flix on Nostr: HODL makes sense. The core of his argument is that the Bitcoin risk-reward asymmetry ...
HODL makes sense.
The core of his argument is that the Bitcoin risk-reward asymmetry no longer exists. Paul argues that the -75% risk remains, but the x10 is imposible.
Why? Because going from $1Trillion to $10 Tn would require "an economy the size of the US". But he is comparing GDP - a metric of flow - to market cap - a metric of stock.
To make the comparison apt he would have to pick total US wealth or market cap of other assets. For example gold stock is valued at $31 Tn. US stocks have a combined market cap of $75 tn. Bond markets add up to more than $150 Tn. Real Estate is in the 100s of trillions.
Bitcoin only needs to match gold to do 30X.
Is this probable? Obviously you can disagree on that. You can also disagree on the timeline. But it is obviously not some kind of mathematical immpossibility. In fact, if you think that Bitcoin will become money you should be counting on it.
I would argue that what is irrational is to treat Bitcoin as a speculative short term asset, given the volatility.
In fact HODL for the long term is the only strategy that makes sense.
Even if you don't believe in Bitcoin becoming world money in the long term, it makes more sense to hold a small percentage in your portfolio as insurance against being wrong than to "rebalance" when you make a small paper profit.
On reflection his argument was not worth much. I should have just replied "OK Boomer".
Published at
2026-06-04 09:25:38 UTCEvent JSON
{
"id": "c779bc5a1eb2a8945dc99577cd89cc27d0978feaddc85b7c7b29501333c5f7b9",
"pubkey": "61854976ba1a538b9dfed1b1df9b42e57602790e9354c59891be7b3713db637c",
"created_at": 1780565138,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"r",
"wss://nostr.mom/"
],
[
"r",
"wss://nos.lol/"
],
[
"r",
"wss://relay.damus.io/"
],
[
"r",
"wss://relay.noswhere.com/",
"read"
],
[
"r",
"wss://filter.nostr.wine/",
"read"
],
[
"imeta",
"url https://blossom.primal.net/814094f22421a03c3bc07ec0b070d437dbee03fe1fb41387921c7742a9d213f7.png",
"m image/png",
"dim 828x2725",
"service nip96"
],
[
"client",
"Primal Web"
]
],
"content": "HODL makes sense.\n\nThe core of his argument is that the Bitcoin risk-reward asymmetry no longer exists. Paul argues that the -75% risk remains, but the x10 is imposible.\n\nWhy? Because going from $1Trillion to $10 Tn would require \"an economy the size of the US\". But he is comparing GDP - a metric of flow - to market cap - a metric of stock. \n\nTo make the comparison apt he would have to pick total US wealth or market cap of other assets. For example gold stock is valued at $31 Tn. US stocks have a combined market cap of $75 tn. Bond markets add up to more than $150 Tn. Real Estate is in the 100s of trillions.\n\nBitcoin only needs to match gold to do 30X.\n\nIs this probable? Obviously you can disagree on that. You can also disagree on the timeline. But it is obviously not some kind of mathematical immpossibility. In fact, if you think that Bitcoin will become money you should be counting on it.\n\nI would argue that what is irrational is to treat Bitcoin as a speculative short term asset, given the volatility. \n\nIn fact HODL for the long term is the only strategy that makes sense. \n\nEven if you don't believe in Bitcoin becoming world money in the long term, it makes more sense to hold a small percentage in your portfolio as insurance against being wrong than to \"rebalance\" when you make a small paper profit.\n\nOn reflection his argument was not worth much. I should have just replied \"OK Boomer\".\n\n https://blossom.primal.net/814094f22421a03c3bc07ec0b070d437dbee03fe1fb41387921c7742a9d213f7.png ",
"sig": "2a6266f8fb29581557321ea78f1d480e231950b3b83b22652b6ae8e25ca7f8e2d0e87d97babaa991544bb8c36a625063ef5671d0e77a739339d0b676c713e701"
}
