But does waiting actually lead to a lower price over time? What is wrong with this assumption?
That isn't my assumption. My point is that we won't see the Fomo to EOY that others are clamoring for.
Inbound fee adoption in the Lightning Network continues to progress:
In the last 7 days, 98.6% of the volume and 99.4% of the number of forwards that went through my node used inbound fees.
Prediction: Bitcoin as an institutional asset will prevent yields on long-term government bonds from falling sharply in the coming years, in contrast to yields on short-term government bonds.
The valuation in BTC simply makes no sense for me. They would have to raise a lot more debt capital and BTC would have to rise massively to reach the valuation level in BTC.
And that is the reason why it currently makes no sense to buy MSTR. Spot BTC is much safer. It is quite possible that MSTR will stop rising in fiat at some point, while BTC catches up.
For me, there is currently too much fantasy in the MSTR price about future levarage transactions.
I think the price increase will bring back a few marginal cost miners. I'm curious to see how much is still dormant. We'll see once the price explodes.
I think last week a hedge fund had to close its MSTR-BTC spread trade, which led to a short squeeze in MSTR and a long squeeze in BTC.
If the MSTR premium now tightens again as spot demand increases, that would be incredibly bullish.
That would makes sense. Spread trades with Short MSTR and Long BTC which are squeezed now. Would also explain the sell preasure at the BTC Price at the moment.
I see an interesting game theory emerging if we ever have negative fees in the Lightning Network. What could happen: On larger channels, it already makes sense to charge higher outbound fees than on smaller ones, as larger HTLCs command a certain premium. However, inbound discounts will likely be smaller on larger channels, or the (negative) inbound fee rates higher, meaning a node with a large channel will tend to achieve a larger margin. For smaller payments, there's automatically an incentive to use smaller channels, particularly on the inbound side. This also means that liquidity in smaller channels can be more effectively managed through fee rates in the case of negative fees. Larger channels, on the other hand, will need to be actively rebalanced.
Hello,
my name is Feelancer and my mission is a better automatic fee control for routing nodes.
This year I built a PID controller that adjusts the outbound and inbound fee rates according to the channel depletion. It uses the current status and moving averages. However, the tool is still pretty nerdy and difficult to configure for the normie user.
The next milestone is the automation of the parameterization based on profit and loss figures of the channels. The basic idea is to understand forwards and rebalancing as a liquidity trade, i.e. liquidity is bought at certain funding costs and then sold with margin plus funding costs. Ideally, the funding costs should be identical between buying and selling, but as with share trading, a price effect is realized.
The aim is to optimize the margin together with the adjustment speed of the PID controller in such a way that a routing node has a stable return with limited risk. The approach with negative forward fees would be particularly interesting.
However, there is still a long way to go until then, as this is only a hobby project so far.
https://github.com/feelancer21/feelancer
Oddbean new post about login | logout
Notes by Feelancer21 | export