As a result of various abusive misuses by US government of the international role of the US$ fiat nations are separating themselves, and are casting around for other ways to do business with each other.
First the Brics, and now Europe has put in place with new Basel have put in place banking regulations that encourage banks to hold physical gold as an international monetary asset. Brics has abandoned plans for a blockchain based medium of exchange, and all governments everywhere are averse to the use of Bitcoin as a medium of exchange.
That Nato is likely to collapse in the near future is also making everyone, including members of Nato, nervous about US$ denominated assets.
Gold is already the de facto international currency again.
Which of course was a huge win for Goldbugs, and a huge loss for Bitcoin Maxis like myself. Nontheless I am still a maxi, but making even bigger returns from Bitcoin has certainly been greatly delayed, and we see the Bitcoin lettuce hands capitulating. Those who capitulated early are undoubtedly congratulating themselves. Albeit blockchain analysis indicates that most of the time most lettuce hands capitulate at the worst possible times, because the bottom of the dip happens when the most capitulation is happening.
Gold has intrinsic value, for its beauty and industrial use, but its price is primarily monetary.
Silver has intrinsic value, for its beauty and industrial use, but its price is primarily industrial, and recent changes in the price have been dictated by their advances in battery technology. If you are betting on silver, you are betting against people with inside information.
> The one strategy that almost always loses is chasing the short-term movements. (Unless, of course, you have and act on insider information, or insider access to front-run the trades, both of which are de jure illegal and de facto permitted only for favored friends of the political elite.)
A substantial rise in the value of gold due to banks using it for international transactions is entirely possible, but there is a limit on how much its value can rise, and since Gold is already the currency of bank international transactions we are likely at that limit.. It is price will of course continue rising because of the increasingly rapid decline in the value of fiat. The limit on that for Bitcoin is of course very far off.
Secondly, gold cannot be used for ordinary private transactions, because gold is not infinitely divisible.
Banking arrangements for international transactions continue to suck, resulting in increasing private use of Bitcoin for international transactions for international transactions made between entities where both of them lack the political power to get the banks to do what they want.
When people think of Gold becoming ordinary currency again, they are thinking countries going to a gold standard with a hundred percent Gold backing.
If we assume that seventy percent of all currencies world wide go to physical backing by gold, and they are all sixteen percent marginal reserve, then around US$15000-$25000 per ounce.
They are not even going back to a Gold backed standard with marginal reserve. Would not be accepted even if they did, because everyone would expect governments to steal the backing again by breaking the peg again.
While i know you are pessimistic about silver, gold (the currency of kings/elite banking houses) spikes also tend to drag up silver (the currency of gentlemen and merchants) despite it being primarily industrial. The industrial shortage looks to be severe for a long time without a big price increase…
Possibly silver is going to rise. Possibly it is going to fall. But whatever it will do, there are some very wealthy people in China who are much better informed on this question than you or I.
Battery and solar panel production is going to rise. And if the amount of silver required for a battery or a solar panel remains as it now is, silver demand would rise to impossible levels. And, knowing this, and viewing batteries as a national security requirement, particularly since Trump grabbed Venezeula, the Chinese are going to do something about it. How effective that something is going to be, they probably have a fair idea, but you and I do not.
Already under tight export controls.
Europe wants to physically block the shadow fleet — which is dangerous unless the US is doing the heavy lifting. Which it is not.
I mean export controls from China (not sure how Europes insane crusade against Russia factors in). Though Trump issued a defense production act order on critical minerals and silver was #1 on the list.
In practice, commodity shortages tend to be characterized by very rapid spikes in the price when the shortage becomes news, then a stabilization of and sometimes gradual decline in the price as supply catches up.
Remember the big run-up in GPUs a few years ago, with higher-end products selling for nearly 3x the MSRP at their peak? An RTX 5080 today from a big box retailer costs about 25% less than the RTX 4080 peak ($1200-$1400 vs. $2k+) and is generally in stock anywhere that normally stocks it. NVIDIA hasn’t changed its strategy at all; they are still chasing hyper-scalers and devoting almost all their manufacturing capacity to data centers, but they were able to increase their capacity just enough to serve both the business and consumer markets, albeit at a higher stable price than before.
We are likely seeing something similar with memory today: as big manufacturers (Micron) throw everything they have at data centers, smaller manufacturers, who previously couldn’t compete for consumer demand, are now scaling up to meet it. I doubt that this transition will happen smoothly or predictably, but it will happen, and has already started.
The industrial silver shortage is common knowledge among investors, manufacturers and mining operations. It is priced in. If demand continues to increase (which is likely), and supply cannot scale up to meet it (which I find unlikely) then yes, speculators could stand to make a lot of money. Such things are not unprecedented; they just aren’t the norm. I don’t see any clear reason why industrial silver couldn’t be scaled up; the main “constraint” on silver supply has been lack of necessity, which is to say, that so much of it is produced as a byproduct of other mining operations (especially copper and zinc), we’ve never really needed to care. Now that this “incidental” silver is insufficient, we will need actual silver mines, that’s the only difference.
Some upside? Definitely. Massive upside? Ehhh… Silver, to me, is a black-swan bet. It is a bet that something big is going to happen, in particular something big that either explodes demand way beyond that which is already priced in (what?) or, more likely, an expectation that the silver shortage, unlike the majority of shortages, is going to be prolonged and persistent, which would require some strange and unusual circumstances that none of us know about.
Gold being fully remonetized–that is, without a fractional reserve–would also be a black swan event. or I guess “gray swan” since it is actively being discussed. It is among the unlikeliest of outcomes, not significantly any more likely than governments simply confiscating all gold and silver assets from their citizens, which also has historical precedent. And if that happens, then maybe you are fine if your gold and silver is buried six feet underground or at the bottom of a lake, but if it is merely custodial gold and silver held by an ETF or vaulting company, you are going to be hosed.
This is not to say “don’t hold gold/silver” or even “don’t hold gold/silver ETFs”. As I’ve said before, investors should strive to be diversified, whatever that means to them. It is, rather, an admonition to think carefully about the probabilities of the things on which one is betting. If betting on one extremely low-probability event like “most of the world switches to literal gold coins as national currency” then one ought to also consider other extremely low-probability events like “governments confiscate the gold of all private citizens” with equal merit.
But mostly, unless one has inside information, one should either ignore such outliers, or have a minor hedge against them using only risk-capital.
Silver production is not easy to scale unless price increases a lot because now it’s mostly mined as a byproduct.
My reply already mentioned that fact and discussed it at some length.
Dedicated mining can be difficult, and relatively expensive, but it is a problem that is well-understood, and one that is definitely already priced-in.
If, during attempts to set up silver mines, the miners discovered were to discover that there are very few deposits available, or that the deposits are all very poor, then that would change the equation. As it stands today, the fact that so much silver is produced as a mining byproduct works against the prospect of silver price inflation, not in favor of it, because it implies that silver is actually very abundant, and perceived scarcity has been primarily due to low industrial demand rather than actual natural resource scarcity.
Only a surprise discovery of real resource scarcity would change this. Hence, black swan.
Of course production could be increased the problem is unless there is a huge price spike economically this will take a long time.
Also don’t assume things are priced in, when you are do that you are endorsing the efficient market hypothesis and the efficient market hypothesis is total bullshit on the level of theories like tabula rasa, the rule of law and the rational voter. Its priced in among people currently involved in the market maybe…
It’s tabula rasa if tabula rasa only applied to Anglos of 130+ IQ. EMH has been looking bad lately because the state is increasingly involved in price fixing, but otherwise it is true. Markets surface information better than any other tool we have, and in markets that are not downstream of opaque small-circle decision-making, EMH is generally true.
The Efficient Markets Hypothesis shouldn’t really be called a “hypothesis” at all. It’s simply a model, like Newtonian mechanics or r/K selection. Like most models, it is locally true–meaning, it is conditional on its premises, on its assumptions, which may be false, but if the premises are true, then the model makes correct predictions.
Efficient markets aren’t absolutely true, like Newtonian mechanics aren’t absolutely true. Efficient markets assume perfect information, when real economic behavior involves a lot of information asymmetry and general uncertainty. Efficient markets assume rational decision-making, when a lot of investing is emotional. Efficient markets do not account for positions which should be impossible or illegal, like naked shorts. And so on.
If you believe that any of these factors are present, then following an efficient-markets model is foolish. But individual markets are more efficient as information becomes more transparent, as investors become more rational, and as more time passes without any changes to the underlying economic reality. Simply tossing aside the idea that supply and demand shifts have already been priced in because “efficient markets is bullshit” is every ounce as foolish as following it blindly.
As I have repeatedly stated, if one wants to bet against the markets being efficient, or more simply, to bet against the market, then one should have some clear idea in one’s mind about where precisely the market is going wrong. People can and do make huge winning contrarian bets, but when they do, there is usually a contrarian rationale to go with it; they have access to different information, or an obviously different interpretation or weighting of information, from the larger market.
So the question is, if you do not believe the changes have been priced in, where do you believe the market has taken a wrong turn? What facts has the market misinterpreted, or what information is it failing to take into account? So far you have only stated things that are common knowledge, things that even a very inefficient market would obviously have priced in by now.
Your justification, as currently stated, appears to be that even though all the information is available, and even though precious metals are a fairly liquid and well-understood market for speculators, and even though everyone in the business knows roughly what’s involved in setting up a silver mine and what the expected capital expenses and mineral yields are, and even though nothing looks to be changing in the near future, that the market is still going to take months or years longer to react to this state of affairs…because reasons. And that makes no sense at all. If that is not what you mean, then please explain what you mean, without repeated references to easily-discoverable public information that has been public and easily discoverable for a long time.
Persistent errors are ignorance of near future technology on the one hand, people correcting for this ignorance by swallowing hype and vapour ware on the other hand, and normality bias — underestimating the likelihood of black swans.
So to benefit from inefficient markes, one has to know something others do not.
Chinese techies know what is coming up in silver, you do not.
I can believe this. Many of those allocating capital and speculating at the highest levels in commodities markets are old now, and normalcy bias reigns ever more supreme. I agree with your point nonetheless, just wanted to point out that the aging of all the major economic players introduces a massive stuffness and brittleness to the system, that has yet to be factored into most people’s mental models. In these markets today, the higher ups are boomers, the middle are worn out X-ers, and the lower are a mix of diveristy. Increasingly, talented men have been forced into smaller and smaller pools, so those legacy men in charge of the larger pools are simply old and tired and prone to “this is how it always was and will be”- type biases.
Rick Rule thinks silver is going massively higher i think he understands the market well (but he did sell most of his silver to buy mining stocks he likes). I trust his knowledge better than the garbage efficient market hypothesis.
The potential for silver to go massively higher depends on how easily industrial uses can be substituted. What is the price elasticity of industrial use?
If Rick Rule does not know anything about substitution for batteries and solar panels, he is pulling stuff out of his ass.
Where copper can be used its generally used already, it can be an alternative if silver price is so high it’s worth lowering quality. The only easy substitute to silver of comparable conductivity (and it’s not as good though its used in parts of electronics which absolutely cant corrode or tarnish) is gold… not going to be a lower cost substitute.
Of course. This is the (implied) argument of the Bitcoin Maxis, and with Bitcoin, it makes a lot more sense. Everywhere one looks at any discussion of Bitcoin or cryptocurrency in the media or online, one sees a vast, nigh-impenetrable wall of ignorance about the technology’s structure and function. The proxy for the normality-bias flavor of inefficiency is [lack of] institutional ownership, and institutional dominance, which is (sort of) verifiable.
Most institutions didn’t even want to touch crypto until sometime in 2025, and when they did, they wanted to apply all their usual tricks of leverage and derivatives and such. Kind of worked, but Bitcoin doesn’t trade like a conventional equity and its price movements are increasingly decoupled from the equity markets, as they should be. So the institutions are easily spooked, and dominance is still relatively low. If one believes in the long-term potential of Bitcoin, then it is a persuasive argument to say that institutions still don’t really get it, and normies get it even less.
Not really the case with silver, which has been institutionally-dominated for quite a while. There is nowhere to point to and say “these guys just don’t get it”. Everyone seems to get it.
Personally, I don’t know or care who that is, but this does makes a degree of sense, and is a nuance that you really should pay more attention to if emulating his strategy.
Precious metals are a very strict supply and demand equation. Yes, there are futures and various other “expectations of future” supply and demand baked in, but the point is, these aren’t instruments that naturally appreciate in value on their own, they only do so in response to perceived shifts in supply and demand external to the trading market, either monetary or industrial.
The fact that he sold his silver bullion to buy mining stocks should tell you a lot. It should tell you that he believes silver demand will continue to increase but that this demand is already priced into the bullion market. Equities, on the other hand, do tend to appreciate as company revenue/profits go up, and while there is still a lot of “actual vs. expected performance” speculation that confuses the price signal, it is a pretty safe bet to be invested in successful companies producing a product that is in demand, even if little else is changing, because those companies are generally going to find ways to produce more efficiently or otherwise improve their profitability.
Whoever this guy is, he made a clear move from speculative investing to value investing which means he believes we are at or near the top of the speculator market for silver. Whether we actually are or not, I’m not trying to say and really don’t care, but his actions, which speak louder than words, are broadcasting the opposite of what you claim.
Where in the world are you getting this nonsense from? First of all, copper and silver have near-identical conductivity, and gold does not have comparable conductivity to either; gold’s conductivity is comparable to aluminum which, guess what, is actually used in electrical wiring.
But all of this is beside the point because the run-up in silver has nothing to do with its conductivity, it’s all based on silver’s use as an anode in batteries, specifically one very hyped Samsung patent for a silver (actually a silver/carbon alloy) solid state battery, and even more specifically an EV battery. So not only is all this speculation tied to industrial demand, it’s tied to EV demand in particular, and EVs are an elastic consumer market. Batteries already account for a huge chunk of the cost of an EV, and if the batteries become three times more expensive, demand for EVs is going to collapse because no one wants to pay $80,000 for an entry-level car.
Maybe these batteries will find other uses with inelastic pricing, and silver demand goes through the roof. But again, probabilities. Is that outcome more likely than battery manufacturers simply finding a new and improved formula (which they seem to do every year), or finding a way to make the current formula with less silver? Is it more likely than expensive silver SSBs being relegated to an ultra-premium product that very few people can afford or are willing to pay for? Is it more likely than demand for EVs softening in other countries, like it already has in the US? Is it more likely than silver simply becoming cheaper to mine if the miners scale up to meet demand?
Here’s another question you should be asking: what happened to the price of graphite–the anode of choice in the li-ion batteries still ubiquitous in EVs–or even the price of lithium itself, when those batteries exploded onto the market to power all the new EVs? Both are uncommon/rare minerals driven by industrial demand, and in literally the same industry, so the situation should be analogous. If you don’t want to look it up, then I’ll tell you: the price of both graphite and lithium had a big run-up until early 2023, after which point they collapsed to about half of their peak levels over the next few years.
You don’t ask, or attempt to answer, any of these questions; you just natter on about how efficient markets are BS along with an irrelevant and completely incorrect factoid about conductivity. I have been trying to be polite here, but you obviously have no idea what you are talking about and shouldn’t be here loudly telling other people how to invest their money.
If you think you know better than the market, it is not enough to say “the efficient market hypothesis is false”. You have to explain why it is false in this case, and what you know that the greatest weight of investors do not know.
The efficient market hypothesis is obviously wrong if some market participantsm have better little known or secret information, or if the information is not widely understoodl All of these conditions apply most of the time in most markets, and it this sense the efficient market hypothesis is usually false. But if you are not one of those people with special secret information, or widely available but little understood information, this does you no good, and in this sense the efficient market hypothesis is true for you.
Looking into it looks like the only area where they might be able to sub out any amount of industrial silver with copper that they aren’t using copper already is in solar panels and then they sacrifice efficiency and panel life which China being run by engineers rather than bean counters who want it to look good on their next quarterly might not be okay with anyway, they could well use lower quality panels with little to no silver or China might specify they rather eat the higher initial cost on solar panels.
Nuts.
The big price rise was in expectation of use in a particular type of battery, a battery that that last time I checked, which was immediately silver hit the news, not yet in production and not yet in use for cars, but back when I checked, battery makers were already running up big silver stockpiles. If the silver price goes up too high people are just not going to make or use that particular type of battery, and will cash in their stockpiles. Existing industrial demand, exclusive of this battery type, does not justify the silver price we have seen.
I don’t follow silver. I barely follow gold, and I knew that. You are invested in silver, and you don’t know that. You should not be investing in silver unless you have done your homework, and even less should you be giving advice on the topic.
Silver went up not on existing industrial demand, but on expected industrial demand. If it goes up too high, those expectations will change. There are lots of battery types that do not use silver.
What sent the price up was Samsung’s promise of a car battery with an energy density of 500 Wh/kg, almost double the existing power density, and a one thousand cycle, twenty year lifetime. Which takes a kilogram of silver per car. Slightly under three thousand dollars at current prices. At which price, demand for these batteries is likely to show significant price elasticity;
What probably happened is that people in the car battery industry held their fingers to the wind, and asked “At what price are customers likely to start saying that they want the shorter range, lower price, battery? OK, we will stockpile physical silver until we hit that price.”
In other words, prices in the silver market are being set by a bidder who is likely rational and better informed than you are. Hence the rational markets hypothesis is likely true.
They probably know everything there is to know about physical silver, car batteries, and car markets, but if you asked them about paper silver and monetary usage, they would look at you funny and say “Huh?”
I know about the battery thing but its more than that (and if the battery can actually store solar energy reliably and they can’t substitute non silver its worth it to the Chinese at almost any price). AI data centers and drones use silver and hypersonic missles also use silver. There is a reason silver was listed as the top priority mineral in Trump’s critical mineral defense production act order.
China builds and uses an enormous number of batteries to store solar energy, which is produced in solar farms in the desert during the day, and used in big cities during the night. But no one needs high energy density batteries for this purpose, therefore no one needs silver for this purpose.
They do need silver for solar panels, and it has long been obvious and well known that there just is not enough silver for all the solar panels that China wants to build. So Chinese manufacturers have been working on low silver and zero silver solar panels.
Silver free solar panels were already in mass production before prices skyrocketed, and every solar panel business has announced plans to fully substitute base metals for silver. Silver prices were depressed because mass production of silver free, all base metal, solar panels had started and more mass production was expected. Then they shot up on Samsung’s announcement.
The data center thing is part of the ai scam. We are going to see a substantial expansion in data centers to support ai, but not the ginormous supendous expansion promised. Missiles just are not going to use significant amounts of silver.
The sudden price rise reflects new information, and that new information is Samsung’s high energy density battery.
Jim you are very smart but I respectfully and strongly disagree with you on this topic. I think there would have been an enormous price increase even without the new Samsung battery. But lets run with the battery, battery storage of solar farm power was not really very practical with the almost unchanging previous battery technology of yesteryear either the big problem with solar power is the cost of storage of power during times when the sun was shining so it could be used the rest of the day was astronomically and impractically expensive. So China betting on solar has to be a bet on better batteries, if China likes silver because of this battery that means they think the Samsung battery can deliver.
But aside from that more and more silver is going to in many ways be required in electronics all the time. Production will eventually catch up but its likely to take a long time. Also you know markets aren’t rational or efficient if they could investors wouldn’t be able to ever earn more than economic growth in real terms. Was the Dutch Tulip market efficient?
And as far as what China’s doing they have been massively trying to source silver and they seem to favor the silver price being high in order to encourage increased production over the long term and they seem to feel they can eat the cost…
Samsung silver batteries are not better batteries for solar storage, because you don’t care about Wh/kg for stationary batteries. You only care about Wh/kg for long range electric vehicles.
No one has ever used silver for solar storage, and it is unlikely that anyone ever will.
Demand for silver for solar farms is going to drop like a stone, going to drop to zero by 2027, and demand for silver for long range electric vehicles is price sensitive. No one has to use silver for either one.
Now to be fair to the bears solar panel manufacturers have dropped silver use by 17% (not much drop in other industries) as a result of the 27 to 80ish 90ish price spike. But other industries not much at all and its questionable how much more solar manufacturers can drop it…
I don’t think AI data center construction slows down much for the next 7 years. You’re by far the smartest person who thinks AI is a bubble at all that I’m aware of… normally people who call it a bubble are leftist who have no technical background or really any technical knowledge on any subject whatsoever. I should perhaps contact my high school perfect 1600 SAT score MIT physics graduate friend to see what he thinks… I don’t think AI is going to replace programmers entirely soon either but its going to replace a lot of other office jobs. And yes missles and drones do need silver not sure how much because its not really publically available information but high quality electrical contacts… need silver.
Right now today, very large numbers of silver free solar panels are being installed in the Gobi desert. And were being installed well before the silver price started moving. If some, why not all?
I knew this. Why don’t you?
Today, the price of silver is no longer set by the clever tricks of Wall Street Financiers. It is set by the purchasing officers of solar panel companies, and the purchasing officers of Samsung. Do you want to bet those guys are wrong, ill informed, or do not understand likely future industrial demand for silver?
Obviously the wall street financiers did not understand likely future industrial demand for silver. But they are not longer in the driver’s seat.
The efficient market hypothesis was false for silver, because the bankers had their heads up each other’s asses. But, because people with their heads up each other’s asses lost money, and people who knew what they were doing gained money, prices came to be dominated by those who knew what they were doing, so the efficient market hypothesis became true, as it always does in a free market.
The efficient markets hypothesis is like the no-fifty-dollar-bills-lying-on-the-pavement hypothesis.
See, I won’t pretend to be any kind of genuine expert on precious metals either, I am just blessed with quick learning and an unusually good memory. So when I hear or read sentences like this, the red “problem” light starts blinking, and I think, “well, hmm, I remember something along those lines, but that just doesn’t sound right”, and I decide to look it up.
To my complete unsurprise, there does not appear to be any such thing as a “critical mineral defense production act”. This seems to be an amalgam of two unrelated things: the Defense Production Act, an actual piece of legislation that’s been around for 80 years, which seems to have most recently been invoked for production of herbicides (specifically, Glyphosate). But what is probably, more likely, being referenced here is a certain “Project Vault”, a large earmark to build a strategic stockpile of all currently-listed critical minerals, because we import so many of them from China.
For reference, the list of critical minerals has sixty (60) minerals on it, which does indeed include silver, though silver is not receiving any special treatment, and the many news reports covering the announcement of Project Vault never call out silver, but do call out several other strategic minerals including lithium and copper and of course the rare earths.
Or perhaps you were actually referring to H.R.3617, Securing America’s Critical Minerals Supply Act, which is a House resolution with no obvious connection to Trump or the White House, and no mention of silver or any specific mineral for that matter, and hasn’t even been put to a Senate vote, and reads like your average run of the mill Congressional cloud of squid ink. I’m guessing this is not what you are referring to, but for the sake of completeness, there it is.
The one tidbit I can find about silver, which does square up with my own memory, is that silver was not always on the critical minerals list, it was added recently, meaning (apparently) in or around March of last year.
So this “top priority” hype actually amounts to a change that was made nearly a year ago, making silver one of 60 strategic priorities. Sounds a little less impressive when put in the proper context.
I am not writing this to try to embarrass you or accuse you of duplicity. To the contrary, I believe what is happening here is that you are simply getting a lot of information second- or third-hand from people whom you believe are trustworthy, and either they are not as trustworthy (or as well-informed) as you believe, or they are trustworthy and well-informed but you are hearing an alternate version of what they say that has mutated to favor a narrative you’ve become invested in, both figuratively and literally in this case.
It happens to everyone. It has happened to me. Confirmation bias is human nature. But we are here now, telling you to correct your heading, to start being a bit more skeptical of the things you are hearing and to start checking the facts with a bit more rigor. I did not have to spend a long time searching to uncover the above info, because Trump’s executive orders are all published, news reports of Project Vault are all recent and published, and the list of strategic minerals is always published.
Next time you listen to one of these silver bugs, please check their facts, instead of repeating their unverified claims here.
I was going to weigh in on the efficient markets hypothesis but most of what I was going to say has been said by others. One more point, though, about this proposition:
If markets are informationally efficient then price movements are unpredictable.
That is an “if” proposition, not an “if and only if” proposition. That is, price movements can be unpredictable even if markets are not efficient.
Suppose the Illuminati conspiracy controls the price of silver, and those whimsical little scamps decide to set the price by flipping a coin every day. Then silver’s price is not emerging from market efficiency, in the sense of having anything to do with supply and demand, but it’s not predictable either.
Less fancifully, even if most traders in a commodity are stupid – which is a weird assumption to make – that by itself does not imply predictable price movements. They’d have to be stupid and some other things would have to be true.
>gold cannot be used for ordinary private transactions, because gold is not infinitely divisible.
Using gold for small payments is not practical and that’s the exact reason why you use silver for small payments. There’s no need to invent anything new here.
Yes, and copper for even smaller payments. There are many ways to address this, including paper notes redeemable for gold.
The Goldback currency took a radically different approach by embedding small amounts of gold into paper notes. That eliminates the need for a redemption clause because the gold is inside the paper itself.
The number on a Goldback note indicates the number of 1/1000 ounces (milli-ounces) of gold it contains. So “1” means 0.001 ounces, and “100” means 0.1 ounces. There’s a “1/2” goldback which means 0.0005 ounces. (So the range of spot values now is about $2.50 for a 1/2, and $500 for a 100.)
Obviously there’s a significant premium over the gold spot price because you need to pay the people who manufacture these finely detailed notes. But the idea is that a merchant will also accept it at the premium value, not merely at spot. It looks like the premium is about 100%, because they show a current daily exchange rate of 1 goldback = $10. That would be only $5 at spot.
As Jim pointed out there would be problems with a paper gold or even silver backed paper currency now because everyone would think the government would steal the gold (and silver) and break the peg.
Good looks set to be the standard store of value and means of exchange as far as trade goes, fiat looks set to only be local short term means of exchange. Unit of account (i guess fiat because must pay taxes in it)?
Oh wait embedding PMs in the currencies themselves… might work might spawn a new form of “coining”…
Yes, it’s clever and the result is beautiful. They use a vacuum deposition process to deposit the gold onto polymer sheets, so they’re not really paper notes. I should buy some to see what they feel like.
I got the Goldbacks and they are spectacular. The notes are polymer and nicely flexible. I know some people in town who are aware of these and it will be fun to spend a few.
Bimetallism fails to work, because the relative value of silver and gold keep changing. This has always been a headache.
Worked pretty well for centuries before 1873…
Every time the relative value of gold and silver changed, bimetallism failed. A bimetallic system works if the ratio is stable, and people believe it is likely to remain stable.
If the government tries to fix the gold and silver ratio, before the 19th century the government didn’t try to do that. But you are right I thought the original sin was demonetizing silver when the original sin was trying to fix the gold and silver ratio.
And then the silver miners struck it rich in the Comstock Lode in Nevada. It started in 1859, then there was one huge bonanza after another, culminating in the Consolidated Virginia Bonanza in March 1873. All this new supply sent the silver price plummeting relative to gold, and the 15:1 peg specified in the Mint Act of 1792 could no longer hold. William Jennings Bryan was quite upset about it.
You can see the dramatic effect on the silver price here:
https://pricedingold.com/silver/
That shows the 15:1 peg holding from 1700 to 1873, and then boom the floor fell out from under it.
Note that the 15:1 peg is reflected by the price of about 2 GAU / 1 OAG over those years.
: 1 OAG / 2 GAU
= 31.1034768 GAG / 2 GAU
= 15.5517384 AG / AU
~= 15 AG / AU
Notation: O = troy ounce G = gram AU = gold AG = silver
>relative value of silver and gold keep changing.
Yes, that is called the market and is hated by statists. And in a actually free market the changes would likely be slow anyway.
>Bimetallism fails to work,
You mean, it fails when your state and your emperor “fixes” the prices. So bimetallism “managed” by government criminals doesn’t work. Shocking.
Your comments are very weird for a “Hoppe libertarian” aren’t they.
The problem is that it is inconvenient if your high value coins are not an exact multiple of your low value coins, and no matter how libertarian you are, it remains inconvenient.
Gold is not infinitely divisible, and silver and copper coins corrode. Pure silver does not corrode, but is inconveniently malleable to make coins or utensils out or;
Wouldn’t that be more slight annoyance than major problem? Especially since for everyday transactions if we hypothetically went to a monetary system of bimetallic coins (yes I know this wont happen) you’d overwhelmingly be using silver. Gold would be for major purchases, commercial transactions. Everyday use would only be the spendthrift rich (which is a minority of the rich) divorced women blowing through their money and such…
Obviously it was a big enough problem that every society has addressed it one way or another way.
They all had a problem that because the costs associated with minting, there was always a shortage of low value coins, so they would use units of account for low values, and settle up infrequently with actual coins, or with weighed silver.
“They all had a problem that because the costs associated with minting, there was always a shortage of low value coins…”
The Big problem of Small Change.
>The problem is that it is inconvenient
Indeed, freedom is “incovenient” for tyrants, statists and the like. Sure, under your anti human technocracy on the other hand, everything is automatic and “convenient”. And there of course are no humans.
Using real money also known as commodity money is “incovenient”. It’s much better to have a chip implanted in your brain and pay using molusk’s “tesla cash”, right?
>Gold is not infinitely divisible,
I didn’t directly comment on that piece of nonsense but since you repeat it…
All elements can be divided up to atoms. All compounds to molecules. By definition. And whether gold is “infinitely divisible” or not is completely irrelevant.
> Indeed, freedom is “incovenient” for tyrants, statists and the lik
No, a floating rate between gold and silver in a bimetallic monetary system is inconvenient for the wife who wants to buy a chicken.
Your “freedom” is like Rousseau’s “freedom”. You have to force people to be “free”
The trouble is that you use “liberty” the way marxists use class warfare and the EU uses “disinformation” — as a rationale for government policies that impose intolerable burdens upon individuals, as a justification for the state violence that (like a communist complaining that true communism has never been tried) you piously deplore.
A major part of your true libertarianism has been tried, and has failed catastrophically.
Look at England. It is not taxes and regulation part of liberalism that requires extraordinary state violence against the subject populace. It is the libertarian part of liberalism — open borders, gay sex, abortion, and the abolition of marriage.
These libertarian policies destroy people’s lives and leave a power vacuum, and to prevent alternative forms of large scale organised violence froem stepping into that gap and protecting the native British, the state has to become increasingly repressive.
Your purity is utterly detached from reality. The smallest practical gold coin is about three grams, which is about $500.00, and is both too small to practical, and too large to be all that useful as money
You have not the slightest interest in actually giving effect to libertarian policies, only in attacking the enemies of the EU and Keith Starmer in the name of an absurdly and impossibly pure libertarianism, much like Starmer silencing speech on the grounds that “disinformation” is a threat to free speech.
Note that “disinformation” is not lies. It is truths that are forbidden.
Using real money also known as commodity money is “incovenient”. It’s much better to have a chip implanted in your brain and pay using molusk’s “tesla cash”, right?
What a peculiar self-own. Makes it very obvious you haven’t thought this through in the slightest. What do you envision your libertarian supermarket to look like?
“I’d like to buy a pack of eggs”
– “Yes that’ll be 10 molecules of gold please”
Yes Alf. Thanks for proving that you can’t even read. My first post on this thread made the point that silver is used for “buying eggs on the supermarket”.
Then again, just like your owner, the Philosopher Emperor and jew neocon jim, you are always wrong.
Carry on.
You live in your own little universe.
Yes upon which you were explained the problems with bimetallism – that the exchange value between gold and silver fluctuates, and that silver coins erode.
The solution for this is unimetallism, but then we return to the problem of the limited divisibility of gold. To which you reacted that ‘elements can be broken down to their atoms so it’s no problem’. This was a dumb response and merited ridicule.
jaggard is repetitious. Stuff gets pointed out to him, and he just bombastically repeats his original point with insults added and double the confidence.
Insults added is not a violation of the moderation policy. Repeating ones original point as if no argument had been made against it is a violation, because it leads to boring threads that repeat forever. One has to attempt to answer the argument, or else just shut up, or better, concede the point, and proceed to make an alternative, perhaps lesser point.
When I said “bored now” the message was that he is now boring everyone and is about to go on moderation and never be seen again unless he mends his ways.
jaggard, your libertarianism is totalitarian. It achieves astonishing purity by being utterly indifferent to practical real world problems, not only coinage, but also marriage, family, public order, and national defense, and then applies this absolute purity as a bludgeon against any real world opposition to the real world totalitarian terror of Europe.
The libertarian part of liberalism, open borders, free trade, the emancipation of women, abortion, sodomy, and transexuality turns out to involve vastly more repression and state intrusion into people’s lives than the taxes and regulation party of liberalism.
The problem with liberalism is that it denies everyman a job, dates, a career, a home, a safe clean neighborhood, and a family. Which forces it to hold on to power by totalitarian terror, crushing speech, and crushing freedom of association. And you wind up justifying the destruction of family, and the open borders that have destroyed jobs, cheap housing, and safe clean neighborhoods. And then attacking anyone who opposes liberalism because, oh no, it is not very libertarian to support borders, national power, and family.
You are pure. You are totally in favor of the open borders that have destroyed everyman’s job, the abortion on demand and female emancipation that denies men and women children and and life together. You merely oppose the totalitarian terror that is regrettably an inconvenient necessity to enforce those things. Is it not odd that the most crucial and central principles of today’s libertarian party (gay sex, transexuality, abortion on demand, the dissolution of marriage, and open borders) regrettably just happen to need totalitarian terror to ensure them? So, you totally support gay sex, transsexuality, abortion on demand, the dissolution of marriage, and open borders, while totally opposing the censorship and coercion that mysteriously somehow seems to accompany, and attacking the same targets as the censors and secret police target.
And is it not even odder that you are targeting the same people as Soros, USAID, and the EU are targeting?
Why is it that to protect the gay parade, drag queen story hour, open borders, and to protect women from marriage 1.0, all these worthy libertarian goals that you are unable, in your enormous libertarian purity, to oppose, Starmer needs more vigorous restraints on freedom of speech and freedom of speech than Russia or China. And even America, most platforms have less freedom of speech than China. Willy OAM complained on his Youtube channel that he was getting a whole lot of views on a Chinese platform, and censorship on that channel was less burdensome than Youtube.
>jaggard, your libertarianism is totalitarian.
Right. Because freedom is slavery.
I could rest my case at this point, when you self-parody yourself into oblivion and show yet again that you are nothing but an Ingsoc propaganda bot…
If Starmer’s open borders, grooming gangs, and biological men masturbating in women’s bathrooms are not libertarian, why not? If they are libertarian, why do they need to be defended and upheld by more censorship and political imprisonment than in China?
Your libertarianism is totalitarian because you are using an impossible purity of liberty that no one wants or should want, that you do not actually want either, to attack actually existing liberty. You attack the liberty of Trump and Musk, in the name of the liberty of Starmer, Biden, and Obama.
>Your libertarianism
There’s no such thing as “my libertarianism” – there’s only actual libertarianism, which I can argue for and that you can’t counter.
And there’s no such thing as “Hoppe libertarianism” either. Hoppe does have some libertarian positions that again you can’t counter at all. And Hoppe has some retarded dishonest pandering to conservatives that you try to take advantage of, while of course ignoring all of Hoppe’s actual libertarian positions.
Hoppe’s “dishonest pandering” are him trying to make a libertarian polity practical. You better damn well believe it would have to be a homogeneous high trust place that kicked out malefactors. You don’t like Hoppe because he’d probably have you physically removed.
Exactly so.
Conversely, jaggard’s suicide pact purity is him trying to outholy the right, using libertarianism as a club to strike down the enemies of the EU and Keith Starmer, rather than displaying slightest interest in whether the piously pronounced ideal is practical, useful, or desirable.
You will notice, that, as always, he ignores the question, no matter in what form it is asked, the most recent form of the question being:
Of course I can explain why they are not libertarian, by reference to people’s property rights in collective goods, such as a safe and clean environment, and people’s property rights in other people, which jaggard would rightly regard as a universal all purpose out from libertarian individualism, to be applied whenever libertarian individualism leads to horrifyingly terrible results, which, of course, is exactly what it is.
The centralized state loves libertarian individualism, because it wants to atomize its subjects, thus rendering them helpless before it. And left libertarian individualism is inherently especially beloved by the totalizing managerial bureaucratic state, which is obstructed by individual and local differences, local powers, and local status. Hence the seeming paradox that the European Union and Starmer’s Britain are most savagely cruel and despotic when they are enforcing the libertarian part of liberalism, rather the taxation, regulation, and welfare part of liberalism.
Jaggard/whitebread/sockpuppet is the quintessential ankle-biter. Not just someone who generally aligns with the category, but the literal character archetype, an almost too-perfect textbook definition.
For all the sewage he excretes about freedom this and statist that, it is plainly obvious from his antisocial and self-destructive behavior that he craves the whip hand. An effeminate, perennial loser, he abhors the freedom that forces him to compete with peers for status, but channels it into resentment toward his nominal master (“The State” or sometimes “The Joos”) for neither allowing him to cheat as flagrantly as he’d like nor assigning him a more important role that could confer legitimate status.
So he tries, usually impotently, to hobble and inflict pain on anyone larger in stature. Out of spite, yes, but also in the vain hope that someone will finally notice him, pick him up by the scruff, and force him to do something useful, so that he does not have to decipher the arcane rituals necessary to socialize with the other pups.
Sadly, the eventual fate for many if not most ankle-biters is to get thrown out into the street, and at this point I’m really wishing Jim would. The thing is, you cannot argue with an ankle-biter–obviously you can, in the abstract, but it is futile, not unlike arguing with a woman. He is not here to debate, or to learn, or even because he thinks he has something to teach; he is only doing this to try to relieve tension and get noticed, and will continue doing so as long as it continues to work. And since we cannot physically put him in his place, this being the internet and all, what else is left?
Jim likes debating libertardianism and consistently gets baited, despite it being obvious to us that this is a bad faith commenter. Same thing with AF, just a different topic. Let Jim have his fun, this is his ‘house’ as it goes.
I knew this Jaggard fucker for what he was the moment he accused me of never having been a libertarian. Me? Me!
Ridiculous
Sure, and if this was just some lolbert with a need to inflict his opinions on the internet then he wouldn’t be any worse than any random Facebook or Reddit poster on their best days, and any of us on our worst.
It’s not even the unresponsiveness; it’s the attitude that distinguishes this case. It’s not enough to just say “ACK-shully you’re wrong and blah blah”. It always has to be “you’re wrong, and also you’re stupid and dishonest and evil, and I am so much better than all of you and blah blah”. He needs to inflict not only his opinions, but also his rage and misery on all of us. It’s not debating, and it doesn’t function as comedy or performance art either.
Compared to this guy, AF is a perfect gentleman. He might post baffling nonsense from an alien reality where everyone’s normal role is reversed, but at least he does it without the spittle and bug eyes, and we can occasionally enjoy it as irony or farce.
I don’t like debating libtards. But, know your enemy, know yourself.
And you learn the most from what they will not say. I keep asking him the same question over and over and over in different ways, and he keeps not answering in the same way, thereby telling me much.
The libertarian commonality with liberalism, the part of libertarianism that it has in common with liberalism has now manifested as the most horrible, evil, destructive, and aggressively intrusive part of actually existent liberalism, and libertarians suffer from a strange inability to say what this mysterious problem is. Why does “liberty” need to be state enforced by terrifying and extreme measures?
Of course what they cannot say is that all liberty needs to be enforced, state enforced, in the sense of organised violence protecting some people doing some things against other people who want to do incompatible things. We cannot all just get along except we agree on the walls between us. And some “liberties” are just plain evil and need to be crushed. The state, libertarians say, should just stop crushing liberty. But it has to crush some “liberties” so that other people can enjoy morally superior liberties.
Deport all foreigners. Poofs off roofs.
The problem with libertarianism is that some goods vital to human flourishing are inherently collective, or can only exist in the context of collective goods, so human flourishing unavoidably requires a fair bit of crushing your enemies, driving them before you, and hearing the lamentations of their women. Flourishing requires order. Order requires victory. In order that order suitable for some kinds of human existence can be established, those who would prefer a different kind of order for a different kind of human existence must be crushed. We can’t live with those people. The reason the libertarian aspects of liberalism in Starmer’s Britain are so oppressive and so monstrously evil, is that Starmer is trying to force us to live with people who have absolutely no intention of allowing us to exist at all. We can’t live with those people, and they intend to make sure we cannot.
>I don’t like debating libtards.
But Jim, you hysterically claim that you are a libtard yourself. A “hoppe libtard”, as you put it.
And there’s an even more interesting aspect to your propaganda efforts. You’ve been hanging around so called cypherpunk circles for a long time. You’ve pretended to be a cypherpunk for decades. And your pretense to be a cypherpunk is even more insane than your pretense to be any kind of libertarian.
You Jim are the ultimate musk cocksucker, and musk in turn is the ultimate tranny-humanist(he even has a tranny son). Musk is the ultimate anti-privacy, anti-human technocrat, he’s about to put chips in people’s brains, and you Jim, The King Of The Cypherpunks have nothing to say about it. Odd isn’t it?
bored now.
There are libertarians in Russia too. My friend Sasha, who speaks perfect English and loves to debate me at great length, had not heard of that word, but when I showed him the libertarian platform, he read the whole thing and said it was pure genius.
He’s also a hedonist who sees no reason to waste any of his remaining years creating new lives for others to experience. He totally does not care if Russia continues to exist after he’s gone. His wife was over 40 when they married, so no kids.
He also believes that all politicians in all countries work together in perfect unison to enslave and kill their subject populations. All disputes between them, including wars, are theater, and everything (e.g. Covid) happens exactly according to their plan. He told his employers he’d rather quit and eat only porridge than take the vax.
He has a large, sharp, triangular nose, but insists that he’s 0% Jewish. I’ll believe it when he takes a DNA test.
Let me get this straight: All state currencies are going to zero because all leaders around the world look at Argentina and Zimbabwe and say “I want that!” No state will betray this suicide pact, hold its currency at parity with gold, and invite citizens of all countries to open bank accounts with them. Like another eGold, but this time with its own army and navy.
Most fiat currencies are going to zero because post covid scam almost all states are stuck in a debt death spiral. They are most likely to payoff their debt in inflated fiatbucks and then transition to a sounder form of money only after that.
No country has ever inflated itself out of debt, and all who attempted it became fourth-world shitholes whose only export was millions of starving refugees.
It’s harder to build another Switzerland than another Venezuela, but well worth the effort.
If the US doesn’t outright ignore the constitutional black letter that says it cant repudiate its debts it must print them soon.
A state that did that would displace the global reserve currency. It’d have to be a serious nuclear power. The only real candidates are the US, China and Russia, and I don’t think any of them will get their house in order sufficiently.
Chy-na has a pseudo two currency system they are trying to prop up for international trade. Good luck to them, they prevent cartelization and actually export all their tech. We might get cheap machine tools, chips, robots, biotech equipment, lasers, etc. from them if they can avoid implosion.
It’s on open question whether they take a turn for the worse when there is no geopolitical rival to speak of, but their track record so far is good.
What’s a good way to buy some Bitcoin these days?
Told everyone the bottom ain’t in yet..
Does not matter, because time in the market beats timing the market.
If the bottom ends up being 50K, rather than 65K, and the eventual top is still 200K or 500K, then who cares? My profit was only 800% instead of 900%, big deal.
You can buy it on Bisq, but this is complicated. In the UAE you can just straight up buy it for cash.
Just buy on a cex.
If he is asking here, he does not want to buy on a cex.
Reminds me of this Far Side Cartoon
https://x.com/LibertyJen/status/1627368081680142337/photo/1
https://substack.com/@restorebritain/note/c-216896681
Feminist nationalism.
Eh
What Restore mean to say, but cannot say, is “these are our women.”
But were they to say that, this would provoke the shit test “we are not your women” — if you look at the histories of these trafficked and exploited English girls, they acquiesced, made no genuine effort to escape, and deliberately made life hard for white knight would be rescuers.
So you don’t say that until you are in a position to hit them with a stick should they say that. Women have a striking and obvious preference for black knight rescuers. I speak from direct personal experience, but if you should doubt me, check their porn.
Musk’s account on X — is it him? some PR team? No one knows! — has recently been promoting Nick Land and Yarvin. This, and the obvious wink-and-nod ‘Restore’ party, has me feeling like NRx ideas are winning over the most important players in Thermidor. Maybe not the highest level actors, whom may be old and filled with normalcy-bias, but those with the most capacity for actually taking action.
How long until these guys reach out to Jim and his illustrious followers? I cannot think of anyone else continuing to develop on top of NRx theory in any real meaningful way, Jim seems to still be the furthest tip. Jim have they tried bitmessaging you yet?
This is why I finally started commenting after years of lurking. Someone give me a job in the administration. I don’t have anything better going on
https://x.com/elonmusk/status/2024944918494675416
The messaging has been rolling more and more in our direction. Soon, calls for God, King, Country, and MAGA breeding pits.
“Supreme Court strikes down tariffs” (https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/02/supreme-court-strikes-down-tariffs/):
A big blow to Trump? The blob striking back? A reminder that at a big part of Thermidor are such because the Left-wing holiness spiral was hurting their bottom line, and the tariffs were doing the same? A chance for Trump to finally have an Andrew Jackson moment (or will “TACO” prove to be the case again)?
Or is this irrelevant, because the time of laws and legal rulings is ending, the time of force and men with guns is coming, and thinking any of this sort of thing matters is normalcy bias?
Unfortunately Trump is increasingly unpopular because hes allowed himself to be cucked too much so now he can’t cross the Rubicon, not right now.
This is what he gets for trying to play by the three branches of government rules bullshit rather than declaring that their powers were suspended under a state of emergency day one or definitely he could have done it after the Kirk assassination.
SCOTUS and POTUS both have normalcy bias and are playing legal games that wont matter in a year. May not matter now, except in terms of tactics. Scotus limiting Trump and Trump raging against scotus is 80% performative.
Meanwhile… MAGA and Thermidor are both engaged and onboard with rebuilding American continental infrastructure for datacenters, AI, energy, and defense. These are overlapping concerns. Tariffs only one method. Increasing recognition that US enemies are using lawfare to stop the rebuilding. Establishment GOP, the third wing, mostly on the sidelines. Democrats on the sidelines.
> infrastructure for datacenters, AI, energy, and defense.
That is, infrastructure for surveillance and tyranny. It’s mildly funny to see deep state retards refering to the digital surveillance police state as “AI”.
The one thing as far as AI and tyranny that I do find massively concerning is that the surveillance state was in practice mostly toothless (less you pissed off someone powerful) because the reality is the secret police were both too undermanned and too lazy to process your information. Basically cops (at whatever level including the secret police) don’t actually want to investigate crimes thats work and they’d much rather be eating donuts unless they have some personal reason for doing so. Unless you pissed off someone really powerful personally you could in practice commit all sorts of crimes on camera and nothing was going to happen to you. Your footage would never be seen by anyone and if it did it would go at the bottom of a review pile 500 feet high that would never actually be looked through.
The scary thing about AI is they can make it do work on reviewing surveillance that lazy cops won’t. Which will of course catch a lot of real criminals but also a lot of people flexing the rules in an anarcho tyrannical system it will fufill the Scott Adams prediction that nearly all crime will be caught but that also it will reveal that everyone is a criminal. Now of course they will turn this into revenue collection because the courts don’t want to deal with these millions of new cases either there will be overwhelming pressure to accept whatever fine they think they can extort out of you in return for dropping consoldiated charges.
>The scary thing about AI is they can make it do work on reviewing surveillance that lazy cops won’t.
The mass surveillance state already did automatic surveillance of all written communications. They also did analysis of all kinds of data like location, network traffic, etc. They were also able to pick any phone conversation they wanted and listen to it. Point and click wiretapping.
Now they can listen to all phone conversations in real time. And they can watch all the video too! For instance, all the video coming from Tesla NSA.
>… nearly all crime will be caught but that also it will reveal that everyone is a criminal.
Well totalitarian shitholes like the US have tens of thousands of absurd “laws” that are selectively enforced. That’s how statism works. Mass surveillance makes things worse but it’s not a radical change in that respect.
>they will turn this into revenue collection
…But the main objective and function by far is political control.
This was parodied in Demolition Man where Sylvester Stallone’s character kept getting automated citations for things like foul language and the like.
Since Jim is always mentioning this, I thought I would leave this here.
https://x.com/EarthPigs23A/status/2025037791487291895/photo/1
Bitcoin continues to drop, while I have no doubt that should it avoid falling to zero (ie if a much better coin comes along) it will be 1M+ sometime in the future my opinion is that Basel III and the fact that bitcoin isn’t percieved as a store of value by the big boys (that was possible when line only went up but not amid such volatility) will continue to put downward pressure on it for a long time while Basel III will continue to drag gold up as most countries are in debt they can’t possibly repay without cancelling it or monetizing it. Gold being dragged up and industrial shortages (yes I know you guys quibbled) will continue to drag silver up. Gold and silver are still not nearly at their inflation adjusted prices they got to in 1980 and they should ultimately go higher in real terms because gold was not the international currency in 1980 and there wasn’t a crippling debt crisis. I suspect Andrew Tate will end up being right and bitcoin will bottom in around 25-30k.
I know I sound like I’m rubbing salt in the wound and I’m sorry I’m no stranger to taking a bath on an investment so I’m not infallible (I certainly found Biden’s market irrational and unpredictable in the extreme)…
Sadface.
Not like bitcoin isn’t known for being volatile, but still stings.
I am still not calling the Bitcoin bottom, but I expect to call the bottom some time during the next twelve months, and in eighteen months, you will be feeling somewhat better, and in two years you will be starting to feel like a financial genius again. (I assume you bought when I called the bottom at 16000-20000.)
Saw a post about 364d to bottom and then 1064d to top.
Bottom around October 2026?
I shifted to a future trend bot which opens long/short based on the short/long term moving average.
Don’t have the impulse control to hold and spot grid takes too long.
Ltc and PaxGold is my main money makers.
I’d take the profits and buy gold/ammo – direct with crypto.
Xmr or z cash I assume?
I cannot predict the bottom until it happens, and even then not exactly, but just that we are somewhere near the bottom, maybe I will call it a little bit early or a little bit late.
Maybe other people can do better, but what I see at every bottom is a whole lot of capitulation and cashing out near the bottom. Indeed, that is one the best signs that you are at the bottom, that bitcoins that were purchased during the big bull run up have moved again. When the lettuce hands capitulate, its is time to buy and hodl. And over the past three weeks there has been a lot of that. When there is a lot more of that, then it is the bottom.
That’s when I bought most of my btc. But liquidity working as it does, I’ve bought some more throughout the years, including when btc was up to 90k. All being said still ahead.
Guess that’s the kind of investment bitcoin is. Long-term, long-tail, with much rollercoaster speculation in-between.
No, you sound like you just can’t fucking let it go.
“Yes I know you guys quibbled but I’m just going to ignore all your previous objections and repeat for the 6th time my prediction that silver’s going to be totally awesome based on the same flimsy rationale as before, oh and Bitcoin being at the exact same valuation it was at 3 weeks ago is a huge red flag and totally means it’s about to drop another 50%”
Ok, buy your silver, hold your silver, whatever, just give it a rest already. Anyone who was going to be persuaded by this has already bought in.
And you sound irrational and triggered somehow. And about PM ownership I’m not hawking it here because I think it will change the price.
Buying after a huge run up and selling after a huge run down is a losing strategy. And that is the argument that you, the Cominator have been making. That silver will rise because it has been rising, and Bitcoin will fall because it has been falling.
Now if you had predicted silver before it rose, and Bitcoin before it fell, I would be a lot more impressed.
I did buy into silver around 28ish but true I didn’t announce it here but sure the easiest money on silver has been made (but I would assume that unless you get a capitulation bottom below 40k thats also true for bitcoin), I would just argue if you assume some similiarities to the 1970s PM bull market there is a lot more especially since factors are arguably even more favorable for PMs.
Buy on the rumor, sell on the news. The rumor was all those people saying that the dollar was losing reserve status. The news was Basel telling the EU banks to get with the Brics program.
Gold is now in is rightful place as the international medium of exchange for the big banks, and Bitcoin is still the up and coming challenger that is experiencing adoption by the small fry.
Gold for gold to rise substantially, it has to get into an even more favorable place. It cannot get to an even more favorable place, except nations go on the gold standard. Which they cannot, because no one would trust them.
Gold cannot actually be used to buy cans of sardines, because of inherent problems with coinage. Bitcoin could be used to buy some cans of sardines. You cannot do that now, except for some demo shops created by the Bitcoin Beach group, but you certainly can order stuff over the internet with it, and for some transactions, you pretty much have to, due to the problems with paying for stuff internationally through the banking system. And with gold, you cannot buy a can of sardines, and you certainly cannot order stuff over the internet.
The PM run in the 70s was roughly 10 years as the dollar lost purchasing power, the situation for the dollars purchasing power now is arguably a lot worse (its better in that Trump has secured a captive oil supply and we don’t need to import huge amounts from Arabs but the debt situation is far far worse), the bull run only really started about a year ago. But the AI is telling me that gold is now higher in real terms than the 1980 peak (find it hard to believe) so perhaps you’re right. I will look into this deeper. If true plan to rotate to mining stocks ASAP.
Gold purchasing power apparently higher than in 1980 (after basically only a year of running) silver not nearly as high as it was in 1980 (that was the one I was comparing and I wasn’t aware how much they diverged)…
This is something I will have to think about… historically silver does tend to catch up but it can take many many choppy years. Perhaps time to buy mining stocks early as Rick Rule has…
Calling bottom publicly now… We’re early timewise, so not saying a truly idiotic short trip to $40k isn’t possible. But having sold a bunch above $120k, and given unenumerated factors, it’s probably a good spot for people to start accumulating again, and accelerating that accumulation over this year, particularly after July 1, maxing through December. Been adding since the dive below $70k. Max drawdown so far this wave was 52.5%.
Being Coin Shills, NEVER listen to us, and never mind what coins we’re secretly adding, because everything we say will get you REKT.
Bitcoin price
BTC
$73,485.98
And climbing