential election, Bezos was invited to join Donald Trump's Defense Innovation Advisory Board, an advisory council to improve the technology used by the Defense Department. Bezos declined the offer without further comment. · In September 2018, Business Insider reported that Bezos was the only one of the top five billionaires in the world who had not signed the Giving Pledge, an initiative created by Bill Gates and Warren Buffett that encourage wealthy people to give away their wealth. “Percentage margins don't matter. What matters always is dollar margins: the actual dollar amount. Companies are valued not on their percentage margins, but on how many dollars they actually make, and a multiple of that.” “We have the resources to build room for a trillion humans in this solar system, and when we have a trillion humans, we'll have a thousand Einsteins and a thousand Mozarts. It will be a way more interesting place to live.” Jens Weidmann 1968 – Present Born: Germany Resides: Germany · German economist and president of the Deutsche Bundesbank. Chairman of the Board of the Bank for International Settlements. From 1997 to 1999, Weidmann worked at the International Monetary Fund. In 2006, he began serving as Head of Division IV (Economic and Financial Policy) in the Federal Chancellery. He was the chief negotiator of the Federal Republic of Germany for both the summits of the G8 and the G20. He was given the 2016 Medal for Extraordinary Merits for Bavaria in a United Europe. · Weidmann was involved in a series of major decisions in response to the financial crisis in Germany and Europe: preventing the meltdown of the bank Hypo Real Estate, guaranteeing German deposits and implementing a rescue programme for the banking system, piecing together two fiscal-stimulus programmes, and setting up the Greek bail-out package and the European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF). · In a 2011 speech, Weidmann criticized the errors and “many years of wrong developments” of the European Monetary Union (EMU) peripheral states, particularly the wasted opportunity represented by their “disproportionate investment in private home-building, high government spending or private consumption”. In May, 2012, Weidmann's stance was characterized by US economist and columnist Paul Krugman as amounting to wanting to destroy the Euro. In 2016, Weidmann dismissed deflation in light of the European Central Bank's current stimulus program, pointing out the healthy condition of the German economy and that the euro area is not that bad off. “I share the concerns regarding monetary policy that is too loose for too long. … As you know I have concerns about granting emergency liquidity on account of the fact that the banks are not doing everything to improve their liquidity situation.” Jerome Powell 1953 – Present Born: United States Resides: United States · Current Chair of the Federal Reserve, nominated by Trump. Powell has faced substantial and repeated criticism from Trump after his confirmation. The Senate Banking Committee approved Powell's nomination in a 22–1 vote, with Senator Elizabeth Warren casting the lone dissenting vote. · Powell briefly served as Under Secretary of the Treasury for Domestic Finance under George H. W. Bush in 1992. He has served as a member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors since 2012. He is the first Chair of the Federal Reserve since 1987 not to hold a Ph.D. degree in Economics. · Powell has described the Fed's role as nonpartisan and apolitical. Trump has criticized Powell for not massively lowering federal interest rates and instituting quantitative easing. · The Bloomberg Intelligence Fed Spectrometer rated Powell as neutral (not dove nor hawk). Powell has been a skeptic of round 3 of quantitative easing, initiated in 2012, although he did vote in favor of implementation. · Powell stated that higher capital and liquidity requirements and stress tests have made the financial system safer and must be preserved. However, he also stated that the Volcker Rule should be re-written to exclude smaller banks. Powell supports ample amounts of private capital to support housing finance activities. “The Fed's organization reflects a long-standing desire in American history to ensure that power over our nation's monetary policy and financial system is not concentrated in a few hands, whether in Washington or in high finance or in any single group or constituency.” John Cochrane 1957 – Present Born: United States Resides: United States · Senior Fellow of the Hoover Institution at Stanford University and economist, specializing in financial economics and macroeconomics. · The central idea of Cochrane's research is that macroeconomics and finance should be linked, and a comprehensive theory needs to explain both 1.) how, given the observed prices and financial returns, households and firms decide on consumption, investment, and financing; and 2.) how, in equilibrium, prices and financial returns are determined by households and firms decisions. · Cochrane is the author of ‘Asset Pricing,’ a widely used textbook in graduate courses on asset pricing. According to his own words, the organizing principle of the book is that everything can be traced back to specializations of a single equation: the basic pricing equation. Cochrane received the TIAA-CREF Institute Paul A. Samuelson Award for this book. “Regulators and politicians aren’t nitwits. The libertarian argument that regulation is so dumb — which it surely is — misses the point that it is enacted by really smart people. The fact that the regulatory state is an ideal tool for the entrenchment of political power was surely not missed by its architects.” John Keynes(John Maynard Keynes, 1st Baron Keynes) 1883 – 1946 Born: England Died: England · British economist, whose ideas fundamentally changed the theory and practice of macroeconomics and the economic policies of governments. Originally trained in mathematics, he built on and greatly refined earlier work on the causes of business cycles, and was one of the most influential economists of the 20th century. Widely considered the founder of modern macroeconomics, his ideas are the basis for the school of thought known as Keynesian economics, and its various offshoots. Keynes was a lifelong member of the Liberal Party, which until the 1920s had been one of the two main political parties in the United Kingdom. · During the 1930s Great Depression, Keynes challenged the ideas of neoclassical economics that held that free markets would, in the short to medium term, automatically provide full employment, as long as workers were flexible in their wage demands. He argued that aggregate demand (total spending in the economy) determined the overall level of economic activity, and that inadequate aggregate demand could lead to prolonged periods of high unemployment. Keynes advocated the use of fiscal and monetary policies to mitigate the adverse effects of economic recessions and depressions. · Keynes's influence started to wane in the 1970s, his ideas challenged by those who disputed the ability of government to favorably regulate the business cycle with fiscal policy. However, the advent of the global financial crisis of 2007–2008 sparked a resurgence in Keynesian thought. Keynesian economics provided the theoretical underpinning for economic policies undertaken in response to the crisis by President Barack Obama of the United States, Prime Minister Gordon Brown of the United Kingdom, and other heads of governments. · Keynes was vice-chairman of the Marie Stopes Society which provided birth control education and campaigned against job discrimination against women and unequal pay. He was an outspoken critic of laws against homosexuality. Keynes thought that the pursuit of money for its own sake was a pathological condition, and that the proper aim of work is to provide leisure. He wanted shorter working hours and longer holidays for all. Keynes was ultimately a successful investor, building up a private fortune. “How can I accept the Communist doctrine, which sets up as its bible, above and beyond criticism, an obsolete textbook which I know not only to be scientifically erroneous but without interest or application to the modern world? How can I adopt a creed which, preferring the mud to the fish, exalts the boorish proletariat above the bourgeoisie and the intelligentsia, who with all their faults, are the quality of life and surely carry the seeds of all human achievement? Even if we need a religion, how can we find it in the turbid rubbish of the red bookshop? It is hard for an educated, decent, intelligent son of Western Europe to find his ideals here, unless he has first suffered some strange and horrid process of conversion which has changed all his values.” John Locke 1632 – 1704 Born: England Died: England · Known as the “Father of Liberalism,” Locke was an English philosopher and physician, widely regarded as one of the most influential of Enlightenment thinkers. His work greatly affected the development of epistemology and political philosophy. His writings influenced Voltaire and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, many Scottish Enlightenment thinkers, as well as the American revolutionaries. His contributions to classical republicanism and liberal theory are reflected in the United States Declaration of Independence. · Locke's political theory was founded on social contract theory. Social contract arguments typically posit that individuals have consented, either explicitly or tacitly, to surrender some of their freedoms and submit to the authority (of the ruler, or to the decision of a majority) in exchange for protection of their remaining rights or maintenance of the social order. · Locke advocated for governmental separation of powers and believed that revolution is not only a right but an obligation in some circumstances. Locke was vehemently opposed to slavery, calling it “vile and miserable … directly opposite to the generous Temper and Courage of our Nation.” · Locke uses the word “property” in both broad and narrow senses. In a broad sense, it covers a wide range of human interests and aspirations; more narrowly, it refers to material goods. He argues that property is a natural right and it is derived from labour aand that the individual ownership of goods and property is justified by the labour exerted to produce those goods · According to Locke, unused property is wasteful and an offence against nature, but, with the introduction of “durable” goods, men could exchange their excessive perishable goods for goods that would last longer and thus not offend the natural law. In his view, the introduction of money marks the culmination of this process, making possible the unlimited accumulation of property without causing waste through spoilage. “The power of the legislative, being derived from the people by a positive voluntary grant and institution, can be no other than what that positive grant conveyed, which being only to make laws, and not to make legislators, the legislative can have no power to transfer their authority of making laws, and place it in other hands.” “No man in civil society can be exempted from the laws of it: for if any man may do what he thinks fit, and there be no appeal on earth, for redress or security against any harm he shall do; I ask, whether he be not perfectly still in the state of nature, and so can be no part or member of that civil society; unless any one will say, the state of nature and civil society are one and the same thing, which I have never yet found any one so great a patron of anarchy as to affirm.” John Mill(John Stuart Mill a.k.a. J. S. Mill) 1806 – 1873 Born: England Died: France · John Stuart Mill was arguably the most influential English speaking philosopher of the nineteenth century. He was a naturalist, a utilitarian, and a liberal, whose work explores the consequences of a thoroughgoing empiricist outlook. In doing so, he sought to combine the best of eighteenth-century Enlightenment thinking with newly emerging currents of nineteenth-century Romantic and historical philosophy. His most important works include System of Logic (1843), On Liberty (1859), Utilitarianism (1861) and An Examination of Sir William Hamilton’s Philosophy (1865). · Mill's conception of liberty justified the freedom of the individual in opposition to unlimited state and social control. A member of the Liberal Party and author of the early feminist work The Subjection of Women (in which he also condemned slavery), he was also the second Member of Parliament to call for women's suffrage after Henry Hunt in 1832. · Mill, an employee for the British East India Company from 1823 to 1858, argued in support of what he called a “benevolent despotism” with regard to the colonies. Mill argued that “To suppose that the same international customs, and the same rules of international morality, can obtain between one civilized nation and another, and between civilized nations and barbarians, is a grave error. ... To characterize any conduct whatever towards a barbarous people as a violation of the law of nations, only shows that he who so speaks has never considered the subject.” · John Stuart Mill believed in the philosophy of Utilitarianism, which he described as the principle that holds “that actions are right in the proportion as they tend to promote happiness [intended pleasure, and the absence of pain], wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness [pain, and the privation of pleasure].” Mill asserts that even when we value virtues for selfish reasons we are in fact cherishing them as a part of our happiness. · Mill's early economic philosophy was one of free markets. However, he accepted interventions in the economy, such as a tax on alcohol, if there were sufficient utilitarian grounds. Mill originally believed that “equality of taxation” meant “equality of sacrifice” and that progressive taxation penalized those who worked harder and saved more. Given an equal tax rate regardless of income, Mill agreed that inheritance should be taxed. · His main objection of socialism was on that of what he saw its destruction of competition. According to Mill, a socialist society would only be attainable through the provision of basic education for all, promoting economic democracy instead of capitalism, in the manner of substituting capitalist businesses with worker cooperatives. · Mill's major work on political democracy defends two fundamental principles at slight odds with each other: extensive participation by citizens and enlightened competence of rulers. He believed that the incompetence of the masses could eventually be overcome if they were given a chance to take part in politics, especially at the local level. · Mill is one of the few political philosophers ever to serve in government as an elected official. In his three years in Parliament, he was more willing to compromise than the “radical” principles expressed in his writing would lead one to expect. “He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion... Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them...he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.” “The only freedom which deserves the name is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it. Each is the proper guardian of his own health, whether bodily, or mental or spiritual. Mankind are greater gainers by suffering each other to live as seems good to themselves, than by compelling each to live as seems good to the rest.” John Rawls 1921 – 2002 Born: United States Died: United States · Liberal American moral and political philosopher who received both the Schock Prize for Logic and Philosophy and the National Humanities Medal in 1999, the latter presented by President Bill Clinton, who acclaimed Rawls for having “helped a whole generation of learned Americans revive their faith in democracy itself.” He is frequently cited by the courts of law in the United States and Canada. · Rawls's most discussed work is his theory of a just liberal society, called justice as fairness. Rawls first wrote about this theory in his book A Theory of Justice. Rawls spoke much about the desire for a well-ordered society; a society of free and equal persons cooperating on fair terms of social cooperation. · Rawls’s most important principle (the Liberty Principal) states that every individual has an equal right to basic liberties. Rawls believes that “personal property” constitutes a basic liberty, but an absolute right to unlimited private property is not. · Rawls's argument for his principles of social justice uses a thought experiment called the “original position”, in which people select what kind of society they would choose to live under if they did not know which social position they would personally occupy. “Justice is the first virtue of social institutions, as truth is of systems of thought. A theory however elegant and economical must be rejected or revised if it is untrue; likewise laws and institutions no matter how efficient and well-arranged must be reformed or abolished if they are unjust. Each person possesses an inviolability founded on justice that even the welfare of society as a whole cannot override. For this reason justice denies that the loss of freedom for some is made right by a greater good shared by others. It does not allow that the sacrifices imposed on a few are outweighed by the larger sum of advantages enjoyed by many. Therefore in a just society the liberties of equal citizenship are taken as settled; the rights secured by justice are not subject to political bargaining or to the calculus of social interests.” Joseph Nye 1937 – Present Born: United States Resides: United States · American political scientist and co-founder of the international relations theory of neoliberalism (a theory concerned first and foremost with absolute gains rather than relative gains to other states), developed in the 1977 book Power and Interdependence. He is noted for his notion of “smart power” (“the ability to combine hard and soft power into a successful strategy”), which became a popular phrase with the Clinton and Obama Administrations. · Secretary of State John Kerry appointed Nye to the Foreign Affairs Policy Board in 2014. In 2014, Nye was awarded the Order of the Rising Sun, Gold and Silver Star in recognition of his “contribution to the development of studies on Japan-U.S. security and to the promotion of the mutual understanding between Japan and the United States.” · From 1977 to 1979, Nye was Deputy to the Undersecretary of State for Security Assistance, Science, and Technology and chaired the National Security Council Group on Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons. In recognition of his service, he was awarded the State Department's Distinguished Honor Award in 1979. In 1993 and 1994, he was Chairman of the National Intelligence Council, which coordinates intelligence estimates for the President, and was awarded the Intelligence Community's Distinguished Service Medal. In the Clinton Administration from 1994 to 1995, Nye served as Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs, and was awarded the Department's Distinguished Service Medal with Oak Leaf Cluster. Nye was considered by many to be the preferred choice for National Security Advisor in the 2004 presidential campaign of John Kerry. · Nye has been a member of the Harvard faculty since 1964. He is a fellow of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences and a foreign fellow of The British Academy. Nye is also a member of the American Academy of Diplomacy. The 2011 TRIP survey of over 1700 international relations scholars ranks Joe Nye as the sixth most influential scholar in the field of international relations in the past twenty years. He was also ranked as most influential in American foreign policy. In 2011, Foreign Policy magazine named him to its list of top global thinkers. In September 2014, Foreign Policy reported that the international relations scholars and policymakers both ranked Nye as one of the most influential scholars. “When you can get others to admire your ideals and to want what you want, you do not have to spend as much on sticks and carrots to move them in your direction. Seduction is always more effective than coercion, and many values like democracy, human rights, and individual opportunities are deeply seductive.” Karl Popper 1902 – 1994 Born: Austria-Hungary Died: England · Karl Popper is generally regarded as one of the greatest philosophers of science of the 20th century. He was a self-professed critical-rationalist, a dedicated opponent of all forms of scepticism, conventionalism, and relativism in science and in human affairs generally and a committed advocate and staunch defender of the ‘Open Society’. · In ‘The Open Society and Its Enemies’ and ‘The Poverty of Historicism’, Popper developed a critique of historicism and a defense of the “Open Society”. Popper considered historicism to be the theory that history develops inexorably and necessarily according to knowable general laws towards a determinate end. He argued that this view is the principal theoretical presupposition underpinning most forms of authoritarianism and totalitarianism. He argued that historicism is founded upon mistaken assumptions regarding the nature of scientific law and prediction. Since the growth of human knowledge is a causal factor in the evolution of human history, and since “no society can predict, scientifically, its own future states of knowledge”, it follows, he argued, that there can be no predictive science of human history. For Popper, metaphysical and historical indeterminism go hand in hand. · Popper is known for his vigorous defense of liberal democracy and the principles of social criticism that he believed made a flourishing open society possible. His political philosophy embraced ideas from major democratic political ideologies, including socialism/social democracy, libertarianism/classical liberalism and conservatism, and attempted to reconcile them. “Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.” Lawrence Summers 1954 – Present Born: United States Resides: United States · American economist, former Vice President of Development Economics and Chief Economist of the World Bank, senior U.S. Treasury Department official throughout President Clinton's administration, Treasury Secretary 1999–2001, and former director of the National Economic Council for President Obama (2009–2010). Summers served as the 27th President of Harvard University from 2001 to 2006. Current professor and director of the Mossavar-Rahmani Center for Business and Government at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. · As a researcher, Summers has made important contributions in many areas of economics, primarily public finance, labor economics, financial economics, and macroeconomics. Summers has also worked in international economics, economic demography, economic history and development economics.[ He received the John Bates Clark Medal in 1993 from the American Economic Association. In 1987, he was the first social scientist to win the Alan T. Waterman Award from the National Science Foundation. Summers is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences. · In 1983, at age 28, Summers became one of the youngest tenured professors in Harvard's history. In 2006, Summers resigned as Harvard's president in the wake of a no-confidence vote by Harvard faculty. Summers viewed his beliefs on why science and engineering had an under-representation of women to be a large part in the vote, saying, “There is a great deal of absurd political correctness. Now, I'm somebody who believes very strongly in diversity, who resists racism in all of its many incarnations, who thinks that there is a great deal that's unjust in American society that needs to be combated, but it seems to be that there is a kind of creeping totalitarianism in terms of what kind of ideas are acceptable and are debatable on college campuses.” · As the World Bank's Vice President of Development Economics and Chief Economist, Summers played a role in designing strategies to aid developing countries, worked on the bank's loan committee, guided the bank's research and statistics operations, and guided external training programs. The World Bank's official site reports that Summer's research included an “influential” report that demonstrated a very high return from investments in educating girls in developing nations. According to The Economist, Summers was “often at the centre of heated debates” about economic policy, to an extent exceptional for the history of the World Bank in recent decades. · In 1999 Summers endorsed the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act which removed the separation between investment and commercial banks. In February 2009, Summers quoted John Maynard Keynes, saying “When circumstances change, I change my opinion”, reflecting both on the failures of Wall Street deregulation and his new leadership role in the government bailout.
Bitcoin Falls Below $8,000; The Entire Crypto Sector Plunges
The #1 Cryptocurrency Has Now A Geopolitical Influence The coronavirus outbreak and the war forming in the crude oil sector managed to impact cryptocurrencies. The recent oil war may have caused the wipe-off of 15% of the total market capitalization in the crypto sector. Bitcoin, the world’s leading cryptocurrency, seems to have taken the impact severely, after a week of price consolidation. The world’s #1 crypto plunged down, losing over $1,000 over the course of the past 24 hours alone. Weekly, the top crypto collapsed from $9,167.70 to trade at $7,866.49 as of press time. Bitcoin initially started falling on Friday, March 6, but the weekend rally mitigated the consequences of the downward push. Despite the $9,192 high on Saturday, the bulls bent under the resistance, and Bitcoin started its rollercoaster start of the week. Bitcoin’s fall to serve as a safe-haven for investors took the entire crypto sector down, with some of the top-10 cryptocurrencies recording double-digit losses. Ethereum (ETH), for example, is down 10,43% to trade at $203,29 as of press time. Ripple (XRP) recorded an 8% price decrease, touching the psychological barrier of $0,20, selling at $0,208826. Bitcoin Cash (BCH) lost 13 percent of its price, to currently trade at $273.3, while the only gainer in the top-20 is LEO with a mere two-percent price increase. Trading volumes, however, are increasing, indicating stability and possible price increase in the following days. The primary cause for the crypto market plunge remains unclear. However, some crypto experts believe the price drop has some kind of correlation to the more significant stock market turmoil, which caused market havoc. The primary catalyst, according to the experts, is the tension between Saudi Arabia and Russia, after both parties failed to come to a consensus about reducing crude oil productions. Тhis is happening to act against weaker oil demand as a result of the nCoV-19 outbreak. Shortly after Saudi Arabia’s decision to keep the current levels of oil production, major U.S. indexes like Dow and S&P 500 took a 5% hit. The recent price Bitcoin price fluctuations broke the arguments of crypto enthusiasts for Bitcoin becoming a safe-haven asset, like physical gold. Nouriel Roubini, who is a Nobel prize laureate in the field of economics, commented on the latest crypto price downfalls.
Original post from blog.projectpiglet.com. However, because there is promotional activity, a text post was more appropriate, thank you Mod's for working with me.
Pitfalls of Granger Causality
One of the most common forms of analysis on the stock market is Granger Causality, which is a method for indicating one signal possibly causes another signal. This type of causality is often called “predictive causality”, as it does not for certain determine causality – it simply determines correlations at various time intervals. Why Granger Causality? If you search “causality in the stock market“, you’ll be greeted with a list of links all mentioning “granger causality”: Search on DuckDuckGo In other words, it’s popular and Clive Granger won a Nobel on the matter. That being said, there are quite a few limitations. In this article, we’ll be covering a brief example of Granger Causality, as well as some of the common pitfalls and how brittle it can be.
What is Granger Causality?
Granger Causality (from Wikipedia) is defined as:
A time series X is said to Granger-cause Y if it can be shown, usually through a series of t-tests and F-tests on lagged values of X (and with lagged values of Y also included), that those X values provide statistically significant information about future values of Y.
In other words, Granger Causality is the analysis of trying to find out if one signal impacts another signal (such that it’s statistically significant). Pretty straightforward, and is even clearer with an image: From Wikipedia n a sense, it’s just one spike in a graph causing another spike at a later time. The real challenge with this is that this needs to be consistent. It has to repeatedly do this over the source of the entire dataset. This brings us to the next part: one of the fragile aspects of this method is that it often doesn’t account for seasonality.
Granger Causality and Seasonality
One common aspect of markets is that they are seasonal. Commodities (as it relates to the futures market) related to food are extremely impacted by seasonality. For instance, if there is a drought across Illinois and Indiana during the summer (killing the corn crop), then corn prices from Iowa would likely rise (i.e. the corn from Iowa would be worth more). From Wikipedia In the example, there may be decades where some pattern in the market holds and Granger Causality is relevant. For instance, during summer heat waves in Illinois, corn prices in Iowa increase. On the other hand, with the advent of irrigation methods that deliver water underground, heat waves may no longer impact crops. Thus, the causality of heat waves in Illinois may no longer impact the corn prices in Iowa. If we then attempt to search for Granger Causality on the entire time range (a) pre-irrigation and (b) post irrigation, we will find there is no causality! However, during the pre-irrigation time range we will find probable causality, and for post-irrigation time range we likely won’t find probable causality. Any time you combine two timeframes like this, the default is no Granger Causality (unless it’s a very small portion of the dataset). Bringing us to the conclusion, that:
Granger Causality is very sensitive to timeframe(s)
Just a few data points in either direction can break the analysis. This makes sense, as it is a way to evaluate if two time series are related. However, it does lead one to note how brittle this method can be.
Granger Causality and Sparse Datasets
Yet another potential issue with Granger Causality is sparse datasets. Let’s say we have dataset X and dataset Y: if dataset X has 200 data points and data set Y as 150 data points, how do you merge them? Assuming they are in (datetime, value) format, if we do an inner join on “datetime”, we get something that looks like the following: From W3School Then we will have 150 data points in a combined X and Y dataset, i.e.: (datetime, x, y). Unforunately, this also means if the data is continuous (as most timeseries data is), then we have completely broke our Granger Causality analysis. In other words, we are just skipping over days, which would break any causality analysis. In contrast, we could do an outer join: From W3School We will have 200 data points in a combined X and Y dataset. Again, there’s an issue – it means we probably have empty values (Null, NULL, None, NaN, etc. ) where the Y data set didn’t have data (recall Y only had 150 data points). The dataset would then have various entries that look as such: (datetime, x, NULL). To fix the empty values, we can attempt to use a forward or back fill technique. A forward/back fill technique is where you fill all the empty values with the previous or following location(s) real value. This code could look like the following: From blog.projectpiglet.com From the sound of it, this method sounds promising! You’ll end up with something that’s continuous with all real values. You’ll actually get a graph like this: Change in BCH price vs Random Walk (with NaNs) As you can see, there are large sections of time where the data is flat. Recall the seasonality issue with Granger Causality? This method of outer joins + forward / back filling will definitely cause issues, and lead to minimal to no meaningful correlations. Sparse datasets make it very difficult (or impossible) to identify probable causality.
Granger Causality and Resampling
There is another option for us, and that is “resampling”. Where instead of just filling the empty values (Nulls / NaNs) with the previous or following real values, we actually resample the whole series). Resampling is a technique where we fill the holes in the data with what amounts to a guess of what we think the data could be. Although there are quite a few techniques, in this example we’ll use the python package Scipy, with the Signal module. From blog.projectpiglet.com At first glance, this appears to have solved some of the issues: Change in Bitcoin Price vs Random Walk However, in reality it does not work; especially if the dataset starts or ends with NaN’s (at least when using the Scipy package): Change in BCH price vs Random Walk (with NaNs) If you notice, prior to the ~110 data point, the values are just oscillating up and down. The resampling method Scipy is using does not appear to be functional / practical with so few data points. This is because I selected data set for Bitcoin Cash (BCH) and the date range is prior to Bitcoin Cash (BCH) becoming a currency (i.e. there is no price information). In a sense, this indicates it’s not possible (at least given the data provided) to attempt Granger Causality on the given date ranges. Small gaps in time can have dramatic impacts on whether or not “probable causality” exists.
When determining Granger Causaily it is extremely important to have two complete overlapping datasets.
Without two complete datasets, it’s impossible to identify whether or not there are correlations over various time ranges.
Resampling can cause artifacts that impact the Granger Causality method(s).
In fact, the most recent example was actually positive for Granger Causality (p-value < 0.05)… That is the worst scenario, as it is a false positive. In the example, the false positive occurs because when both datasets are resampled they had a matching oscillation… it wouldn’t have even been noticed if the raw data sets weren’t being reviewed. This is probably the largest issue with Granger Causality: every dataset needs to be reviewed to see if it makes sense. Sometimes what at first appears to make sense, in reality the underlying data has been altered in some way (such as resampling).
Granger Causality and Non-Linear Regression
Changing gears a bit (before we get to a real-world ProjectPiglet.com example), it’s important to note that most Granger Causality uses linear regression. In other words, the method is searching for linear correlations between datasets: From austingwalters.com However, in many cases – especially in the case of markets – correlations are highly likely to benon-linear. This is because markets are anti-inductive. In other words, every pattern discovered in a market creates a new pattern as people exploit that inefficiency. This is called the Efficient Market Hypothesis. Ultimately, this means most implementations of Granger Causality are overly simplistic; as most correlations are certainly non-linear in nature. There are a large number of non-linear regression models, below is an example of Gaussian Process Regression: From Wikipedia Similar, non-linear regression techniques do appear to improve Granger Causality. This is probably due to most linear correlations already being priced into the market and the non-linear correlations will be where the potential profits are. It remains to be seen how effective this can be, as most research in this area is kept private (increasing profits of trading firms). What we can say is that non-linear methods do improve predictions on ProjectPiglet.com. They also require a larger dataset than their linear regression counterparts.
Overall, Granger Causality has quite a few potential pitfalls. It is useful for indicating a potential correlation, but is only a probable correlation. It can help to identify market inefficiencies and open the opportunity to make money, but will probably require more finesse than simple linear regression. All that being said, hope you’ve found some of the insights useful!
I wonder what would have happened if today's r/bitcoin front page happened in late 2013.
I still vividly remember it being a HUGE thing when one obscure branch of Subway somewhere in North America started accepting Bitcoin. Any news mention of Bitcoin was either ridicule, ponzi, scam, theft, or a "what the F is bitcoin?" The times when any news moved the price. When any famous person tweeting or mentioning made people go nuts. Now it's... ordinary. Look at some of the stuff on the front page today:
Bank of England jumping in: New Bitcoin and Blockchain Leadership Forum. Ladies & Gentlemen, We have made it to the front page of Yahoo Finance. Jeffrey Tucker interviewed on Fox Business about Bitcoin and Nasdaq. Nasdaq will start using Bitcoin technology (money.cnn.com) Peter Diamandis – Predicting the Next 10 Years - The Blockchain is Part of His Future (peterdiamandis.tumblr.com) Bitcoin on the Wall Street Journal seems to be a regular thing now... (m.imgur.com) 22HERTZ is the First Band to Store Music Copyrights on the Blockchain (coinspeaker.com) Let's say that Nasdaq eventually decides to take on Blockchain settlement full time. Is there any way that even a post hard fork Bitcoin could support this level of adoption? (self.Bitcoin) The White House Names Dr. Ed Felten as Deputy U.S. Chief Technology Officer (whitehouse.gov) White House appoints pro-Bitcoin Princeton professor as Deputy U.S. CTO (twitter.com) Nasdaq Launches Enterprise-Wide Blockchain Technology Initiative - NASDAQ.com
Imagine if THAT was the front page when the price was flirting with $1,000? I wonder... :) Nevertheless, it never ceases to amaze me. This is Growth, this is true development. There isn't even a mention of Bitcoin VC investments on this sample, yet it is still pretty mind-blowing (especially to the ones who discovered this before the big bubble of 2013). The fact that it seems normal now to most people is what really excites me. OK, now back to work.
CoinmarketSwot is crowdsourcing to push Satoshi Nakamoto forward to receive the Nobel Prize ...  in what field(s) should Satoshi Nakamoto receive the Nobel Prize? His white paper about Bitcoin intersects with these fields on a global scale: Law, Computer Science and Economics.  Who will receive the Noble Prize(s) in behave of Satoshi Nakamoto?  What impact will this have for Bitcoin?  What to do with the financial prize(s)?
The Four Uses of Money - Which Sort of Currency Would the Public Select? Economics of Bitcoin
This is taken from The Denationalization of Money by Friedrich Hayek. This content is widely available free on the Internet. Hayek is important because Bitcoin was the first competitive free market money to have a chance at fulfilling these use cases. When Blockstream receives criticism from libertarians on the economic direction they have steered Bitcoin, it is often derived from these economic thoughts. Sources https://mises.org/library/denationalisation-money-argument-refined https://nakamotoinstitute.org/static/docs/denationalisation.pdf About the Author: F.A. Hayek was a classical liberal economist known for his contributions to the theory of money and the boom/bust economic cycle. In 1974 he shared a Nobel prize in Economics. He served in WWI, attended the London School of Economics and is the author of the widely cited, Road to Serfdom The Four Uses of Money
Holding Reserves for Future Payments
Standard of Deferred Payments
A Reliable Unit of Account
To treat these uses as different 'functions' of money is common but not really expedient. They are in effect simply consequences of the basic function of money as a medium of exchange, and will only in exceptional conditions, such as a rapid depreciation of the medium of exchange, come to be·separated from it.
What's great is Hayek calls this out in the first paragraph of this section. This is literally Blockstream's strategy - To cripple Bitcoin as a medium of exchange and siphon the value out of the protocol into their application layer. Cash Purchases The primary Use Case.
To the great mass of wage- and salary-earners the chief interest will probably be that they can make their daily purchases in the currency in which they are paid, and that they find prices everywhere indicated in the currency they use.
And this is what a service like Bitpay does
Shopkeepers, on the other hand, so long as they know they can instantaneously exchange any currency at a known rate of exchange against any other, would be only too willing to accept any currency at an appropriate price. Electronic cash registers would probably be developed rapidly, not only to show instantaneously the equivalent of any price in any currency desired, but also to be connected through the computer with banks so that firms would immediately be credited with the equivalent in the currency in which they kept their accounts.
And we see this happening in stores accepting crypto
On the other hand, shopkeepers would find it expedient, if two or three currencies were in common local use, to mark their wares in an easily distinguishable manner, for example in different colours for each currency, so as to ease price comparisons between shops and currencies.
I encourage you to read the remaining uses on your own =)
This tool consists of three charts which help with technical analysis for the next 24 hours, 7 and 30 days. Each chart is based on data from three previous periods. A channel prediction for 24 hours is based on data from the last 72 hours. A channel prediction for 7 days is based on data from the last 21 days and a prediction for 30 days is also constructed. The weight of data decreases with time. Reports are updated hourly.
Each chart has the following elements:
1. Volume profile histogram in the left part of the chart. Volume profile histogram is based on the data from the previous three periods and is designed to determinate price channel. You may read more on how to use this type of chart in technical analysis in this article on one of the popular trading sites: https://www.tradingview.com/wiki/Volume_Profile 2. Red lines They are edges of a current price channel based on volume profile analysis. 3. Orange lines They are main resistance and support levels for the chart, which were achieved in the course of past trades. They do not depend on the selected period. If more than 10 levels are found for the current price range, then 10 most significant are selected and shown on the chart. The weight of the level is based on a scale from 0 to 100. Where 100 is the weight of the global minimum or maximum (depending on which trend was stronger). The weight of the remaining levels is always less than 100 and shows how significant the minimum or maximum was. 4. Cryptocurrency price chart It’s weighted price from dozens of main exchanges.
Probable Use Cases
1. If you do not have a short-term trading strategy and want to open or close a position in the near future, the table of current levels can help you choose the best price. 2. You have a short-term trading strategy, but it does not take into consideration all historical minimums and maximums. In this case, it will be useful for you to see levels that can significantly influence the behaviour of the market. The choice of a timeframe (24 hours, 7 or 30 days) for analysis depends on your trading strategy.
First of all, I need to tell you that this tool isn’t “Magic wand” and it’s unlikely that you can get your first Lambo immediately after exploring this tool. Secondly, we don’t sell anything and don’t promote any coins or trade signals. Thirdly, we still don’t have a Nobel Prize in Economics, and this tool is just our attempt to understand market better, find trading patterns and satisfy our interest in developing high-performance analytical tools.
Introduction All, First, I'm posting this from a throwaway account because I want what I write to be judged on the quality of my analysis. Second, I've thought for quite sometime now that it would be interesting to put together a series of posts analyzing lessons that can be learned from historical bubbles in history. This post represents day 1 of this series. Schedule of Posts Here is my plan for this series:
South Sea Company
Silver Bust and Uranium Folly
Is Bitcoin Next?
Is This a Personal Finance Topic? When writing this series of posts, I tried to determine whether they belonged in personalfinance, investing, or somewhere else. Ultimately, my key take away from these posts is to remind you of the importance of investing in a diversified portfolio of assets and the dangers of engaging in speculation. This message seems to me to be at the heart of this sub's beliefs on investing and thus ultimately I believe that it is a personal finance topic. What Is A Bubble? To adapt a phrase from Justice Stewart, "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["bubble"], and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it". Ultimately, it is very difficult to identify a bubble (and making even relatively basic strides earned Dr. Robert Shiller a nobel prize). However, at the risk of oversimplifying, I believe bubbles have a few key characteristics:
They experience a dramatic, often very quick, rise in price.
They often involve some degree of opactiy and/or market manipulation.
They are accompanied by wide-spread speculative investment, often fueled by excess capital and/or debt.
The market price of the underlying asset differs greatly from the asset's fundamental value.
Tulip Mania Tulip Mania is perhaps the first widely recorded and analyzed bubble. In the early 1600s, Tulips rapidly gained popularity in the Netherlands as a status symbol due to the vibrant colors of Tulips, especially as compared to many of other available flowers at the time. At the peak of the bubble, a single Tulip sold for approximately 10 times the annual income of an average worker (roughly $580,000 in 2017 dollars). Additionally, the first "derivative contracts" were created as part of this bubble - individuals traded the right to buy future tulips. The bubble collapsed when interest in Tulips diminished - ships found nobody willing to pay market price for their "valuable" cargo. Speculators found nobody willing to buy their futures contracts for a greater price. And, as with all bubbles, many of those left "holding the bag" were financially ruined. Bubble Checklist - Tulip Mania
They experience a dramatic, often very quick, rise in price.
Yes - the value increased by 20x-100x the original price (exact multiple depends on which source you examine) over a few months.
They often involve some degree of opacity or market manipulation.
Unclear - there appear to be no specific instances of market manipulation, but certainly the "futures market" was unregulated and subject to manipulation/rumors. Additionally, by modern standards the market was certainly opaque and rife with insider trading.
They are accompanied by wide-spread speculative investment, often fueled by excess capital and/or debt.
Absolutely - futures contracts required minimal/no upfront payment and allowed speculation based on future prices with essentially no current outlay of cash.
The market price of the underlying asset differs greatly from the asset's fundamental value.
Yes - just as quickly as prices rose, they also declined (drop rate of 99.999% upon market collapse). The idea that a decorative flower could be worth a decade of wages clearly indicates a divergence between the stated market price during the bubble and the intrinsic value of the asset. Visual Aid - Standardized Tulip Prices Graph of Tulip Mania Data Source - note that since I plan to show multiple bubbles, I re-standardized the data provided to be in multiples of the original price (i.e. a value of 100 represents a price 100x higher than the originally observed price). Further, while Appendix 1 helps provide pricing data, not all values are completely clear and in such cases I used my best judgement.
The cryptocurrency industry, long haunted by controversy, appears to keep hitting new lows. After crypto prices soared in early 2018, a slump set in. Not only did the price of Bitcoin fall, LongHash analysis found that 30 of the top 50 cryptocurrencies fell more than 90% in 2018. Today, the market remains bearish. With the cooling of the ICO boom, the price of Ether fell off a cliff. Some may fear that the blockchain and cryptocurrency industries are heading toward decay. Given this environment, it’s not hard to understand why people are racing to find possible breakthroughs. That helps explain the excitement over Security Token Offerings, or STOs. Security tokens are crypto tokens that are tied to real-world securities (like equity stakes) and thus more closely regulated than most ICO tokens. Security tokens have become so hot that some investors are calling them the next crypto bubble. It may be tempting to believe that STOs will save the blockchain industry. They won’t. STOs are like using the Internet to send a fax. More precisely, the STO is just another WinFax. In the early days of the Internet, there was a software called WinFax that was able to simulate faxes on Windows via software. Back then, computers connected to the Internet via modems, and many traditional office workers had yet to understand what the Internet meant or how to use e-mail. They were most familiar with fax machines, and they were more comfortable sending faxes than using email. For this reason, someone developed software that worked like a fax on Windows, allowing people to use the Internet like a fax machine. This may sound funny now, but at the time there really were people who saw the Internet as just another kind of faxing system. In 1998 Paul Krugman, who later went on to win the Nobel Prize in economics, said that “By 2005 or so, it will become clear that the Internet's impact on the economy has been no greater than the fax machine's." 📷 In a similar way, on the surface STOs might appear to just be another way to issue tokens. But STOs are very different from ICOs. The most notable feature of STOs is that the issued tokens have securities attributes and are thus regulated by securities institutions (such as the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission) and thus must follow related securities laws and regulations. Although security tokens are distributed on the blockchain, which is supposed to be a completely decentralized platform, they must still meet know your customer (KYC) requirements and be traded according to regulations. An STO might look like a kind of happy medium. For both blockchain projects and investors, the barrier to entry is far lower than for an IPO. At the same time, the threshold is much higher than an ICO, since pretty much anyone can create an ICO token and sell it to the public. So an STO sounds good, right? Not exactly. STOs undermine the very essence of blockchain technology — its decentralization. Pretty much every step of the STO process, from token issuance to regulation, must be done in a centralized manner. When a decentralized system has an influential center node, an STO is just an empty title. It is also incomprehensible why we would want to use a blockchain platform to emulate existing securities issuance platforms. After all, we already have a fully validated functional securities platforms like the Nasdaq and the NYSE. Why do we need a less efficient imitation? To a certain extent, we can regard STOs as a large-scale enlistment campaign for blockchain projects that are regulated by European and American regulators, But in the end, this campaign may still end in failure. After all, a fax is not an email, and assets on the blockchain are not securities. Any decentralized system that attempts to centralize regulation and operations will find inconsistency in itself. The blockchain’s decentralized nature is what is makes it a unique and powerful technology. Once that feature is removed, a blockchain is no more than an inefficient database. Today, many young people have no idea what a fax is, nor have they ever seen a fax machine. It is now clear to everyone that the Internet is not a simple extension of fax technology, nor are emails similar to faxes. In both efficiency and function, the Internet has gone far beyond the concept of faxing. Still, we have to admit that at the time, WinFax did serve a certain purpose. By helping people use the Internet in a way that made them feel comfortable, WinFax perhaps got more offices to buy computers and try using the Web. We might even say it was a useful step toward mainstream Internet use. In the same way, regulation is needed for more widespread crypto adoption. But STOs are not the answer. Blockchain technology is brand new, and has its own unique characteristics and path of development. It should thus be regulated accordingly. Just as we wouldn’t try to govern the Internet by the same rules that we use for newspapers or magazines, we shouldn’t force blockchain assets to adhere to securities laws. We can’t supervise a new technology by forcing it to conform to an older regulatory framework, and suppressing blockchain’s decentralized nature will only be counterproductive.
Want to stay updated on the most current news, market trends, and analysis? Subscribe to our daily SwissBorg Insider!
Friday, 25th May 2018
→DOJ’s Bitcoin Price Manipulation Probe a ‘Good Thing’: Mike Novogratz Billionaire investor Mike Novogratz is optimistic that the US DOJ's recently-launched probe into allegations of bitcoin price manipulation will contribute to the LT health of the crypto market. → Revolut App Adds XRP, Bitcoin Cash to Crypto Options - CoinDeskMobile banking app Revolut now lets users buy, sell and hold Ripple's XRP and bitcoin cash, in addition to bitcoin, litecoin and ether. → Singapore Warns 8 Exchanges Over Unregistered Securities Trading - CoinDeskSingapore's central bank has warned eight digital token exchanges and an ICO issuer to stop trading tokens deemed unauthorized securities. → Ontology And NEO Announce New Huge Partnership Yesterday afternoon, we saw reports of a huge partnership between Ontology and NEO hit the headlines. Daily Performance https://preview.redd.it/u52izib4f0011.png?width=1024&format=png&auto=webp&s=90e65d617691193aef057ac2e1b13ae9531a79c7 Market 25-05-2018 Over the past several days the market has softened up significantly, losing about USD50 billion from the beginning of the week, stabilising today at USD340 billion. However, the down move has been an orderly one, and there has been no clear catalyst for the sell-off, other than the typical uncertainties and noise surrounding regulation. There has been no noticeable pick up in volumes, which remain light at around USD20 billion. Option volatility have not budged from the high 70%s despite the sharp down move, and high correlation across cryptos still indicates that the entire market is moving up and down in tandem with BTC. There simply seems to be a clear lack of conviction in terms of market direction. The above parameters continues to show a consolidative range trade for the near term. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
→ No Investors Affected, Hard to Charge Cryptocurrency Exchange UPbit Experts in the cryptocurrencies of South Korea have stated that it will be difficult for the government and local financial authorities to file charges against UPbit, given that no investors were affected. → Bank of England Issues Working Paper on Central Bank Digital CurrenciesThe Bank of England released a staff working paper, laying out various scenarios of possible risks and financial stability issues of central bank digital currencies (CBDCs). Daily Performance Market 22-05-2018 The cryptocurrencies' market continued to consolidate at current levels, with today seeing a small pull back across the board. Volumes continue to be on the low side with only 16B USD changing hands over the last 24 hours. ETH/BTC spread seems to stabilise at around the 0.083 level for the past week, which shows there are no strong forces in play. High correlation across large cap names all moving up in tandem also indicate a lack of news and conviction in terms of market direction.Also, realised volatility on BTC has dropped further, with implied vols softening up further (ATM< 80%). Both correlation and volatility indicate that for the short term, the overall market is subdued but is likely to drift towards the path of last resistance, which is higher. Having said that, quiet low volume environments are vulnerable to sudden external shocks - be wary of sudden large gaps in market movement! TECHNICAL ANALYSIS BTC
After last year’s massive rally, Bitcoin is currently consolidating the gains inside a large range of $6,505-$10,044.
Gregory Maxwell /u/nullc has evidently never heard of terms like "the 1%", "TPTB", "oligarchy", or "plutocracy", revealing a childlike naïveté when he says: "‘Majority sets the rules regardless of what some minority thinks’ is the governing principle behind the fiats of major democracies."
UPDATE: This post was inspired by a similar previous post which also has lots of great points, but the current post has a slightly different focus because: (1) This post assumes ignorance (not dishonesty) on the part of nullc. (2) This post basically gives a list of a bunch of sources on Wikipedia talking about oligarchy and plutocracy, as a starting point for anyone interested in this stuff. Gregory Maxwell nullc has repeatedly shown that he has a very weak grasp of the political and economic realities shaping our world today. He should not be (actually nobody should be) in charge of setting major economic policies and parameters (eg money velocity aka "max blocksize") for the most important non-state-based currency in the history of humanity (Bitcoin). Are serious investors and businesspeople going to believe in a new currency whose economic parameters (eg money velocity aka "max blocksize") are centrally planned by a private for-profit corporation Blockstream whose CTO and CEO (Gregory Maxwell nullc and Adam Back adam3us) have repeatedly shown that they are totally clueless when it comes to markets and economics? I don't even know where to begin to school this guy on the reality of politics and economics in the world today. It would take literally years of reading up on events in the mainstream media and online in order for him to get familiar enough with this stuff to stop blurting out ridiculously ignorant statements like:
"Majority sets the rules regardless of what some minority thinks" is the governing principle behind the fiats of major democracies.
Some contemporary authors have characterized current conditions in the United States as oligarchic in nature. Simon Johnson wrote that "the reemergence of an American financial oligarchy is quite recent," a structure which he delineated as being the "most advanced" in the world. Jeffrey A. Winters wrote that "oligarchy and democracy operate within a single system, and American politics is a daily display of their interplay." Bernie Sanders,opined in a 2010 The Nation article that an "upper-crust of extremely wealthy families are hell-bent on destroying the democratic vision of a strong middle-class … In its place they are determined to create an oligarchy in which a small number of families control the economic and political life of our country." The top 1% in 2007 had a larger share of total income than at any time since 1928. In 2011, according to PolitiFact and others, the top 400 wealthiest Americans "have more wealth than half of all Americans combined." French economist Thomas Piketty states in his 2013 book, Capital in the Twenty-First Century, that "the risk of a drift towards oligarchy is real and gives little reason for optimism about where the United States is headed." A study conducted by political scientists Martin Gilens of Princeton University, and Benjamin Page of Northwestern University, was released in April 2014, which stated that their "analyses suggest that majorities of the American public actually have little influence over the policies our government adopts." It also suggested that "Americans do enjoy many features central to democratic governance, such as regular elections, freedom of speech and association, and a widespread (if still contested) franchise." Gilens and Page do not characterize the US as an "oligarchy" per se; however, they do apply the concept of "civil oligarchy" as used by Jeffrey Winters with respect to the US. Winters has posited a comparative theory of "oligarchy" in which the wealthiest citizens – even in a "civil oligarchy" like the United States – dominate policy concerning crucial issues of wealth- and income-protection. Gilens says that average citizens only get what they want if economic elites or interest groups also want it; that is, economic elites and interest groups are influential. ... In a 2015 interview, former President Jimmy Carter stated that the United States is now "an oligarchy with unlimited political bribery," due to the Citizens United ruling, which effectively removed limits on donations to political candidates.
It used to be that citizens in large numbers, mobilized by labor unions or political parties or a single uniting cause, determined the course of American politics. After World War II, a swelling middle class was the most powerful voting bloc, while, in those same decades, the working and middle classes enjoyed comparatively greater economic prosperity than their wealthy counterparts. Kiss all that goodbye. We're now a country run by rich people.
Winters conceives of oligarchy not as rule by the few, but as a kind of minority power created by great concentrations of material wealth. Compatible with a wide range of regimes, oligarchy can co-exist and even be “fused” with democracy as it is today in the United States.
The crash has laid bare many unpleasant truths about the United States. One of the most alarming, says a former chief economist of the International Monetary Fund, is that the finance industry has effectively captured our government—a state of affairs that more typically describes emerging markets, and is at the center of many emerging-market crises. If the IMF’s staff could speak freely about the U.S., it would tell us what it tells all countries in this situation: recovery will fail unless we break the financial oligarchy that is blocking essential reform. And if we are to prevent a true depression, we’re running out of time.
While the middle class disappears and more Americans fall into poverty, the wealthiest people in our country are using their wealth and political power to protect their privileged status at everyone else's expense.
"Right now, this afternoon, just 400 Americans -- 400 -- have more wealth than half of all Americans combined," Moore avowed to tens of thousands of protesters. "Let me say that again. And please, someone in the mainstream media, just repeat this fact once; we’re not greedy, we’ll be happy to hear it just once. "Four hundred obscenely wealthy individuals ... -- most of whom benefited in some way from the multi-trillion-dollar taxpayer bailout of 2008 -- now have more cash, stock and property than the assets of 155 million Americans combined."
America is not broke. Contrary to what those in power would like you to believe so that you'll give up your pension, cut your wages, and settle for the life your great-grandparents had, America is not broke. Not by a long shot. The country is awash in wealth and cash. It's just that it's not in your hands. It has been transferred, in the greatest heist in history, from the workers and consumers to the banks and the portfolios of the uber-rich. Today just 400 Americans have more wealth than half of all Americans combined. Let me say that again. 400 obscenely rich people, most of whom benefited in some way from the multi-trillion dollar taxpayer "bailout" of 2008, now have more loot, stock and property than the assets of 155 million Americans combined. If you can't bring yourself to call that a financial coup d'état, then you are simply not being honest about what you know in your heart to be true.
Capital in the Twenty-First Century is a 2013 book by French economist Thomas Piketty. It focuses on wealth and income inequality in Europe and the United States since the 18th century. It was initially published in French (as Le Capital au XXIe siècle) in August 2013; an English translation by Arthur Goldhammer followed in April 2014. The book's central thesis is that when the rate of return on capital (r) is greater than the rate of economic growth (g) over the long term, the result is concentration of wealth, and this unequal distribution of wealth causes social and economic instability.
Each of four theoretical traditions in the study of American politics—which can be characterized as theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy, Economic-Elite Domination, and two types of interest-group pluralism, Majoritarian Pluralism and Biased Pluralism—offers different predictions about which sets of actors have how much influence over public policy: average citizens; economic elites; and organized interest groups, mass-based or business-oriented. Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence. The results provide substantial support for theories of Economic-Elite Domination and for theories of Biased Pluralism, but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy or Majoritarian Pluralism.
Former President Jimmy Carter had some harsh words to say about the current state of America's electoral process, calling the country "an oligarchy with unlimited political bribery" resulting in "nominations for president or to elect the president." When asked this week by The Thom Hartmann Program (via The Intercept) about the Supreme Court's April 2014 decision to eliminate limits on campaign donations, Carter said the ruling "violates the essence of what made America a great country in its political system."
When the Nobel-Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz wrote the 2011 Vanity Fair magazine article entitled "Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%", the title and content supported Stiglitz's claim that the United States is increasingly ruled by the wealthiest 1%. Some researchers have said the US may be drifting towards a form of oligarchy, as individual citizens have less impact than economic elites and organized interest groups upon public policy. A study conducted by political scientists Martin Gilens (Princeton University) and Benjamin Page (Northwestern University), which was released in April 2014, stated that their "analyses suggest that majorities of the American public actually have little influence over the policies our government adopts."
Links for the above references (footnotes) in the Wikipedia article on "Plutocracy":  Stiglitz Joseph E. "Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%" Vanity Fair, May 2011; see also the Democracy Now! interview with Joseph Stiglitz: Assault on Social Spending, Pro-Rich Tax Cuts Turning U.S. into Nation "Of the 1 Percent, by the 1 Percent, for the 1 Percent", Democracy Now! Archive, Thursday, April 7, 2011 http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2011/05/top-one-percent-201105
It’s no use pretending that what has obviously happened has not in fact happened. The upper 1 percent of Americans are now taking in nearly a quarter of the nation’s income every year. In terms of wealth rather than income, the top 1 percent control 40 percent.
America’s inequality distorts our society in every conceivable way. There is, for one thing, a well-documented lifestyle effect—people outside the top 1 percent increasingly live beyond their means. Trickle-down economics may be a chimera, but trickle-down behaviorism is very real. Inequality massively distorts our foreign policy. The top 1 percent rarely serve in the military—the reality is that the “all-volunteer” army does not pay enough to attract their sons and daughters, and patriotism goes only so far. Plus, the wealthiest class feels no pinch from higher taxes when the nation goes to war: borrowed money will pay for all that. Foreign policy, by definition, is about the balancing of national interests and national resources. With the top 1 percent in charge, and paying no price, the notion of balance and restraint goes out the window. There is no limit to the adventures we can undertake; corporations and contractors stand only to gain. The rules of economic globalization are likewise designed to benefit the rich: they encourage competition among countries for business, which drives down taxes on corporations, weakens health and environmental protections, and undermines what used to be viewed as the “core” labor rights, which include the right to collective bargaining. Imagine what the world might look like if the rules were designed instead to encourage competition among countries for workers. Governments would compete in providing economic security, low taxes on ordinary wage earners, good education, and a clean environment—things workers care about. But the top 1 percent don’t need to care.
 Piketty, Thomas (2014). Capital in the Twenty-First Century. Belknap Press. ISBN 067443000X p. 514: "the risk of a drift towards oligarchy is real and gives little reason for optimism about where the United States is headed." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_in_the_Twenty-First_Century  Gilens & Page (2014) Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens, Perspectives on Politics, Princeton University. Retrieved 18 April 2014. PDF! www.princeton.edu/~mgilens/Gilens%20homepage%20materials/Gilens%20and%20Page/Gilens%20and%20Page%202014-Testing%20Theories%203-7-14.pdf Finally, it is worth mentioning the notorious "Plutonomy" memo prepared by analysts at Citigroup: https://pissedoffwoman.wordpress.com/2012/04/12/the-plutonomy-reports-download/ Citigroup wrote memos in 2005 and 2006 addressed to investors, basically saying that the world is dividing up more and more into a small group of rich people who drive the economy, surrounded by a large number of poor people whose economic interests can be safely ignored. As the above links show, it is shockingly naïve for Gregory Maxwell u/nullc to claim that policies for fiat currencies are determined by "democracies". If he is this ignorant about the reality of so-called democracies and fiat currencies, one can only wonder how much other stuff he is ignorant about, in his ongoing misguided attempts to impose his own centralized economic planning on Bitcoin.
Bhagwan Chowdhry, a Professor of Finance at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) has nominated Satoshi Nakamoto for the 2016 Nobel Prize in Economics.. The Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, commonly referred to as the Nobel Prize in Economics, is an award for outstanding contributions to the field of economics.It is generally regarded as the most prestigious award for that His name is Robert Merton, and he won the Nobel Prize in Economics in the 1990s for his contributions to investment theory. Bitcoin’s price was dropping at the time, but still more than double The crypto community loves it when someone influential says anything positive about cryptocurrencies.Earlier today, the crypto community was buzzing as Nobel economics prize winner Robert Shiller described bitcoin as a “remarkable social phenomenon”.. Shiller, interestingly, didn’t take the same approach as other analysts. The Coin Price of Bitcoin on 5 December 2017 was $11,700, Coinbase reported. Bitcoin’s Coin Price grew by $1,578.85 or 15.83% in the week that ended on December 5, 2017. Perhaps investors should buy Bitcoin next time a Nobel Prize-winning economist bad mouths it. The hostility of the Nobel winners seems to increase its value. As covered by CCN, Nobel prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz recently stated that bitcoin should be outlawed during a Bloomberg television interview. Just one day after, another Nobel laureate, Robert J. Shiller, shared his view on bitcoin: that it will crash in an event similar to the U.S. stock market crash that preceded the great depression.
THE BOTTOM LINE: Bitcoin Mania, a Nobel Prize-winning Economist Talks Trump, and Tech Stocks
Biography of Abhijit Banerjee, One of the winners of 2019 Nobel Prize in Economics #NobelPrize2019 - Duration: 24:18. Study IQ education 58,936 views. 24:18. In 1974 Friedrich Hayek won the Nobel Prize for Economics. Hayek was awarded the Nobel Prize for his pioneering work in the theory of money and economic fluctuations. Fast forward to today where ... A sharp rise in U.S. equity prices could be leading to a dangerous bubble, according to one of the three Americans who won the 2013 Nobel prize for economics. "I'm not sounding the alarm yet. Nobel prize-winning economist Paul Krugman talks to Business Insider senior political editor Josh Barro about bitcoin. Krugman says the price of bitcoin is helped by the fact that no one ... THE BOTTOM LINE: Bitcoin Mania, a Nobel Prize-winning Economist Talks Trump, and Tech Stocks Money Insider. ... Susan Athey: The Economics of Bitcoin & Virtual Currency - Duration: 32:44.