Bitcoin's FIAT price this year will reach 5+ times the average production cost to mine a Bitcoin globally before the major correction phase begins. The ratio between the FIAT price and the production cost reveals to us that it is in fact Bitcoin's FIAT price that is inflated. This price inflation is due to the mania phase of the cycle and not that the dollar is collapsing. It could be argued that buying lots of dollars at that point when they're cheap would be advantageous, as when the correction occurs they could be used to acquire much more Bitcoin and help stabilize the price long term.

But if Bitcoin's FIAT price and average production cost both go up equally, then that is the indicator that it is the dollar collapsing and not Bitcoin being overpriced. If the price of both rise quickly, and at the same rate, it is highly likely that every asset is doing the same. HODL as hard as you can in this case because this is FIAT collapse.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Where can one see a live cost to mine metric?

The only site I know that reports this is this one: https://en.macromicro.me/charts/29435/bitcoin-production-total-cost

I'd love to hear if anyone knows of another site that reports the same data.

IMO, this metric becomes less and less important after every halving from here since we are now well ABOVE a stock to flow ratio of 100. Significantly higher than gold now. For the first time.

(It’s understandable that this ratio was VERY meaningful in the initial epochs as the StF was significantly lower)

I expect it to become completely irrelevant once we hit StF of 250 and 500 as we will in the coming cycles. At that point, the cost to mine new Bitcoin will be magnitudes less relevant to price than the supply and demand for EXISTING Bitcoin.

Love to hear the intelligent counter argument to this. 🙏🏻

What matters here is that the amount of energy input through mining continues to exponentially grow about 15% a year, while the amount of Bitcoin given in exchange exponentially decays when it gets cut in half every 4 years. These are 2 exponentials that combine to give an even larger exponential growth in real value represented by Bitcoin units.

The reason the cycle occurs is due to the fact that the bear market low is an oversold price, usually around half the average mining cost, about a year before the new halving. Over the next year the price recovers to around its average mining cost meaning the price in FIAT grew more than 100%. Then the halving occurs where the shift in value is reflected by a delayed, but quicker than average, rise in fiat price again of over 100% for the second year in a row.

Technically at that point (where we are today) the network is fairly priced and can sustain the 15% annual growth of the energy input, but the 2 previous years of massive growth draw above average attention which causes the price to rise further and FOMO develops. It then ends up over bought during the bull peak as people believe this momentum is different from previous cycles when it's really not, and then it crashes again and the cycle starts all over.

However, as new mining supply (of coins) continues to asymptotically approach zero, wouldn’t this metric be less and less important as a price determinant for the cyclical price of ALL coins?

No, due to fungibility and universal availability of the assets the price will always be around the cost to produce coins. Think about if you have something brand new that is highly desirable and doesn't have a high production volume, like a new in box PS5 during its launch year, you could easily sell it at the inflated price it costs to buy a new one because the one you offer is the same as the new ones produced.

The miners will always need to make a profit, the difficulty adjustment ensures it's not too easy or too difficult to do so for the average miners. Humanity will keep adding to the mining network, and the halving will keep occurring, which will continuously increase the cost to create coins and the value of all coins on the open market will follow.

Then how do you explain how value of said coins will be determined in the year 2141 and beyond after the last satoshi has been rewarded? 🤔

I foresee various things occuring:

Value becomes meaningless. Today energy prices are plummetting against Bitcoin and will continue to do so. Bitcoin's constant demand for energy will lead, over the next 50 - 100 years, to a world where energy is produced in such abundance that we can do anything we want for effectively no cost. If we can do / make / buy anything for effectively no cost thanks to this energy abundance, then if the network doesn't change mining may move to a "everything mines by default" model where everything that is able will mine Bitcoin in order to improve it's efficiency. This would make mining more passive instead of active, which will more easily transition to a world where there's no subsidy and ensure Bitcoin is sustainable even without subsidies or fees.

I see another possibility arising though, one where the code is amended to allow (perhaps regularly occurring) decimal shifts and perhaps even gradual block size limit increases. The latter is personal speculation, the former is something Satoshi himself said may happen: https://satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org/posts/bitcointalk/46/

Bitcoin was designed with the ability to do micro payments thanks to the fact that 8 decimal division was built in from the beginning. But micro payments will become more difficult if the network continues to rise in value without decimal shifts to allow further division. Imagine if there were a BIP within the next 7 years that ensured that the block reward never dropped below 1 "Bitcoin" because the entire network instead has a 0 added to it. A limit of 21,000,000 becomes a limit of 210,000,000. All wallets would show a balance that was 10x the previous balance, effectively performing a 10 to 1 split of the entire supply equally, while the real result is that divisibility of the block reward is immortalized as having 8 decimal points of division.

In a system where these decimal shifts occur automatically, whenever the block reward would otherwise drop below the decimal say every 2 - 3 halvings, it would mean the network would never stop providing a block subsidy and will continue to double in value against energy input via the mining network in perpetuity.

There would be no worry of lost coins as there will always be more division, effectively this regularity of division makes the total supply of money meaningless except for the fact that the fixed limit on supply growth means it will never be debased, and people could more intuitively understand that the value of their (and everyone else's) savings will grow at least 10x+ (my math actually says 20x+) a decade if they just save more.

The majority of wealth in Bitcoin will never be spent. The majority of wealth will always be saved for the future. Humanity will learn to live more frugally and spend more time with each other and follow more meaningful pursuits than we do now. The world will be a better place for everyone globally.

My 2 cents (and gut) is that we are genetically evolving into the next species of humanity. 🧬

Away from scarcity and into abundance.

Blends well with a lot of your intuition as well, it seems. 🙏🏻😌

Can't seem to zap you for some reason.

Or even far earlier, say 2105 when all but the last whole Bitcoin has been rewarded. You’re saying that the cost to mine that last Bitcoin over a 35yr period will be the sole determinant of price as opposed to the supply/demand characteristics of the other 20,999,999 Bitcoin already in existence?

Seems more likely to me that in the next 3-5 cycles, volatility will dampen (slowly) as over 99.5 percent of coins will have been rewarded by then and instead of thinking in fiat we will be living in a global circular Bitcoin economy.

Another wrinkle is that (IMO) hash is likely to almost infinitely decentralised across the planet in these next 3-5 cycles as the only viable miners will be those with access to marginally free electricity. Large scale mining will be an artefact of the “early days”. Can already see this happening now as the large public miners are shifting towards being Bitcoin Treasury businesses.

Just a thought…..still working it out in my own coco 🥥 🧠

Appreciate the discourse. 🖖🍻

It is my understanding that Bitcoin's are, and always will be, a free market good. As with all free market goods cost of production cannot be higher than the expected return on the investment necessary to make the good or production wouldn't happen. On the other side cost of production cannot be much lower than open market prices they would expect to receive for them or people will focus on making more Bitcoin through mining, raising the hashrate which raises the difficulty and thus the cost of mining until they reach equilibrium again. This is ensured to occur thanks to the difficulty adjustment, as the difficulty increases with the hashrate then only the most efficient miners will remain profitable and stay mining. Less efficient ones either die off or are forced to increase their efficiency to stay profitable.

Remember that there is no other buyer of excess energy, we will create abundant excess energy and as the value of the coins rises our drive to mine will rise with it. The halving regularly reduces the payment for that effort and increases the value of all coins compared to electricity.

Think about it like this, 1 Bitcoin costs roughly 3 minutes worth of all the energy of the entire network to create today. The amount of energy input is going up and so does the total value held by that energy. In 8 years of 15% annual growth the total amount of energy will likely be 3x what it is today, and the amount of Bitcoin given in exchange will reduce to only 0.78125 (7.8125 BTC at that point if the 10 to 1 split I am suggesting occurs across the entire network). That means that 1 Bitcoin would represent about 12.5 minutes of the total energy input of the network. If you held 1 Bitcoin from today, you would see it grow from being worth 3 minutes of the energy given to today's network, to 12.5 minutes of the energy input by a network 3 times the size it is today. That's 12+ times the value.

These effects are self reinforcing. I don't see anyway for them to be stopped, and it brings abundance to everyone faster than anyone expects.

Is the 15 percent annual growth a hard ceiling in your opinion? Why couldn’t it be 25 percent? Or higher?

That's just my extrapolating the same rate of growth the network saw over the last 6 years. It very well could grow faster than that, or it could slow down, but only time will tell.