1. It is absolutely impossible to know or calculate how much money it takes for btc or any other asset to grow from x to y. No one knows what orberbooks will look like and how deep they will be, neither sell nor buy side pressure. Theoretically it can grow 100x for a hundred dollars or 0.01x for millions of dollars. It depends on supply and demand, turnover and orderbooks. If anyone has the tools and knowledge to make an educated guess, it's certainly not us.
2. A comparison of the amount of money that was needed to bring the btc to say 1000, and now possibly to 100,000, ie. the claim that the latter requires a much larger amount of money than the former should be put in the context that a bunch of degna on mt gox and a couple of korean mobsters brought to 1000 or 20,000 btc, dake btc was a new obscure and uninteresting big money.
Now we are talking in mstr and square companies that have a bigger MC than bitcoin, we are talking in pension funds, sovereign funds, fidelity userbase, paypal userbase, maybe even apple, gold and bonds investors and who knows who else. I'm not saying that they will invest or that they have to, but it is possible, and if we go to 100, then they will.
So as much as it is true that up to 100k takes a lot more money than that 20k, it is even more true that the amount of money that was in play up to 20k is practically insignificant with the amount of money that can be in play up to 100k.
3. Although futures trading is a zero sum game, bitcoin investing is not.
(I'm not one hundred percent sure of this but I don't think so)
So, one does not have to lose 100k for every btc holder for the btc bit to be at 100K.
Value can be created.
take for example uni airdrop. Who lost that money?
ETH ico?
When it was bought for 10c and first started selling at 10 usd.
Who lost that money these people got?
Bob buys btc at 2k.
At 100 k it sells alice.
Bob earned 98K.
Alice lost nothing. She had 100 bought a btc and now she has 100.
All that money for American pensions that have been coming for years from the growth of sp500 dow and nasdaq etf.
Thus neither investment nor the economy works today. Moreover, I don’t think it could literally work that way. If someone had to lose all that money the thing wouldn't hold water.
2. A comparison of the amount of money that was needed to bring the btc to say 1000, and now possibly to 100,000, ie. the claim that the latter requires a much larger amount of money than the former should be put in the context that a bunch of degna on mt gox and a couple of korean mobsters brought to 1000 or 20,000 btc, dake btc was a new obscure and uninteresting big money.
Now we are talking in mstr and square companies that have a bigger MC than bitcoin, we are talking in pension funds, sovereign funds, fidelity userbase, paypal userbase, maybe even apple, gold and bonds investors and who knows who else. I'm not saying that they will invest or that they have to, but it is possible, and if we go to 100, then they will.
So as much as it is true that up to 100k takes a lot more money than that 20k, it is even more true that the amount of money that was in play up to 20k is practically insignificant with the amount of money that can be in play up to 100k.
3. Although futures trading is a zero sum game, bitcoin investing is not.
(I'm not one hundred percent sure of this but I don't think so)
So, one does not have to lose 100k for every btc holder for the btc bit to be at 100K.
Value can be created.
take for example uni airdrop. Who lost that money?
ETH ico?
When it was bought for 10c and first started selling at 10 usd.
Who lost that money these people got?
Bob buys btc at 2k.
At 100 k it sells alice.
Bob earned 98K.
Alice lost nothing. She had 100 bought a btc and now she has 100.
All that money for American pensions that have been coming for years from the growth of sp500 dow and nasdaq etf.
Thus neither investment nor the economy works today. Moreover, I don’t think it could literally work that way. If someone had to lose all that money the thing wouldn't hold water.