Plan C

8.5K posts

Plan C banner
Plan C

Plan C

@TheRealPlanC

Bitcoin Math Models

*Not financial advice* Katılım Eylül 2020
777 Takip Edilen214.5K Takipçiler
Sabitlenmiş Tweet
Plan C
Plan C@TheRealPlanC·
This interview was a ton of fun! Make sure you guys check it out; in one hour we covered a ton. I think this was one of the best interviews I have ever done. But you be the judge.
Bram Kanstein@bramk

BFM240 w/ @TheRealPlanC is live! ⚡️ "There's zero logic behind the S2F model” 👀 We discuss: 🔸S2F failure 🔸Business cycle as price driver 🔸Self-fulfilling 4-year narrative 🔸Long-term hodlers vs supply myths 🔸The real Bitcoin price floor 🔸Fair value & hopium-free targets

English
9
4
52
25.7K
Plan C
Plan C@TheRealPlanC·
More evidence OLS fit is not the way to go. It's not just me saying this. It will continue to overproject trend value
BTCAnalytica@btcanalytica

Will the Power Law become the Power Lie? The OLS Power Law "fair value" is about to exceed BTC's all-time high — while BTC sits in a −42% drawdown. This has never happened before. We tested three fair value models against the running ATH since the 2013 cycle top: OLS Power Law: → Exceeded ATH on 348 days (7.8%) → Every single day was during a BULL phase → Currently at 0.994× ATH — crossing in days → This time? BEAR phase. First ever. Power Law Quantile Regression: → Exceeded ATH on 176 days (3.9%) → Every single day was during a BULL phase → Currently at 0.951× — crossing in ~2 months → Also during a BEAR. Also unprecedented. EQM 50% (our proprietary cycle-adjusted fair value): → Exceeded ATH on 0 days (0.0%) → Never. Not once. Not bull. Not bear. → Currently at 0.718× — 28% headroom The OLS Power Law treats the 2013 mania (26× the floor) as equally informative as today's compressed cycles (2.5× the floor). It carries forward the ghost of dead manias into its fair value estimate. When a model claims $124K is "fair" while the market just rejected $125K and fell 42%, the model isn't measuring fair value. It's measuring nostalgia for volatility that no longer exists. Each cycle top relative to the floor: C1: 26× C2: 15× C3: 5.8× C4: 2.5× The manias are dying. The models that don't see this will overshoot — and their followers will be left holding the bag at prices the OLS told them were "cheap." The Power Law isn't wrong. The OLS fit to it is. @Giovann35084111 @TheRealPlanC Chart below ↓

English
8
0
12
7.1K
Mocha
Mocha@MochaStrategy·
@TheRealPlanC I already have this open on a tab in my browser. Can't wait to watch/listen this weekend! 🍻🧡
English
1
0
1
28
Plan C
Plan C@TheRealPlanC·
We did a Joe Rogan-style 3-hour deep dive.
Robin Seyr@RobinSeyr

@TheRealPlanC on when BTC Actually reaches $1M -> Why so many BTC Price Models are broken! -> How Cheap Bitcoin truly is right now. -> Deep Dive into where Bitcoin is headed This is a MUST-WATCH 3 Hour Deep Dive with PlanC:

English
5
0
42
14.8K
Plan C
Plan C@TheRealPlanC·
@jp_hig Logs stabilize variance. Differencing removes trends. Different tools. Log(Bitcoin price) still goes from -3 to 11 over its history. That's not stationary.
English
0
0
1
32
jp
jp@jp_hig·
@TheRealPlanC I dunno man. When I studied stats at college they taught that for non-stationary time series either model the differences/deltas or keep taking deltas of deltas till you get a stationary series, or for similar effect modelling try moderating functions like logs of the series.
English
2
0
1
27
Plan C
Plan C@TheRealPlanC·
🚨 Very Important: Bitcoin Modeling The original Bitcoin power law was fit with OLS regression. It was invalid from day one. OLS cannot produce valid results on data with Bitcoin's characteristics: • Non-stationary • Autocorrelated • Right-skewed • Fat-tailed It was not until I introduced the idea of using quantile regression to the Bitcoin power law that we had a statistically valid regression for Bitcoin's unique Time-series dataset. This is not a matter of preference. OLS requires four assumptions to produce valid results: constant variance, independent errors, normally distributed residuals, and no outlier dominance. Bitcoin violates all four. Simultaneously. Always. Bitcoin is a non-stationary time series. Constant variance. OLS assumes the spread of residuals is the same everywhere. Bitcoin's volatility has declined by an order of magnitude. In 2011, price could move 100x in months. In 2024, a 3x move is a major cycle. OLS cannot tell the difference. It treats both eras as if they have the same uncertainty. Independent errors. OLS assumes each observation is an independent draw. Bitcoin prices are serially correlated. Today's price is highly predictive of tomorrow's. OLS dramatically underestimates the true standard errors. The confidence intervals it reports are far too narrow. They look precise. They are not. Normal residuals. OLS is the maximum likelihood estimator only if the errors are Gaussian. Bitcoin's residuals are not Gaussian. They are right-skewed because bull market overshoots are larger than bear market drawdowns. They are fat-tailed because extreme moves happen far more often than a normal distribution predicts. These are two separate problems. Skew means the distribution is asymmetric. Fat tails mean extremes are too frequent. Bitcoin has both. No outlier dominance. OLS minimizes squared errors. A data point 5 times away from the line has 25 times the pull. Bitcoin's bubble peaks are exactly this kind of extreme observation. A handful of bubble tops move the entire fitted line more than thousands of normal observations. The mean gets dragged toward the bubbles. The fit represents the outliers, not the data. Bitcoin does not partially violate these assumptions. It violates all four, all the time, across the entire dataset. There is no subset of Bitcoin data where OLS assumptions hold. The confidence intervals are wrong. The standard errors are wrong. The point estimate itself, the mean, is a misleading summary of a skewed distribution. The left chart shows OLS fitting the mean. The right chart shows quantile regression fitting the median. Same data. The correct tool.
Plan C tweet media
English
36
4
68
39.1K
Plan C
Plan C@TheRealPlanC·
@PGreenaway81 These are important topics. But I get it, not everyone cares about them as much as I do. I'll get back to just posting the charts that incorporate these ideas soon without going into the weeds.
English
1
0
0
31
Plan C
Plan C@TheRealPlanC·
No one should ever use OLS regression on the Bitcoin time-series dataset. Unfortunately, this was the original and only regression used for a while, until I popularized switching to quantile regression.
Plan C@TheRealPlanC

🚨 Very Important: Bitcoin Modeling The original Bitcoin power law was fit with OLS regression. It was invalid from day one. OLS cannot produce valid results on data with Bitcoin's characteristics: • Non-stationary • Autocorrelated • Right-skewed • Fat-tailed It was not until I introduced the idea of using quantile regression to the Bitcoin power law that we had a statistically valid regression for Bitcoin's unique Time-series dataset. This is not a matter of preference. OLS requires four assumptions to produce valid results: constant variance, independent errors, normally distributed residuals, and no outlier dominance. Bitcoin violates all four. Simultaneously. Always. Bitcoin is a non-stationary time series. Constant variance. OLS assumes the spread of residuals is the same everywhere. Bitcoin's volatility has declined by an order of magnitude. In 2011, price could move 100x in months. In 2024, a 3x move is a major cycle. OLS cannot tell the difference. It treats both eras as if they have the same uncertainty. Independent errors. OLS assumes each observation is an independent draw. Bitcoin prices are serially correlated. Today's price is highly predictive of tomorrow's. OLS dramatically underestimates the true standard errors. The confidence intervals it reports are far too narrow. They look precise. They are not. Normal residuals. OLS is the maximum likelihood estimator only if the errors are Gaussian. Bitcoin's residuals are not Gaussian. They are right-skewed because bull market overshoots are larger than bear market drawdowns. They are fat-tailed because extreme moves happen far more often than a normal distribution predicts. These are two separate problems. Skew means the distribution is asymmetric. Fat tails mean extremes are too frequent. Bitcoin has both. No outlier dominance. OLS minimizes squared errors. A data point 5 times away from the line has 25 times the pull. Bitcoin's bubble peaks are exactly this kind of extreme observation. A handful of bubble tops move the entire fitted line more than thousands of normal observations. The mean gets dragged toward the bubbles. The fit represents the outliers, not the data. Bitcoin does not partially violate these assumptions. It violates all four, all the time, across the entire dataset. There is no subset of Bitcoin data where OLS assumptions hold. The confidence intervals are wrong. The standard errors are wrong. The point estimate itself, the mean, is a misleading summary of a skewed distribution. The left chart shows OLS fitting the mean. The right chart shows quantile regression fitting the median. Same data. The correct tool.

English
4
3
25
11.2K
Plan C
Plan C@TheRealPlanC·
@juggernaught15 @bramk Anonymity is at the core of Bitcoin's ethos. Would Satoshi show himself if he did a live stream?
English
1
0
0
16
Bram Kanstein
Bram Kanstein@bramk·
BFM240 w/ @TheRealPlanC is live! ⚡️ "There's zero logic behind the S2F model” 👀 We discuss: 🔸S2F failure 🔸Business cycle as price driver 🔸Self-fulfilling 4-year narrative 🔸Long-term hodlers vs supply myths 🔸The real Bitcoin price floor 🔸Fair value & hopium-free targets
English
6
5
41
35.8K
Plan C
Plan C@TheRealPlanC·
@uppaoptions I have been studying Bitcoin modeling and its dataset full-time for the last 6 years.
English
2
0
1
88
UppaBlueGuy
UppaBlueGuy@uppablueguy·
@TheRealPlanC What is your background to make you qualified to speak on these topics? No hate just curious
English
1
0
0
67
Plan C
Plan C@TheRealPlanC·
@bigmaclionking It's very hard to get blocked by me. I have thick skin.
English
0
0
3
91
Plan C
Plan C@TheRealPlanC·
@evan_doji You clearly have not been following my account, over the last few years. I actually do my own research. I don't put out half-baked models. I am always working in the background. I will be releasing the latest version soon.
English
0
0
0
32
Evan Doji
Evan Doji@evan_doji·
@TheRealPlanC So your whole persona is this way to graph bitcoin but you don't show it? Not sure that's worth a follow lol
English
2
0
2
52
10VT
10VT@10VT328215·
@TheRealPlanC Great interview- congrats on the new series of publications.
English
3
0
1
35
Plan C
Plan C@TheRealPlanC·
This interview was a ton of fun! Make sure you guys check it out; in one hour we covered a ton. I think this was one of the best interviews I have ever done. But you be the judge.
Bram Kanstein@bramk

BFM240 w/ @TheRealPlanC is live! ⚡️ "There's zero logic behind the S2F model” 👀 We discuss: 🔸S2F failure 🔸Business cycle as price driver 🔸Self-fulfilling 4-year narrative 🔸Long-term hodlers vs supply myths 🔸The real Bitcoin price floor 🔸Fair value & hopium-free targets

English
9
4
52
25.7K
Plan C
Plan C@TheRealPlanC·
@jp_hig Taking logs linearizes the relationship. It does not make the data stationary. Logs help with the functional form. They don't fix the statistical properties of a dataset.
English
1
0
0
106
jp
jp@jp_hig·
@TheRealPlanC Isn’t taking logs supposed to create stationary data
English
2
0
0
104
Plan C
Plan C@TheRealPlanC·
@BitcoinPowerLaw Working on it. I no longer use a power law from Genesis. The data doesn't support it.
English
1
0
1
313
mNAV.com
mNAV.com@BitcoinPowerLaw·
@TheRealPlanC Interesting hypothesis. Have you been able to build your quantiles off this base?
English
1
0
1
192
Plan C
Plan C@TheRealPlanC·
🚨 Bitcoin does NOT follow a Power Law... when you use Genesis as your start point. But it does, at two different dates. Check the table. The projections make a ton of sense. But the question is: where is the TRUE Bitcoin power law? The median (trend value) or the 1st quantile floor? My current working hypothesis is that it's the floor that contains the true power law. Cost of production follows a power law, which makes logical sense because hash rate growth also follows a power law. So the floor is where the power law lives, and all other quantiles decay towards it, with higher quantiles decaying faster.
Plan C tweet media
English
40
7
113
25K