1/ Interesting that treasury secretary @JanetYellen has stated concerns that cryptocurrencies are being used mainly for illicit financing on the same day that Chainalysis reported a dramatic fall in cryptocurrency transactions associated with criminal activity.
2/ As ARK has noted in the past, cash transactions account for a larger share of illicit activity than do cryptocurrency transactions, on both absolute and relative terms.
3/ I’d be more concerned if Yellen denounced Bitcoin as a threat to monetary sovereignty. To criticize Bitcoin for facilitating criminal activity is to criticize one of its fundamental value propositions: censorship-resistance.
4/ As a neutral technology, Bitcoin cannot identify “criminals”. This does not make it an inherently criminal tool. Phones, cars, and the Internet are no less bannable for facilitating criminal activity than Bitcoin is.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
2/ Investors increasingly will appreciate Bitcoin's merits through the lens of a completely new framework. While conventional analytical frameworks are not suitable, Bitcoin offers a unique set of tools that stakeholders can leverage to assess its fundamentals.
3/ Specifically, Bitcoin provides a real-time, global "fact sheet" that publishes data about the network's activity and inner economics. (hint hint: it's called ~the blockchain~)
Five years ago, a $10,000 investment in bitcoin would have delivered a 119% CAGR and would be worth roughly $500,000 today.
In fact, during any yearly holding period since inception through September 1, 2020, bitcoin’s return has been positive, significantly so in most case.
Despite its run, bitcoin is early on its path to monetization, with substantial appreciation potential.
In our view, Bitcoin’s $200 billion market capitalization - or network value - will scale more than an order of magnitude to the trillions during the next decade.
1/ Bitcoin calls into question the very basis of economic organization. No other breakthrough in history will contribute more dramatically to the evolution of monetary systems.
2/ The promise of Bitcoin is best understood in relation to traditional financial systems, which rely on
centrally controlled institutions that enforce the rules, record-keeping, and adjudication of the system.
3/ These institutions were created to standardize the exchange of value, manage wealth, and facilitate
economic activity. Ex: Central banks govern monetary policy, while commercial banks custody and manage assets, and centralized payment processors mediate consumer transactions.
Claim: bitcoin is too volatile
Counter-Claim: bitcoin’s volatility highlights the credibility of its monetary policy
Bitcoin's price is a function of demand relative to its scarce supply. In contrast to modern central banking, it does not prioritize exchange rate stability.
Claim: bitcoin will lose value to ‘forks’ & digital copies
Counter-Claim: bitcoin’s value cannot be replicated by software alone
Forking the Bitcoin network does not create new bitcoin units, much like inflating the Venezuelan bolivar does not add dollars to the US monetary base
Here's a thread on a few (of many) reasons why Bitcoin mining is *not* doomed:
2/ Bitcoin mining has become extremely competitive on two levels:
1) Hardware manufacturing 2) Mining as an operation
3/ On hardware manufacturing:
Over the last 5 years, ASIC replacement cycles have lengthened significantly. In the early days, they were short, with designs obsolete within months. Companies like Bitmain could iterate rapidly since mining was lagging behind the latest tech node.