If you were in since 2011, 2013 would have been a good time to sell off?
So that makes twice when HODLing was not the best thing to do?
You're going in circles here.
Maybe there's miscommunication here (and I'll ignore the ad-hominem for now) , but you said it's not stable/mature enough for technical analysis, and yet there are a variety of different indicators/strategies based on technical indicators that counter that point. I asked what you meant by technical analysis, and you chose to read my question and statement as a sign that I'm unfamiliar with comprehension and plotting technicals. Mkay? Did something I say not come across as intended? I'm really unsure what you're trying to say here?
Also, more on this, do you think that trading/investing is not akin to gambling? It's all numbers, risk management and probabilities in the end, so if you see technical analysis and trading as not gambling, then maybe that's where this confusion stems from?
I don't see what else I was supposed to derive from your vague question.
A lack of historic datapoints, and very sparse fundamentals renders technical analysis useless for all but daytraders - and even then it borders on pseudoscience.
But hey, even a broken clock is right twice a day, so the TA crowd will claim their wins where they can get them. If you have a strategy that works for you, good, great & dandy - go for it.
It goes without saying that inherently there is an element of risk in all aspects of trading. We're talking about odds here.
I am not rabidly defending anything without pointing out that it exists despite the doubts many people have over the years. Of course it could have flatlined? This is clearly a high risk investments space, anyone thinking otherwise is bound to pay a lot of school fees. Risk=reward is key. I know liking it or not is immaterial, I pointed this out in my comment? "How many more years will it take for you to think it's something that's not going to go away or care whether you like it or not?" I.e, people have debated the pros and cons of bitcoin, and it still exists despite the many calls for crashes over the years? Clearly the market speculators believe it will still exist and be useful in the coming years.
And yet here we are, with you having bumped my post to goad me into a debate.
Perhaps you need to ask yourself why you feel such a strong urge to prove your point.
As for those late to the party, the people who bought who are underwater as at 9th September 2019, are those people who were buying from December 2017- January 2018 (we're not talking alts, just bitcoin). You are basing your entire "people have been burned by bitcoin" argument on people who bought bitcoin within a 2 month period at the height of fomo? Mkay?
For people pre-December 2017 and post January 2018, they are still mostly break-even in bitcoin. I think the people you are referring to who lost their shirt are those who came late and dabbled in altcoins for 2018. They've been taken to the cleaners quite thoroughly.
And those that bought late June 2019 during the "second coming"?
Go look at the trade volumes.
Yes, there are obviously those who dabbled, but also those who extended existing positions... You're making light of some pretty spectacular losses here.
Nevertheless, I'll concede that most of the long term guys are up or at break even at the moment.
I did not liken Bitcoin proper to Steinhoff proper--you were saying and I quote "[bitcoin is] not backed in hard fundamentals, or grounded by currency... It's a speculative investment, fueled by sentiment and greed...." and I was merely simply pointing out that every criticism you level towards bitcoin regarding its unreliable existence is something that can easily be said about stocks--Steinhoff was, again, a mere analogy about Investing in something without a guarantee of return. Beyond researching fundamentals about companies, how can bitcoin be a "gamble" and stocks cant be? Perhaps the easy answer is they are both a gamble with different risks attached? In which case is your dislike of bitcoin simply a dislike of high risk investing in general?
You made a direct comparison regarding the investor sentiment, when Steinhoff was simply a "too-big-to-fail" whale with good returns for fund managers to bother doing due diligence on. IE, there's no self-attribution bias to be had.
Yes, I'm averse to high risk - but moreso when it's ruled by sentiment, hence weighing in on the subject in the first place.
I dont expect everyone to be involved in bitcoin. I'm not evangelical about it, and many people (on the forum and external) would say I don't preach it, and always encourage mindful investing and risk taking. My contention is that even if you've moved from saying that bitcoin is not a fad, you then say it's not backed by "hard fundamentals, or grounded in currency, fueled by sentiment and greed" when it somehow keeps on growing and developing, with concomitant appreciations in value? In the time we've discussed this (2014-2019), you've made similar arguments about it pumping and crashing based on speculation, greed, taking late investors to the cleaners. It's done this twice since 2014, and both times you've used similar arguments about it which have not yielded the final crash. You are using the same reasoning now as you did then, but this time it will be different how? How is the $20K price a "fluke"? when the $1000+ in 2013/2014 was also a "fluke"?
You berate my statement that BTC lacks fundamentals or grounding, but provide no proof to the contrary. It has no predictable fundamentals, no planting, yields or weather impacts. No manufacturing or labour variables. It behaves like a forex, with a whole heap of sentiment and manipulation piled on top of it..
Growing and developing does not change what it is.
For the record, I don't recall ever predicting a final crash to snuff out Bitcoin.... and you're making me defend viewpoints from as far back as 2014 by repeatedly throwing them in my face, presumably for some kind of capitulation or admission, or to try catching me in a contradiction, while remaining completely unwavering & uncompromising in your own stance. That comes across as pretty darn evangelical, if not downright macabre.
As it stands, I'm relatively bullish about the Bitcoin price in the medium term, but feel that the current price is artificially propped up by the whole ongoing Libra & Digital Yuan debacle - so I'd personally be inclined to cash out and wait until the dust settles on that to get a gauge of the market before getting back in.
2013 1000+ was buoyed by Chinese demand - that was a perfect storm on its own. The fact that it settled back to long term normal pricing ranges a year afterward all but confirms that. Fluke - it did nothing to impact the long term. Come on, you know this - how are you still arguing it?
2017 $20k has been covered and speaks for itself.
What traditional indicators are unclear? Which indicators are you referring to which make it unclear? Momentum indicators? Moving average? Volume? I cant speak to your assertion that it's merely the abiding faithful keeping the market afloat--that would not explain the tons of on-ramps and investment banks providing liquidity in the space?
Market maturity is better, although you saying the "odds and returns being lower" does not make much sense beyond non-geared trading. Leverage is there to fill in the gap of a maturing market and tighter range.
Also, much like investing in stocks and indices have predictably garnered a return for most of the century, doing the same with bitcoin has yielded predictable returns. In it's 10 years of existence, there has only been two months where it has traded higher than the current price....the Nikkei has not traded above it's 1989 high in 30 years. Maybe nothing is predictable? As for exchange hacks, contrary to popular belief, they are decreasing in severity and frequency for bitcoin. The largest is still MT-GOX in bitcoin terms, and that unwound the space for 3 years, and recovered. I am talking pure BTC, not altcoins, which are definitely a higher risk item.
My own long term prediction: bitcoin will exist at a price higher than people expect. It will pump, it will dump, it will one day have a multi-year protracted bear market and another bull market and, this is important: it will still be useful to those who need it.
See above. BTC is devoid of sound fundamentals. Technicals without underlying fundamentals are tantamount to pissing in the wind.
Meaning that we're left with sentiment - sentiment based on "what if" long term fundamentals based on optimism bias, and directly influenced by happenstance fundamentals as they happen. What you try to gleam from technicals in there, is your business.
Once again, I realize it's up and looking like a pretty good investment compared to indexes, but that's not a good enough reason to categorically dismiss its inherent nature and volatility.
*sigh*
I'm tired of going round and round, and I think this conversation has reached its conclusion.
We can agree to disagree. If it makes you money, trade away and be happy. You don't have to prove it to me.
