HYPER INFLATION

File: 1497102271019m.jpg (164KB, 978x1024px) Image search: [Google]

164KB, 978x1024px

Bump for you need to read this

Who the fuck care about siacucks say? Storj is better.

File: 1388373531740.jpg (625KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

625KB, 1024x683px

theyre not wrong

market cap is a totally misleading piece of data

its not real, theres not actually ~45 billion dollars in bitcoin. its just not true.

think about it, lets say I have 100 NewCoins right? thats all the NewCoins that will ever exist and I start selling them.
lets just assume 100 people buy 1 NewCoin at 1$.
Now there is a market and these coin holders start selling to new money on the exchange. Lets just assume that 50 of the people hold their 1 NewCoin forever, and the other 50 people sell to new buyers coming in willing to pay 2, 3, 4, eventually bid up to 5$.

now you have the last traded NewCoin at 5$.
so the 'market cap' of NewCoin is $500 ($5 x 100 coins total)

but really there has not been $500 put into the market. at most we know that 50 holders have only put in 1$ each, and the 50 new money buyers on the exchange have paid at max. $5 each (we will assume they all paid 5$ to be extra conservative here). So thats $50 total from the holders and $250 from the new money. $300 is the true market value of money put into the system here

>>2391378
>Storjcoin’s market cap increased from $23 million to $228 million.
>subtle fud against storj, their main competition
Well played sia

>>2392096
and lets take it further here

lets say the selling begins and our people on the exchange start to bail out as new buyers come in with lower and lower bids. lets assume all 50 traders sell their coins to a new set of 50 traders, and lets assume the bid has been driven down to like, $0.50

so now our market cap is 100 coins x .50 = $50

but how can that be possible

first of all there was definitely $50 worth of change put into the market cap by the original 50 long term holders who bought at 1$ and are still holding. and we have the 50 NewCoins that are in traders hands, surely those are not worth nothing?

Im having a hard time talking myself through this thought exercise. I dont think I understand things right now

>>2392096
"At $212 a share, ICG had a market value of nearly $60 billion, which made it the third largest Internet company by market capitalization behind only AOL and Yahoo. The rise came despite a secondary offering which raised $1 billion in additional capital.[1] Revenue, meanwhile, was meager. During the first nine months after ICG became a corporation, it recorded $14.8 million of revenue, and a loss of $6.4 million.[6] The previous year, it recorded a profit of $14 million on $3 million of revenue."


" In spring 2001, the stock price fell into single digits and fell below $1 per share in the summer, putting it in danger of being de-listed by NASDAQ; despite the fall, the company was financially sound with $300 million in the bank.[1] Two years after its peak, ICG had a market capitalization of $200 million, less than 0.5% of its peak value."

it's from Internet Capital Group during the dot com bubble

File: images.jpg (7KB, 300x168px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 300x168px

So is a trillion dollars "market cap" feasible if these numbers are estranged?

>>2392583
I can wrap my head a little better around a company's stock having a total market cap because there are things of actual value here. Cash , earnings, debt, expectations of future earnings etc. things you can factor together to estimate a company valuation

but with something like bitcoin or gold for that matter... theres no value intrinsically. or the value is very very small compared to the speculative price its trading at. gold for example it would be the industrial applications and the demand for jewelry right. but its clearly trading at a much higher price based on speculative valuation.

so how do you know if the 7 trillion dollar market cap for gold is overvalued or not
is gold a bubble

what a fucking mess we live in

>>2392931
mining an ounce costs about $800. I think the price would be way higher without all the paper gold

>>2392096
>>2392185
this isn't unique to crypto. this is true for common stock as well. Amazon hasn't actually generated 467.70B of investment in its stock.

In reality, with the way you are thinking about this, the only money invested in a currency (or stock) is the money invested at ICO (IPO). From there, ever person investing X dollars requires somebody else to take X dollars out thus a net zero gain.