resistancemoney on Nostr: Common argument: 1. Halvings introduce no new information about supply. 2. If so, ...
Common argument:
1. Halvings introduce no new information about supply.
2. If so, halvings cannot influence price.
3. Therefore, halvings cannot influence price (1 and 2).
I think halvings are priced in, but reject both premises.
Against 1: halvings can introduce new information about supply. They show, with certainty, what was before only expected to some high degree -- that new supply coming to market will soon dramatically click downward.
Against 2: halvings can also introduce new information, not about supply, but about demand. What if you discover, time and again, that people quite stupidly respond to halvings by buying? The first few times, that's new information! And when it stops, that's new information too!
Why do I think halvings are still priced in? Because they're *now* priced in. These effects are known, and known to be known, and negligible after the first few halvings.
1. Halvings introduce no new information about supply.
2. If so, halvings cannot influence price.
3. Therefore, halvings cannot influence price (1 and 2).
I think halvings are priced in, but reject both premises.
Against 1: halvings can introduce new information about supply. They show, with certainty, what was before only expected to some high degree -- that new supply coming to market will soon dramatically click downward.
Against 2: halvings can also introduce new information, not about supply, but about demand. What if you discover, time and again, that people quite stupidly respond to halvings by buying? The first few times, that's new information! And when it stops, that's new information too!
Why do I think halvings are still priced in? Because they're *now* priced in. These effects are known, and known to be known, and negligible after the first few halvings.