widzenie nieuchronnego zakończenia tych metas zbyt wcześnie jest trochę przekleństwem, ponieważ może zniechęcić kogoś zbyt szybko do uczestnictwa wciąż jest mnóstwo pieniędzy do zarobienia na wariancji/zależności od ścieżki spekulacji coś coś Soros o widzeniu formującej się bańki i rzucaniu się, aby dolać do niej paliwa coś coś ostatecznie to nieudany model ccm zastosowany do githubów, gdzie w zasadzie próbujesz przekupić deweloperów (idealnie z dobrym pedigree, ale podatnych na krótkoterminowe zachęty finansowe) strumieniem opłat od wolumenu handlowego tokena... gdzie token nie zapewnia żadnej własności ani dostępu do usług; chociaż to będzie nam sprzedawane jako "bootstrapping" did I say the quiet part out loud too soon? w każdym razie czasami jest kontrproduktywne widzieć ostateczny wynik zbyt wcześnie i rezygnować z potencjalnej spekulacyjnej premii po drodze nie jestem zachwycony widząc blowoff tops i szybkie rotacje kilka dni po tym meta dla jego długowieczności to powiedziawszy, to rynek handlowy, więc będę nadal selektywnie licytować rzeczy, mając powyższe zawsze na uwadze

So recent BTC price action has pretty much killed the digital gold narrative (you can't underperform analog gold) and it's obviously not been a store of value/safe haven asset (the Blackrock/Fink pitch) The performance, correlation to equity downside, and poor sharpe ratio pretty much guarantee it's not making its way into big money portfolios (pension/endowment/private wealth channels) at scale anytime soon Ppl argue with me on this last point (but it's a debasement trade!); these large entities allocate to their portfolios pretty mechanically; they're not adding assets based on random macro calls like retail traders do. Just bc Harvard endownment has some IBIT doesn't mean BTC is (or will become) a widespread endowment holding DATs were the biggest tailwind for flows and that's obviously over (in current form at least) ETF flows were largerly retail which correlated to the big high beta rotation post-liberation day that is now unwinding quickly BTC is now seen as a Trump asset; but now with midterms we might have Dems in power in the House which will slow crypto deregulation bills Also, BTC having become a Trump asset is not great now that his polls have been slipping ever since he's lost core MAGA support on 2 core campaign areas 1) spending: pivot from seeming deficit hawk to reckless Dem-like spender (rift with Musk/DOGE showed inability to cut basic waste/costs, huge deficits from BBB and $2k stimulus promise) 2) deep state reformer: alienating core base over handling of Epstein files Trump fulfilled his campaign obligations to the big crypto donors by getting the SBR onto certain bills; but realistically it prob just ends here as there are not many realistic "budget neutral" ways to actually acquire it We have Clarity Act and stuff coming down the pike; but it's clear that gov't is interested only in stablecoins as they are actually useful to their plans to expand circulation of dollars (new Eurodollar system); gov't has no real incentive to support BTC without Trump's push (and likely gets undone in the case excutive and/or legislative branches become Dem controlled) Maybe some of the mechanical liquidity issues which benefit BTC might improve (TGA drain post gov't shutdown, tariff easing, QT ending - pretty marginal though, etc) But the question really is, realistically, where are the next macro and political tailwinds coming from for BTC?