RT @CoinDesk: Guggenheim CIO Scott Minerd shocked Bloomberg TV hosts Wednesday when he said his firm's fundamental analysis shows bitcoin "should be worth" $400,000 due to its scarcity and relative value to gold.
Report by @zackvoellhttps://t.co/NsLUKcnUtm
this is actually true, and probably the end game for bitcoin
the chart will eventually skyrocket to unimaginable numbers, then the chart will just end, because no longer will BTC be measured against USD
These headlines are indicators of where we are in a bull cycle, in a few months time we will read “Mr. Nobody says Bitcoin will be worth $10,473,164.00 a piece, guaranteed.” and then followed by a crash on price
yeah if you expect btc to gain more or less the same status as gold today (only digital) it would be round about the same market cap.
On the other hand there are so many other scenarios where btc won´t (in the slightest) reach the market cap of gold.
So the price of btc might go up, down or stay the same...
400K would put Bitcoin marketcap at 8.4 Trillion. That is less than golds marketcap. 400K is absolutely achievable and is a relatively modest projection depending on the timeframe. Sounds like you don’t understand the investment.
You wouldn't have to build new mining rigs. A rapid price increase would make old rigs profitable again. Electrical usage would rise and block rewards would have to be sold to pay for that energy. Outside of halvings, there is no sustained price increase without an increase in network security costs. A $400k price would inevitably lead to hundreds of millions of dollars in costs per day.
Yes, previously inefficient rigs would come online as well. But still, the price rising doesn’t *depend* on some cost of mining being able to be maintained. The cost of mining is simply an economic consequence incentivized by the value of the block reward available. Mining cost increases don’t drive and are not a prerequisite for token price increases, nor is it required to maintain a price level. You probably already knew that, your post was just worded strangely, so wanted to point that out for anyone reading who might have been confused.
Fair enough, I guess I saw it as a distinction without a difference for the point I was making. I actually find the labor theory of value arguments kind of ridiculous, but as you probably know, many bitcoiners still subscribe to the price follows hash rate theory.