It appears that the "Bitcoin is not ESG friendly" is the narrative that I think was started at the ECB to slow institutional adoption, and is now spreading to the media (see today's Guardian for example).
1/
I have had a few institutional asset allocation committees reach out for clarification as they are concerned with ESG mandates vs their desire to own bitcoin.
I want to set them at ease that this is a false narrative.
2/
I know a few of you have looked at this but is there a definitive article on there true costs or relative costs (outside of the cost is very low to secure the blockchain, which doesn't really help the institutions)?
3/
I'm sure someone has done some great deeper analysis.
Can you point me in the right direction to something that uses factual data references and analysis etc?
Something that will work for these institutions as Ive got an inbox full...
Thanks!
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
When @JuliaLaRoche discovered me on twitter languishing with less than 1000 followers I explained I was on a mission to democratise the kind of financial information only hedge funds and others got. The world I exclusively lived in.
But I felt people needed and wanted more. They wanted the paying field levelled so they could take control, with confidence and knowledge.
I didn't quite imagine it would blow up like this with 400,000 friends on Twitter. You helped create Real Vision and I can't thank you enough. Hopefully we've paid you back for being part of this incredible journey. Even if just on FinTwit.
Hopefully this is useful for people who struggle with BTC's price action. To most is looks like a bubble because we are trained in mean-reversion (i.e. this time is not different) of linear-trend assets. 1/
A classic example would be the 1980 silver bubble that eventually reverted back to price trend.
But digital assets are EXPONENTIAL trends driven by network effects. These are powerful long-term secular shifts are very different in nature to linear trends. As investors, we really aren't experienced in this, in general. So we apply our old bubble framework and it doesn't work
Many of us believe that Fed money printing is creating an asset bubble. But when we switch the denominator to the Fed balance sheet equities looks fairly priced...
When we look at SPX vs M2, the other measure people look at, equities are expensive but not wildly so...(its sort of just earning growth)
Gold has done less well but ok (sort of equities minus the earning growth). Here it is versus the Fed balance sheet:
There is a phenomena that I have observed over the last 30 years in markets...
The New Year Head Fake. 1/2
Hedge funds and asset managers start the year with zero P&L and new risk buckets to allocate.
After a 2-week break they want to get some trades on their shiny new books.
Wall St tends to publish a bunch of consensus Year Ahead trades. So, people pile in...
Then, once everyone is in, the trend often reverses or has a massive correction, taking everyone back to flat or negative on the year and they begin the P&L grind again...
I write about this almost every year in GMI to warn people not to pile into new risks in Jan and wait
Let's say there is a $100bn of institutional money ready to come into BTC in the next 6 months and $XX bn retail.
Crypto is impossible to buy for some and hard(ish) for others.
Then imagine an equity is launched that is worth $60bn on the grey market. If you are a fund manager, then why not just own Coinbase to get exposure? Easy.
No, it ain't bitcoin, but it will move sort of like it and you don't have to beg your investment committee or trustees.