Ender

A brand new account, but I'm not new to this platform. Hello everyone! I'm trying to learn and understand as I build a life worth living. The world is a chaotic but beautiful place. It's changing faster than ever. Or at least, it seems that way. A calm mind is essential in these times. It's easy to overthink and stress about things with all the access to information we have today. However, I believe there is a way to scan the world for signals that occasionally flare up between all the noise without going crazy. I'm trying to look for these signals. And if I find some, I'd like to share the signals with you and you're very welcome to come and join my journey! Looking forward to enjoy each others thoughts and company! 🤝

@MooreDividends Das ist normal und geht auch nicht weg

Ich werde irgendwie das Gefühl nicht los, dass ich mehr Bitcoin im Portfolio brauche.

@FinFreedom414 And, if their goal is to increase BTC/share (which it is), and they actually achieve this long-term, the price should be even higher

$MSTR is currently at $182. ATH was $543. Here's why the math points at the share price being much higher. Strategy currently owns 818,334 $BTC. Take that figure and divide it by 346 million diluted shares. That's 0.00236 $BTC per share. The Power Law says $BTC fair value is $132K today. The model that's been right for 16 years with an R² of 0.961. At $132K $BTC and a 1.5x NAV multiple — conservative for a bull market — $MSTR is worth ~$468 a share. At $200K $BTC, you're looking at $750. Current price: $182. Average analyst target: $373. High target: $705.

@saylor Every day

How often would you prefer to be paid dividends?

"Gravity only affects things with mass." Light has no mass, it still obeys gravity how?

@stevenmarkryan watching this for the 1st time comes pretty close :D x.com/LaurelCoons/st…

Name a single thing more awesome than this:

@plainionist Yes, because AI does not (yet) produce clean code. You still need to guide it (or have good processes in place that enforce guidance)

Serious question: Do you still recommend Clean Code to junior developers? 🤔

@realBigBrainAI It still works in small and limited cases because the hubris is to believe the human doing the thing before could do it without errors a 100% of the time

Meta's Chief AI Scientist Yann LeCun: building agentic systems on LLMs is a recipe for disaster.

This absolutely resonates with my thinking but I keep flip-flopping between omega-candles and power law, because I believe there will always be people willing to sell at a lower price „because it’s good enough for them“. So, yes, supply is finite. But supply might come back „online“ because people are willing to sell for lower?

🎙️The Honorable @Excellion explains why the Bitcoin 4-year cycle is over.

@ryQuant @Strategy @LamboStrategy simplicity always works 😂👌

$mstr

😂😂😂

@ryQuant So, the slightly updated picture should somewhat look like this. (although, I didn't change equities to be absorbed by $STRC as well) h/t @Croesus_BTC

Almost all of it $STRC People are thrilled to compound at 10% with no vol. RE as an investment rental: Tenant risk, Vacancy risk, Physical domain risk, Maintenance costs, Termites/Storms etc. Bonds: Loser to inflation, illiquid, opaque, nobody understands them in explicit & transparent terms Equities: "The S&P goes up 8-10% a year." We've all heard it a million times. STRC is a slightly better return but the real magic is the little-to-no Vol, that is the magic ingredient. Money Markets & CDs: is anything in life more boring than a money market or a CD? Even municipal bonds are more interesting.

The 400-500T point is wrong. Look at where the 400-500T is parked today. Real estate, bonds, equities in that order. All of them produce a yield. RE is highest imo because of the no vol. (No m2m) The 400-500T wants low-to-no vol and a decent yield. $STRC

@Giovann35084111 Playing around with Bitcoin, fractals, power law and @grok :D Bitcoin is tied to the physical world via proof-of-work. There are layers, a growing user base on each layer,... Zoom in or out and one can even see the similarities and comparisons to examples in nature.

The deep connection is that both are expressions of scale invariance, they're the same idea written in different mathematical languages. Power laws describe scale invariance as a function; fractals embody it as a shape. Here's the precise sense in which power laws are scale invariance. A function f(x) = cx^α has the property that rescaling the input by any factor λ just rescales the output by a constant: f(λx) = λ^α f(x). The shape of the function doesn't change , there's no "characteristic scale" where it looks different. In fact, this is essentially the only kind of function with that property. If you demand that zooming in or out leave a function's form unchanged (up to a multiplicative factor), you're forced into a power law. That's why power laws are called "scale-free" distributions, and why they show up as straight lines on log-log plots: the slope is the exponent, and a straight line looks the same wherever you zoom in on it. Fractals are the geometric version of the same property. A fractal looks (exactly or statistically) like itself at different magnifications, the Koch snowflake, a coastline, a turbulent flow, a tree's branching structure. There's no natural "best" scale to view it at, just as there's no natural scale in a power law. The two notions meet most explicitly in the definition of fractal dimension. If you cover a fractal with boxes of size ε, the number of boxes needed scales as N(ε) ∝ ε^(-D), where D is the fractal (Hausdorff or box-counting) dimension. That equation is a power law, and D is its exponent. So the quantity that characterizes a fractal, its dimension, is literally defined as the exponent of a power law. Mandelbrot's famous question "How long is the coast of Britain?" has no fixed answer precisely because measured length scales as a power of ruler size, with an exponent reflecting the coastline's fractal dimension. This is why the two tend to appear together in nature. Earthquake magnitudes, city populations (Zipf's law), word frequencies, financial return distributions, and avalanche sizes in sandpile models all follow power laws,and the underlying systems generating them typically have fractal structure in space, time, or both. Critical phenomena are the cleanest example: at a phase transition, correlations decay as a power law (no characteristic length), and the spatial pattern of fluctuations is a fractal. The two are different fingerprints of the same underlying fact: the system has organized itself in a way that doesn't pick out any particular scale.

@BitPaine Time to pump

Saylor quietly checkmated everyone. This isn’t priced in to $MSTR.

@Schuldensuehner Add Bitcoin mining. Every time there’s too much, start up some/all miners to consume energy. Once it recovers, turn off some/all miners. There’s even a company in Germany that can help @terahash_space

Good Morning from Germany, where electricity prices are now regularly falling below zero around midday. On May 1, they even dropped to the floor at -49.999 cents per kilowatt hour. The reason is simple: we are generating more solar power than we can use or store. As a result, Germany has to cover the gap between these negative market prices and the guaranteed feed-in tariffs paid to producers—an expensive outcome. These prices are a clear indication of the utterly disastrous energy transition.

@SuperBitcoinBro One thing that comes to mind: if the power law is correct and holds up, it might happen at some point that we‘ll see a lower low after 70 days (at least at some time in the future because power law is log-log, hence, also timeframes expands?)

Nobody is talking about the elephant in the room. Bounce duration. Bitcoin has never made a lower low after a bounce lasted more than 70 days, as measured from low to high.

@PiusSprenger Perhaps Saylor might understand the differences but can’t say it (at least today) because he tries to market and sell a product to an audience that wouldn’t really grasp or care about the differences? It’s exactly that jargon that sells in the short term?

Saylor’s “Bitcoin is exponential with a decreasing rate of change“ sounds like fluffy, made-up jargon to me.

@JAN3com @Excellion „A failure to understand proof of work is a failure to understand Bitcoin“ - Gigi Very nice video!

Bitcoin is Energy Money.

@terronk „A failure to understand proof of work is a failure to understand Bitcoin“ - Gigi

Someone should come up with an exchange rate between these two currencies.