bitcoin was not an established financial asset till arguably 2021, and between 2009 and 2017 very few knew about its existence other than having heard about it a couple of times as a weird internet experiment. therefore giving full weight to those years does not seem a sensible assumption
beside earlier uses as jewelry gold was already widely used in trade in the most advanced civilizations (mesopotamia, india and egypt) from the 3rd millenium BCE
It’s interesting because while “recent years carry more informational weight” as you say, the the capacity for people to keep that information top of mind has not scaled proportionally to the massive increase in information quantity. So it might be a case of lindy+ or boosted lindyness of something can manage to stay on top in a world of tiktok lifespans
This argument is very interesting to me, but I think if you’re waiting by conscious experience of bitcoin/gold, you should multiply by something like what fraction of people have interacted with it. I wouldn’t be surprised if half the world’s population has never heard of bitcoin, but I suspect almost everyone knows what gold is.
Thiccy what a change, you recently said you were more bullish ethereum than btc HTF. Applying this same metric to ETH would make it actually less attractive.
Interesting framework with the attention-weighted Lindy effect, but I think there’s a fundamental mismatch between your valuation method and Bitcoin’s actual utility that deserves scrutiny.
Your life-years metric is clever: 130 billion life-years for Bitcoin vs 1.3 trillion for gold, yielding that neat 10% ratio that matches current market caps. But this feels like reverse-engineering an explanation for a price that already exists rather than discovering Bitcoin’s intrinsic value.
Here’s what bothers me: you’re using gold as the comparison anchor when Bitcoin’s original and most compelling use case was facilitating pseudonymous transactions, particularly for illicit goods. The global cocaine market alone is $110-130 billion annually. If we assume even 10% of drug transactions migrated to dark web Bitcoin usage, that’s $11-13 billion in genuine economic utility: actual problem-solving, not just store-of-value hopium.
But Bitcoin is valued at $2.1 trillion while potentially serving only a fraction of one illegal drug market. This suggests either the market is pricing in massive future transaction volume that dwarfs current drug markets, or the “store of value” narrative is a post-hoc rationalization disconnected from actual utility.
The uncomfortable truth: Bitcoin solved a real coordination problem for illegal transactions, but it’s now primarily held by institutions as “digital gold” that most never use transactionally. Your attention-weighted Lindy effect actually supports this interpretation—Bitcoin’s value derives from sustained collective belief rather than fundamental utility.
If Bitcoin’s core value (or at least use case) proposition was solving payment friction for illegal markets, shouldn’t it be valued like a payment processor (based on transaction volume and fees) rather than like a commodity (based on scarcity and holding demand)?
The gold comparison feels like intellectual cover for what might be the most successful example of reflexive value in financial history, where belief in Bitcoin’s value becomes the primary source of its value, completely divorced from its original utility.
What’s your framework for distinguishing between genuine Lindy effects based on utility versus collective delusion that’s achieved sufficient scale and institutional backing?
Your article is great, but gold has a use, and bitcoin does not. It has remained a speculative asset throughout its life. And all the promises -that we will soon pay with bitcoins- remained a myth. And you can make a lot of things from gold.
The use case for Bitcoin is very simple - no traditional asset lets you transfer value worldwide in minutes, any time of day, with zero dependence on banks or brokers. You can’t do that with fiat, and you definitely can’t do it with gold. I think you massively underestimate just how technologically revolutionary BTC is.
What are you going to buy in a remote African village also thats a stupid argument because in a remote African village you u can buy stuff with cows that doesn’t make it a currency
bitcoin was not an established financial asset till arguably 2021, and between 2009 and 2017 very few knew about its existence other than having heard about it a couple of times as a weird internet experiment. therefore giving full weight to those years does not seem a sensible assumption
fair but when do you think we should start the gold clock then?
https://chatgpt.com/share/682cdcae-1dec-8013-b901-47f545886f85
beside earlier uses as jewelry gold was already widely used in trade in the most advanced civilizations (mesopotamia, india and egypt) from the 3rd millenium BCE
It’s interesting because while “recent years carry more informational weight” as you say, the the capacity for people to keep that information top of mind has not scaled proportionally to the massive increase in information quantity. So it might be a case of lindy+ or boosted lindyness of something can manage to stay on top in a world of tiktok lifespans
This argument is very interesting to me, but I think if you’re waiting by conscious experience of bitcoin/gold, you should multiply by something like what fraction of people have interacted with it. I wouldn’t be surprised if half the world’s population has never heard of bitcoin, but I suspect almost everyone knows what gold is.
i think most if not all people alive today have heard of bitcoin
Thiccy what a change, you recently said you were more bullish ethereum than btc HTF. Applying this same metric to ETH would make it actually less attractive.
Im trading and making much better profits than holding.
Who can bear a -80% bear market?
Interesting framework with the attention-weighted Lindy effect, but I think there’s a fundamental mismatch between your valuation method and Bitcoin’s actual utility that deserves scrutiny.
Your life-years metric is clever: 130 billion life-years for Bitcoin vs 1.3 trillion for gold, yielding that neat 10% ratio that matches current market caps. But this feels like reverse-engineering an explanation for a price that already exists rather than discovering Bitcoin’s intrinsic value.
Here’s what bothers me: you’re using gold as the comparison anchor when Bitcoin’s original and most compelling use case was facilitating pseudonymous transactions, particularly for illicit goods. The global cocaine market alone is $110-130 billion annually. If we assume even 10% of drug transactions migrated to dark web Bitcoin usage, that’s $11-13 billion in genuine economic utility: actual problem-solving, not just store-of-value hopium.
But Bitcoin is valued at $2.1 trillion while potentially serving only a fraction of one illegal drug market. This suggests either the market is pricing in massive future transaction volume that dwarfs current drug markets, or the “store of value” narrative is a post-hoc rationalization disconnected from actual utility.
The uncomfortable truth: Bitcoin solved a real coordination problem for illegal transactions, but it’s now primarily held by institutions as “digital gold” that most never use transactionally. Your attention-weighted Lindy effect actually supports this interpretation—Bitcoin’s value derives from sustained collective belief rather than fundamental utility.
If Bitcoin’s core value (or at least use case) proposition was solving payment friction for illegal markets, shouldn’t it be valued like a payment processor (based on transaction volume and fees) rather than like a commodity (based on scarcity and holding demand)?
The gold comparison feels like intellectual cover for what might be the most successful example of reflexive value in financial history, where belief in Bitcoin’s value becomes the primary source of its value, completely divorced from its original utility.
What’s your framework for distinguishing between genuine Lindy effects based on utility versus collective delusion that’s achieved sufficient scale and institutional backing?
Seems like a similar model to Metcafe’s or Power law theory
https://giovannisantostasi.medium.com/the-bitcoin-power-law-theory-962dfaf99ee9
Interesting application of your previous post's 'event-based time.'
However, this one-dimensional price analysis implies Bitcoin would never be able to flip gold, which should at least be considered a possibility.
Your article is great, but gold has a use, and bitcoin does not. It has remained a speculative asset throughout its life. And all the promises -that we will soon pay with bitcoins- remained a myth. And you can make a lot of things from gold.
The use case for Bitcoin is very simple - no traditional asset lets you transfer value worldwide in minutes, any time of day, with zero dependence on banks or brokers. You can’t do that with fiat, and you definitely can’t do it with gold. I think you massively underestimate just how technologically revolutionary BTC is.
You can pay with bitcoin the same way you can pay with gold
No, it's not true, everyone who loves bitcoin wants to believe it. You can pay with gold even in a remote village in the far north or in Africa.
Everyone knows gold, you can use either bars, or coins or gold products (jewelry).
You can pay with bitcoin in several organizations around the world.
What are you going to buy in a remote African village also thats a stupid argument because in a remote African village you u can buy stuff with cows that doesn’t make it a currency
Thank for your share!