jb85

*Supply is not infinite in any reasonable sense (technically it is, but a .000001% annaul inflation rate is basically 0%) --> *ETH is far from fully centralized imo. Just because a community makes a decision that folks don't agree with doesn't mean its centralized. (I assume your referrring to DAO hard fork). At the very least, the existance of ETC shows its not centralized and anyone is free to make bets on whether they agreed with DAO fork (ETH) or didn't agree with DAO fork (ETC). If vitalik goes nuclear tomorrow and adds code that says he gets 90% of ETH, i'm pretty sure no one is gonna run that code, hence not fully centralized. Its certainly a spectrum, and ETH may be more centralized than BTC (i dont think it is, but i can see the argument), but logic goes out the window when we start talking in certainties. *Theres a segment of crypto land that wants to say POS, sharding, etc are guaranteed to fail. I'm not sure what the odds are but imo crypto land is getting very tribal (im guilty at times) and any sort of rationale discussion is going out the window (ie bitcoin maximilaists, eth maximalists, etc). in reality, theres a non 0%, non 100% chance eth takes over as a better over all currency even if turing completeness never serves any practical use. Theres a nontrivial chance that POS and sharding turn out to be order of magnitude more secure than BTC as well as being able to handle orders of magnitudes more transactions and that eth market cap is worth much more than btc *would agree turing completeness has many things to overcome but again odds of doing so are not 0% nor are they 100%. *Def don't want to debate POS, Sharding etc here (other are more qualified to do so), but instead will just post some links i found helpful so others reading this thread can learn more. They explain it much better than i could. i don't agree with everything vitalik says and i'm far from 100% sure POS succeeds, but imo its at least worth considering his roadmap, thoughts, etc. https://blog.ethereum.org/2014/11/25/proof-stake-learned-love-weak-subjectivity/ https://github.com/ethereum/wiki/wiki/Sharding-FAQ https://medium.com/@VitalikButerin/a-proof-of-stake-design-philosophy-506585978d51

I included (DODFS) and (TBSDODNS) in the above graph. These are financial and nonfinancial company liabilities. This should include everything and matches what i've seen is about 330% total credit to GDP. I'd be curious to see figures that show total debt to GDP that is signficantly higher than this...

total credit to GDP has stopped shrinking and is either flat lining or going up again https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?graph_id=316529

lookup the ticker symbol on seeking alpha. If I remember correctly, it has a few articles talking about the spread and how people think about it. its the only practical vehichle to buy BTC in your 401k or IRA. In addition, the supply is limited. I forget the exact rule, but I think the original owners of GBTC can only sell their shares publically after having held GBTC to 2 years or something like that. As i recall, that meant a large portion of the btc shares weren't even available for resale for a while. In addition, i think its a closed end fund, so they aren't acquiring any new bitcoin. Again, I could be wrong on any or all of the above, but that in general what i recall

So if you think this will represent 2% there is still a lot of growth left. If you think it will be 15%, or 51%, or 80% there is a hell of lot of growth left. :) Exactly. If you think there is any value at all, either as currency or store of value, then even at present prices, crypto in general is one of the most asymmetric bets of all time. I can understand people saying bitcoin will go to zero. What I find odd is when people say the fair value is 50b to 100b. Your basically saying it should be exactly 1% of world money supply which seems oddly specific

91B is still only 91B/60T = 0.15% of world wide M2 currency

Great read, thanks for posting. Does anyone have approximate performance numbers for Himalaya capital?

relevant article --> http://www.konradsgraf.com/blog1/2013/9/14/bitcoin-as-medium-of-exchange-now-and-unit-of-account-later.html

by this logic, i would never buy a computer because I know that in 18 months a better and cheaper PC will be available. Theres an equilibrium point where the value to me of goods i purchase NOW with btc exceeds the value of btc's future price gains. Take an extreme example to show the flaw in your logic: Your saying someone wouldn't spend .000001 btc on a house now, simply because he expects the price of bitcoin to rise in the future?

so 25K to startup...what are you're ongoing costs per year? Possible/feasible to do this with only 100K AUM?

I don't think so. In a publicly traded corporation generally you have an ostensibly expert management team making capital allocation decisions. If offered a proposal by shareholders, they can generally choose to reject it if they deem it value destructive or even not an optimal use of capital. Think of it this way. Do you think Apple would have been successful if instead of Steve Jobs at the helm, there was a democratic process in which anyone could make a proposal and the one with the most votes was executed upon? The company would have burned to the ground. fair point...doubt the general crowd will be as good as steve jobs. But can they be slightly better than average CEO? possibly? if the crowd can get anywhere close to the average CEO on execution etc, the market for DAOs in general should increase order of magnitude from here...whether that translates to increased price for the DAO tokens remains to be seen, but seems to be an interesting tech/market none the less

I think there are a lot of fallacies in these assumptions. Just because someone is able to read the code doesn't necessarily mean that they're intelligent. And even if they are able to read the code AND they are intelligent, it doesn't necessarily mean that they're able to make optimal capital allocation decisions. Similarly, if someone has a very high % ownership it means they exert undue influence over the decisionmaking process - but just because they have a high % of ownership doesn't necessarily mean that they're able to make the right decisions. Eh. I mean the concept is interesting. But (IMO), I'd consider it burned money to "invest" in one of these. Way too many unknowns. Couldn't the same thing be said for publicly traded corporations. At its base the DAO deosn't seem all that different. More ownership % = more control just like publicly listed companies. In both, more ownership % doesn't = intelligence or anything like that.

Yeah, want forward P/Es not regular P/Es. From what i've seen the data set prob goes back to about 1980 at the earliest (were there even forward estimates in 1950s and 60s????) here are some of the graphs i've found, but again, have to eyeball it to get the by month data. not a huge issue, just a nice to have if someone has freetime and access to a bloomberg or S&P Capital IQ/compustat account http://www.factset.com/insight/2015/02/earningsinsight_2.20.15#.VzNadPkrKiM http://www.nvretirementplanners.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/may6th_1.png

along similar lines, anyone have by month (1st of every month), forward P/E ratio for sp500? Going back as far as possible. I've seen a few graphs online that go back to the 80s, but would be nice to have the by month data instead of trying to eyeball it.

http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/2011/09/what-is-wrong-with-global-warming.html