Investment & Investing

You are reading a single comment by @andyfallsoff and its replies. Click here to read the full conversation.

•

frank9755 in reply to @ChasnotRobert

hoarded assets are still in effect "in circulation" imo, up to they point that they are irrevocably lost or destroyed.

as the hoarder could always change their mind, they could be inherited etc and placed into the market. most assets are not continually for sale.

This is correct. Everything that is not lost/destroyed is potentially for sale, at the right price, time, etc.

But the market doesn't have perfect info on what coins have been lost. Eg there is a chance that poor fucker can get his coins out of the rubbish tip, satoshi might not be dead but biding his time, etc, etc

•

andyfallsoff in reply to @frank9755

But the market doesn't have perfect info on what coins have been lost. Eg there is a chance that poor fucker can get his coins out of the rubbish tip, satoshi might not be dead but biding his time, etc, etc

Yeah this is kind of my point - I don't think "coins going out of circulation" that weren't being traded before is likely to ever really have a measurable impact on cost. Even if buyers knew it had happened, no part of buying / pricing bitcoin is based on any real metrics (e.g. what a sensible market cap would be Vs earnings or assets) that would mean a restriction on available coins should directly impact price.

So although I get that theoretically it should have an impact on price, I don't really believe it is that likely to, which is my point

•

frank9755 in reply to @andyfallsoff

I think the reason why it doesn't seem to have an impact is because the impact of any one set of coins being destroyed is small. But if, as in my earlier example, the supply doubled - or if it halved, then the impact would certainly be noticeable.

About

@andyfallsoff started