What stocks are you buying now? Part 33

[BreadManPanarin]

Slow and steady compared to this:

View attachment 432788

or this:
View attachment 432789

or this:

View attachment 432787

Being the point here. Stock market has been looking frothy too, no doubt about it, but it's simply no comparison to what crypto has gone through

You are comparing a nascent market that is just seeing the first signs of institutional adoption to one that has been around for over a hundred years and is dominated by banks and hedge funds. Surely you realize this is a terrible comparison, right?

 

[the paisanos guy]

You are comparing a nascent market that is just seeing the first signs of institutional adoption to one that has been around for over a hundred years and is dominated by banks and hedge funds. Surely you realize this is a terrible comparison, right?

You're the one who made this comparison with your analogy, not me.

 

[StarDucks]

Man, I bought LMND pretty much at its peak in January. Stupid. Still holding the bag on it even though I'm down a good 50%.

I do think their business model is fascinating and has disruptive potential. But it's just been getting slammed lately, and with the outlook not especially great for growth stocks, I think I'm going to be holding this bag for a while before it recovers.

It’s somehow still at 35ish x forward sales still, so you will probably have plenty of opportunity to avg down if you actually like the company.

I’ve been averaging down on plenty of things this week lol

 

[BreadManPanarin]

You're the one who made this comparison with your analogy, not me.

You misunderstand me. It was a perfectly good analogy.

The crypto market has added $2 trillion in market cap since January 2020 and the stock market has added $4 trillion in market cap in the same period.

My point was that your comparison of the charts doesn't make sense. The only reason it looks like crypto is more frothy is because it is very early in the adoption cycle. If anything the stock market was closer to fully adopted/fully valued at the start point, so the fact that it gained twice as much from there makes it more frothy in my opinion.

Don't get me wrong - shitcoins are about as frothy as anything can get right now. But most of that money will either get wiped out or flow into Bitcoin. The shitcoin phenomenon is transitory.

 

[The Crypto Guy]

You're not the only one. There’s a reason we’ve gone from multiple threads a week to one every three weeks.

Market is an absolute bloodbath this week. RVLV posted ridiculous earnings and is down about 25% from Friday. PLTR just posted a beat and is down 10% pre-market.

Makes me wish I had cash to throw into the market. Unfortunately I’m front loading my ROTH with $3K a month until it’s topped out for the year, so I’ve more or less been living on savings.

No, that’s because everyone wanted to talk stocks when they were making money from them, the market has been ass for awhile now so nobody wants to talk about the money they are losing in it.

 

[StarDucks]

I tend to be a bit long-winded at times. Hehe

Just found this pretty neat thing:

A pretty shocking illustration of not only how unfair the current distribution of wealth is, but also how little Bitcoin you need to buy if you aren't totally sold on it but still want to stake your claim just in case the maximalists are right and it becomes a black hole that sucks up the monetary premiums from other inferior stores of value such as gold, bonds, stocks, real estate, etc. (Inferior meaning less resistant to the negative effects of inflation, interest rate volatility and taxation over time)

There is not enough Bitcoin in existence for every millionaire in the world to own one full coin. And there never will be.

Not sure how this is a positive for btc.

that means the founder of Bitcoin would own almost 5% of the worlds total money. The wealth distribution would be leagues worse than right now

 

[BreadManPanarin]

Not sure how this is a positive for btc.

that means the founder of Bitcoin would own almost 5% of the worlds total money. The wealth distribution would be leagues worse than right now

How do you figure that it would be worse? The image you just shared points out that in our present system today the top 9% of people own 83% of the world's wealth. That is not the Bitcoin wealth distribution, that is the real world wealth distribution! lol

In any case, the founder of Bitcoin disappeared 10 years ago and is probably either dead or lost his keys. He has never moved any of his coins, despite them being worth $52 billion. If you think he's just waiting for the price to go higher then he's the most patient dude in history. Haha.

Those coins will likely never be touched for the rest of time, and they effectively just make the rest of the coins more valuable. When people lose their keys their coins become effectively no longer part of the public float, and in effect the total existing supply becomes less than 21 million. It is in this way ultimately deflationary over the long term rather than inflationary because no new coins will be minted after year 2140, but the supply can always effectively shrink by people losing their keys which is akin to someone back in the 1500s losing a ship full of gold at the bottom of the ocean. For practical purposes it is gone forever.

 

[StarDucks]

How do you figure that it would be worse? The image you just shared points out that in our present system today the top 9% of people own 83% of the world's wealth. That is not the Bitcoin wealth distribution, that is the real world wealth distribution! lol

In any case, the founder of Bitcoin disappeared 10 years ago and is probably either dead or lost his keys. He has never moved any of his coins, despite them being worth $52 billion. If you think he's just waiting for the price to go higher then he's the most patient dude in history. Haha.

Those coins will likely never be touched for the rest of time, and they effectively just make the rest of the coins more valuable. When people lose their keys their coins become effectively no longer part of the public float, and in effect the total existing supply becomes less than 21 million. It is in this way ultimately deflationary over the long term rather than inflationary because no new coins will be minted after year 2140, but the supply can always effectively shrink by people losing their keys which is akin to someone back in the 1500s losing a ship full of gold at the bottom of the ocean. For practical purposes it is gone forever.

this is maybe even worse, since those coins couldn’t even be redistributed

 

[BreadManPanarin]

this is maybe even worse, since those coins couldn’t even be redistributed

So it is bad if one guy has 5% but it is worse if he doesn't have 5% and the effective supply is just lower but more evenly distributed?

It doesn't actually matter if the total number of coins is effectively 21 million or 20 million. The pie can be cut up into infinitely small pieces regardless. The important point is that individuals' piece of the pie cannot be diluted away without their consent. The only way you lose your percentage of the pie is by giving it away in exchange for goods and services, by investing it into a business, or losing your keys.

 

[the paisanos guy]

You misunderstand me. It was a perfectly good analogy.

The crypto market has added $2 trillion in market cap since January 2020 and the stock market has added $4 trillion in market cap in the same period.

My point was that your comparison of the charts doesn't make sense. The only reason it looks like crypto is more frothy is because it is very early in the adoption cycle. If anything the stock market was closer to fully adopted/fully valued at the start point, so the fact that it gained twice as much from there makes it more frothy in my opinion.

Don't get me wrong - shitcoins are about as frothy as anything can get right now. But most of that money will either get wiped out or flow into Bitcoin. The shitcoin phenomenon is transitory.

I feel like you're arguing in circles... My initial post was that we don't know if the meteoric rise stems from the 'adoption cycle' or purely from speculators looking to get rich, and that the rise of Dogecoin would suggest the latter (surely nobody thinks Dogecoin will become 'fully adopted'?).

 

[BreadManPanarin]

I feel like you're arguing in circles... My initial post was that we don't know if the meteoric rise stems from the 'adoption cycle' or purely from speculators looking to get rich, and that the rise of Dogecoin would suggest the latter (surely nobody thinks Dogecoin will become 'fully adopted'?).

ok. Sorry, I thought you were making a foolish point that the doge/shitcoin phenomenon indicates that people only buy Bitcoin to get rich and not because of the fundamentals of the network or the asset. It sounds like I misinterpreted your point, so I apologize.

 

[StarDucks]

So it is bad if one guy has 5% but it is worse if he doesn't have 5% and the effective supply is just lower but more evenly distributed?

It doesn't actually matter if the total number of coins is effectively 21 million or 20 million . The pie can be cut up into infinitely small pieces regardless. The important point is that individuals' piece of the pie cannot be diluted away without their consent. The only way you lose your percentage of the pie is by giving it away or losing your keys.

It’s hard to say without knowing how much btc is owned by the biggest hodlers. If you shave 5% of potential btc coins out of the supply and it increases the weight that the rest of the top holders have, then yes, that’s bad. If this is supposed to be some advertisement for btc as a better way to distribute wealth anyways.

really it just looks like a weak sales pitch. “Drop 23k today and you could be in the new world orders top 1%!”

 

[BreadManPanarin]

It’s hard to say without knowing how much btc is owned by the biggest hodlers. If you shave 5% of potential btc coins out of the supply and it increases the weight that the rest of the top holders have, then yes, that’s bad. If this is supposed to be some advertisement for btc as a better way to distribute wealth anyways.

They sure as hell don’t have anywhere near as much as Satoshi does. Lol

You gotta choose one way or the other. Either one person having far more than everyone else is good or it is bad.

 

[SPF6ty9]

this is maybe even worse, since those coins couldn’t even be redistributed

So if someone loses a key they lose their entire savings? If I lose the key to my house I can just buy another lock. Seems like a ginormous tail risk (even if its not likely in most instances).

Would also be super lame for the Winklevoss twins' power level to keep increasing.

 

[StarDucks]

They sure as hell don’t have anywhere near as much as Satoshi does. Lol

You gotta choose one way or the other. Either one person having far more than everyone else is good or it is bad.

a top small % having a large majority is bad. I’m not sure how that’s a question. If your interpreting my comment as him having it as bad and him not having it as worse, that’s not what I’m saying.

now if he were dead, and all of what he held was back into the supply that would be good. If you shrink the supply and it increases the % owned by the top 100-500 people, that’s very very bad. And essentially every time a person is born, that problem gets worse.

 

[BreadManPanarin]

So if someone loses a key they lose their entire savings? If I lose the key to my house I can just buy another lock. Seems like a ginormous tail risk (even if its not likely in most instances).

Would also be super lame for the Winklevoss twins' power level to keep increasing.

It is like gold. If you misplace it, it is gone unless you manage to find it again. That is assuming you choose to privately custody it. If you leave it on an exchange then you don’t have the keys and can’t lose them. It is just a matter of whether you want to take personal responsibility and avoid counter-party risk or accept counter-party risk to avoid the potential negative affects of not properly executing personal responsibility.

 

[StarDucks]

So if someone loses a key they lose their entire savings? If I lose the key to my house I can just buy another lock. Seems like a ginormous tail risk (even if its not likely in most instances).

Would also be super lame for the Winklevoss twins' power level to keep increasing.

it would actually be even worse. If a huge holder lost his key, that supply is gone forever. Wonder how that would work for pricing on anything/everything that existed in This hypothetical world. Would the price of everything skyrocket because some idiot just lost 1% of all money that can ever exist?

 

[BreadManPanarin]

it would actually be even worse. If a huge holder lost his key, that supply is gone forever. Wonder how that would work for pricing on anything/everything that existed in This hypothetical world. Would the price of everything skyrocket because some idiot just lost 1% of all money that can ever exist?

Your criticisms of the fixed terminal supply being an issue for wealth distribution are a bit hilarious considering how well it is going with our current system of central banks printing money and effectively gifting it to rich people via asset inflation at the expense of people who own no assets.

And the idea of someone who owns 1% of Bitcoin being stupid enough to lose it these days at its current price is utterly laughable. Anyone with that much has it diversified between multiple custodians, cold wallets, and multi-sig setups. Just do some research instead of bringing up wild unlikely scenarios just for giggles.

 

[StarDucks]

Your criticisms of the fixed supply being an issue for wealth distribution are a bit hilarious considering how well it is going with our current system of central banks printing money and gifting it to rich people via asset inflation at the expense of people who own no assets.

that’s a weak defense, my dood. What I’m saying is despite how flawed the current system is, this system you are talking about would be astronomically worse. Which is quite hilarious, (and scary ) to think about.

btw my criticisms of a system based on fixed supply aren’t novel by any stretch. There is a good reason we ditched the gold standard to begin with.

it really just comes down to simple arithmetic. Same amount of money and increasing number of people = less wealth per person. I’m really just trying to dig a little into how btc plans to solve that simple formula.

I don’t say this to crap on BTC I might add. Again, I own BTC myself. I’ll drop it tho, My apologies. I didn’t really wanna fill this board up with more BTc discourse as I’m tired of it myself and I know others are as well. I shoulda just let the original comment pass by. My bad

 

[EdmFlyersfan]

LMND having a solid day, up now to $73. Perhaps the sign that we'll see Oilerfan coming back soon.

The Margin-man got him...

 

[BreadManPanarin]

that’s a weak defense, my dood. What I’m saying is despite how flawed the current system is, this system you are talking about would be astronomically worse. Which is quite hilarious, (and scary ) to think about.

btw my criticisms of a system based on fixed supply aren’t novel by any stretch. There is a good reason we ditched the gold standard to begin with.

it really just comes down to simple arithmetic. Same amount of money and increasing number of people = less wealth per person. I’m really just trying to dig a little into how btc plans to solve that simple formula

So do some research into it. Let me know what you find out.

I’m not too worried about it. The current population growth rate is 1.1% and falling. The current Bitcoin inflation rate is 1.76% and falling. It won’t stop inflating until 120 years from now. We’ve got plenty of time to figure it out. I own enough of it that I’m not too worried about it. Hopefully you’re in the same boat. The rest will sort itself out over time.

 

[StarDucks]

Man lemonade really had a strong close there going into earnings. Moment of truth.

I’m actually pulling for them in this one, for all the poop I’ve thrown at them. Need as many growth names as possible to obliterate earnings to try and justify the multiples heading forward lol

edit: wow I didn’t not realize lemonade has such a huge short interest. Seems just about every growth names these days has double digit short interest. Hedgies riding everything back down so they can re-ride it all on the way up again?

 

[SouthGeorge]

No, that’s because everyone wanted to talk stocks when they were making money from them, the market has been ass for awhile now so nobody wants to talk about the money they are losing in it.

There's nothing to talk about if you saw this coming. You just have to trust your decisions and ride it out.

 

[TheDoldrums]

There's so much about this that is hilarious. A meme coin designed to go after Doge being worth more than so many old companies that actually produce things. Doge hodlers getting upset at this upstart stealing their gains and calling it a shitcoin. The absurdity of the market right now making events like this not even that surprising.

But it's also a bit scary as a potential top signal for crypto. This feels like late cycle behaviour. I'm not convinced yet, but slightly more concerned than I was last week. Last week I gave it a 10% chance we were at the top, I might bump that to 15-20% today.

 

[BreadManPanarin]

There's so much about this that is hilarious. A meme coin designed to go after Doge being worth more than so many old companies that actually produce things. Doge hodlers getting upset at this upstart stealing their gains and calling it a shitcoin. The absurdity of the market right now making events like this not even that surprising.

But it's also a bit scary as a potential top signal for crypto. This feels like late cycle behaviour. I'm not convinced yet, but slightly more concerned than I was last week. Last week I gave it a 10% chance we were at the top, I might bump that to 15-20% today.

We’re seeing the mid-cycle rotation to alt coins, but haven’t seen the subsequent mid-cycle rotation back to Bitcoin yet. Maybe we skip that rotation altogether this cycle, but I think it is more likely that everything is just exacerbated by the crazy monetary policy during this cycle compared to past cycles. Its not like crypto is going insane and the rest of the market is normal... just look at the housing market. Lol. Past cycles ended in a blowoff top for Bitcoin, and we’re nowhere remotely near that point right now. So either something totally different happens this time or we just have to wait another 3-6 months for Bitcoin to go to $100-300k and then have a blowoff top to signal the end of the cycle.