Bitcoin did better when politicians did not care much about it one way or another: both fighting them and being 'embraced" by them ain't bitcoin's "motto", imho.
We are living a a strange, but interesting times, it seems.
I decided to completely ignore bitcoin's current monetary value in my net worth calculations...perhaps it is true that it could be almost any number.
Could it be 500K/btc in 2025...absolutely.
Could it be 50K in a week as well...same answer.
I don't think it is because of some "underlying" value as, surely, gold has no underlying value of $20 trillion, no way, shape or form.
It's just btc holders, at least in part, are over-leveraged weaklings who can't see forest for the trees.
I still think that BTC's 200-WMA is solid as fuck, in spite ongoing (and likely inevitable) attempts of various powers that be forces to manipulate BTC spot prices.
And if bitcoin remains amongst the best (if not the best?) of investments currently available (what else are you going to pick?), then how are you going to count it as zero in your portfolio, especially if you have been into bitcoin for the past 11-ish years?
Have you been reallocating all of this time and keeping your BTC holdings at some "reasonable" number, such as between 5% to 10%? You claim to not have had been doing that. but who knows?
Many times through the years, you have been claiming to have had not been selling any of your bitcoin, so even if you started out with a relatively whimpy investment of ONLY 1% or 2% of BTC in your total investment portfolio, then after 11 years of mostly HODLing, there has to be some appreciation in comparison to the rest of your various investment holdings, perhaps the bitcoin could have had become way more than 50% of your total portfolio holdings, even if you were failing and/or refusing to put any more value into BTC as compared with other assets while you could have had potentially been watering your weeds rather than watering your plants... but BTC still would have had shown through all of that.
Let me use the 20 BTC example. Let's say that in 2015-ish, you had an investment portfolio (of various non-BTC assets) of about $300k, and so at around that time, you decided to put around $6k into bitcoin in order to get your 20 BTC at around $300 per coin, which would have added up to have had been around 2% of your total investment portfolio. Thereafter, in this hypothetical, in the past 10 years, you continued to invest in the various other non-bitcoin assets in your portfolio and varying in regards to your choices, but you largely just let your BTC allocation ride with the original 20 BTC that you purchased. Perhaps if you managed the other assets in your portfolio well, and you got lucky, your investment portfolio may have now grown to around $1 million (so your various other assets did a 3.3x including your new ongoing contributions to them), and your
20 bitcoin (2% allocation in 2015), would currently have grown to have a 200 WMA value of nearly $900k and a spot price value of right around $1.7 million. In other words, your initial 2% allocation to bitcoin would have likely grown to become 50% to 65% of the size of your total investment portfolio.
Even if we are going thorough some flat times in BTC prices right now (what else is new in bitcoin?), I have a hard time relating to your ideas of treating your BTC holdings as if those holdings were 0%, even if you had always had a whimpy perspective about BTC, since even if we take a fairly whimpy perspective and you were to have had ONLY 1) held your BTC, 2) failed/refused to buy more BTC, and 3) did not sell any of your BTC in the past 10-11 years, then there would still have been decently great odds that the BTC portion of your investment portfolio would have had out performed the other investments in your total investment portfolio, even if you had been continuing to invest into those other (less appreciating) investments and neglected dee cornz (the more appreciating asset) in the process.
Edited Biodom response portion about 9 hours after original post to better specify a few points
Let me elaborate...I think about it mathematically.
If a parameter, such as price, can differ by 10X in a few months, to me it means that I cannot ascertain the "real" value of my btc and, consequently, the % of value of btc in my portfolio, therefore I call it a zero, similarly to how people say to not count your house in your liquid net worth because for me, bitcoin is NOT liquid.
Of course, it could be, as it is not liquid just for my perception of it in the portfolio.
Additionally, 200WMA is a great approximation, but even that has limitations-it was undercut by 20-30% in 2022 as far as I remember.
So, if someone count their net asset value based on 200WMA (as you do, supposedly), they are being prudent, but with limitations.
Can we go to much lower prices than 200WMA in a sharp economic downturn?
Surely, but i am not predicting it at all, just talk about price move probabilities.
Finally, maybe I am just a bit tired of this crab market.
