Fundos de Investimento ( Mutual Funds - SICAV )

[Pequeno_Aprendiz 47]

há 1 hora, D@vid disse:

Segundo o xray do BB a 31 de Janeiro tinha 70% acções ( onde inclui o fundo que tenho de acções mineiras, que estou a pensar seriamente trocar por um ETF de ouro para ter uma replicação mais em consonância com o que pretendo ), o resto é obrigações e Real Estate.

Eu em Fevereiro estou com +7,03 com 80% ações, 10%obrigações, 5% Real Estate e 5% Cash. Para já 0% ouro, mas estou a espera que a carteira cresça mais 20% para entrar com 5% em ETF GOLD.

[Patanisca 1223]

há 4 horas, D@vid disse:

*P.S. Coloquei um foguetão

Bitcoin?

[investidor 33]

há 2 horas, Virtua disse:

Deixa a seta do rato/seta em cima do avatar e vão aparecer opções. Enviar mensagem pessoal // Ignorar user etc etc

Independentemente disso aparece sempre que é bloqueado aparece uma mensagem (pequena) a dizer que o user XXX está bloqueado. Se usares algo tipo ad blocker bloqueia completamente essa (pequena) mensagem. (uso o ublock origin como ad blocker)

Excelente. Segui as instruções e foi fácil.

Pronto está feito. Há pessoas que não vale apena perder o nosso tempo com elas, pois tempo é dinheir, logo essa gente faz-nos perder dinheiro.

[-------- 2582]

há 33 minutos, JM_ disse:

Também enviam excel só com as compras? Não fiz resgates em 2020. Na caixa de mensagens só tenho um PDF com as compras. Era útil enviarem em formato excel.

O Excel é apenas para auxílio no preenchimento da declaração do IRS, e tenho a ideia que só enviam quando existem resgates no ano transacto, uma vez que é enviado todos os anos declaração com os movimentos mobiliários, mas como existem resgates por vezes anos depois, o banco envia esse Excel para auxílio onde vai buscar as datas de compra, por isso se em 2020 não tiveste resgates penso que não te vão enviar nenhum excel, só a declaração de movimentos mobiliários de compra.

há 1 hora, pge disse:

 

Pq é que não entras na China?

Não é nada contra, mas também isto não dá para tudo 😁, mas se entrasse em algo do genero talvez fosse para algum mais de Ásia global ou ASEAN, no entanto considero a Grande China um possível ganhador em 2021.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[JM_ 33]

Que % das vossas poupanças têm alocadas a FIs? Estou com 51,5%, mas a pensar começar a migrar algum para ETFs.

[Bedrock 137]

há 12 horas, investidor disse:

Excelente. Segui as instruções e foi fácil.

Pronto está feito. Há pessoas que não vale apena perder o nosso tempo com elas, pois tempo é dinheir, logo essa gente faz-nos perder dinheiro.

Vamos ao teste do bloqueio.

Faz massagens no ego do @Virtuaque ele em pouco tempo vai te tornar multimilionário, e aí resolves o duplo problema que pareces ter: falta de tempo e de dinheiro.

Depois com o acumular da tua riqueza e com o ego do Virtua, espelhado no teu sucesso, já podes investir mais na perda de tempo e em vires explicar aqui ao pessoal a tua estratégia de investimento e apresentares o livro que vais escrever sobre o teu sucesso e que desde já te recomendo o seguinte título: Como enriquecer depressa num jogo potencialmente perdedor de curto prazo e ganhador de longo prazo.

 

Editado 12 de Fevereiro de 2021 por Bedrock

[rui_marreiros 380]

há 2 horas, JM_ disse:

Que % das vossas poupanças têm alocadas a FIs? Estou com 51,5%, mas a pensar começar a migrar algum para ETFs.

Eu tenho a mesma coisa, mas penso continuar a reforçar os FI.

Os ETFs só utilizo para investir num nicho de mercado que não é coberto pelos FI.

Utilizo as ações para adquirir empresas que estão desvalorizadas e que espero ter um grande retorno a longo prazo.

[Vidolz 295]

há 2 horas, JM_ disse:

Que % das vossas poupanças têm alocadas a FIs? Estou com 51,5%, mas a pensar começar a migrar algum para ETFs.

0  

[5coroas 1402]

há 15 horas, D@vid disse:

Eu dava-lhe um tiro, até porque tal como dizes, temos a liberdade de fazer o que quisermos...

 

Eu nunca disse que temos liberdade para fazermos o que quisermos (se fosse assim porque é que eu criticaria tanto o Estado por ter este a liberdade de nos cobrar impostos coercivamente?); nem 8 nem 80, ou seja é muito diferente a ofensa verbal da ofensa física (da qual a propriedade faz parte integrante) pois esta pode colocar em causa a nossa integridade fisica/vida. Os limites à nossa liberdade fixo-os no respeito pelo corpo/propriedade do outro.

Repara que há uns séculos atrás as injurias verbais, nas classes superiores, podiam dar origem à reparação do agravo através do duelo, felizmente com o passar do tempo, com a chegada do vulgo ao Poder, a defesa da honra perante os outros perdeu valor, deixando assim as ofensas verbais de serem consideradas tão gravosas como eram no passado, e quanto a mim ainda deveriam ser menos gravosas, até que um dia as pessoas deixassem de ofender verbalmente os outros porque já ninguém se sentiria ofendido.

[5coroas 1402]

há 16 horas, D@vid disse:

 

O problema é que continuamos a rodearmos de utopias, libertanismo, liberalismo, comunismo, socialismo, fascismo, nazismo, cristianismo, islamismo, etc etc...tudo utopias, já dizia o outro, tudo o que acaba em ismo...🙄

 

Temos de viver numa matrix socio-economico-politica qualquer, fora da matrix apenas resta a animalidade pura e dura...convém é que seja um ismo, que permita a máxima liberdade individual equilibrada com boas regras de convivência colectiva pacifica. Por alguns ismos serem autenticas catástrofes, não significa que todas as formas de organização sejam más. Embora não goste de alguns dos ismos que referiste, eu não me oponho a que os mesmos sejam seguidos pelas pessoas MAS com a condição que não sejam impostos pela força...só que a maioria deles não prescinde do uso da força para se impor perante o maior numero de pessoas. Esse é o principal problema: utopias obrigatórias.

 O libertanismo (não o de esquerda) ou o objectivismo pelo contrário são simplesmente assentes no principio que devemos respeitar o corpo do outro, deixando muita margem de manobra para os indivíduos voluntariamente e livremente tecerem o tipo de relacionamento que querem ter uns com os outros. 

há 15 horas, D@vid disse:

Mais nada, cá agora politiquices que moldam o cérebro das pessoas 😁

 

Não acredito que o teu cérebro esteja completamente desprovido de ideias politicas...ou és a reencarnação de algum buda?!?

Editado 12 de Fevereiro de 2021 por 5coroas

[-------- 2582]

há 11 horas, JM_ disse:

Que % das vossas poupanças têm alocadas a FIs? Estou com 51,5%, mas a pensar começar a migrar algum para ETFs.

100%, só admito ETFs em algo muito especifico que não tenha a replicação que pretendo e não esteja disponível em fundos como o Ouro, de resto não me faz sentido ter fundos de acções EUA e depois ir fazer um ETF S&P 500 por exemplo.

[-------- 2582]

há 14 minutos, 5coroas disse:

Temos viver numa matrix socio-economico-politico qualquer, fora da matrix apenas resta a animalidade pura e dura...convém é que seja um ismo, que permita a máxima liberdade individual equilibrada com boas regras de convivência colectiva pacifica. Por alguns ismos serem autenticas catástrofes, não significa que todas as formas de organização sejam más. Embora não goste de alguns dos ismos que referiste, eu não me oponho a que os mesmos sejam seguidos pelas pessoas MAS com a condição que não sejam impostos pela força...só que a maioria deles não prescinde do uso da força para se impor perante o maior numero de pessoas. Esse é o principal problema: utopias obrigatórias.

 O libertanismo (não o de esquerda) ou o objectivismo pelo contrário são simplesmente assentes no principio que devemos respeitar o corpo do outro, deixando muita margem de manobra para os indivíduos voluntariamente e livremente tecerem o tipo de relacionamento que querem ter uns com os outros. 

Não acredito que o teu cérebro esteja completamente desprovido de ideias politicas...ou és a reencarnação de algum buda?!?

Ateu e apartidário, tanto vejo boas ideias na esquerda como na direita, assim como más ideias, nos extremos não vejo nada.

[Bedrock 137]

há 9 horas, rui_marreiros disse:

Eu tenho a mesma coisa, mas penso continuar a reforçar os FI.

Os ETFs só utilizo para investir num nicho de mercado que não é coberto pelos FI.

Utilizo as ações para adquirir empresas que estão desvalorizadas e que espero ter um grande retorno a longo prazo.

Eu só acrescentaria e reforçava um pormenor: no mercado acionista dos EUA há mais oferta quantitativa e qualitativa de ETFs do que de FIs, sendo que em subsetores e subtemáticas muito específicas existem e são criados novos ETFs para satisfazer a crescente procura cada vez mais pormenorizada, em contrapartida a industria financeira dos FIs quase que parou no tempo.

Também é por esta falta de oferta de FIs que existe a tendência de outflows dos FIs para os ETFs, mas desenganem-se aqueles que acham que o futuro está nos ETFs passivos de grandes agregados de ativos, pois o futuro e a qualidade da outperformance vai estar sempre do lado dos ETFs ativos e FIGAs, com alocações de ativos acionistas de grande-média concentração(40-70 ações). 

Editado 12 de Fevereiro de 2021 por Bedrock

[Bedrock 137]

The Investment Strategy That Makes Your Life Easier

Posted February 9, 2021 by Ben Carlson

After peaking in the fall of 2007 with the onset of the Great Financial Crisis, the U.S. stock market didn’t hit new all-time highs again until the spring of 2013.

At this point, the S&P 500 was already up more than 150% from the bottom in March of 2009.

There would be 45 new all-time highs in total in 2013, a year in which the S&P rose more than 30%.

At this point people became worried the easy money had been made. Too far, too fast they warned.

The market didn’t care.

There were 53 new highs in 2014, 10 more in 2015 and an additional 18 in 2016. Then things really ramped up in 2017 with 62 new all-time highs, which was followed by 18 in 2018. Then in 2019 the market was again up more than 30% plus 35 more new highs.

Surely, this couldn’t persist.

And in the face of a global pandemic, it sure seemed like it probably wouldn’t last. After 13 new highs before things started to shut down in March, it seemed like the party was over.

And it was, at least for a few months. But then there were 19 more new highs for the remainder of the year after stocks came roaring back, good enough for 32 new highs on the year.

In 2021, the U.S. stock market has already tallied 8 new highs through the close on Monday. That’s a total of 281 brand spankin’ new highs since 2013.

The entire way up there have been naysayers warning about stretched valuations, the Fed, government debt, interest rates, euphoria and bubbles.

And to be fair there have been corrections and crashes in this time. Since 2013, the S&P 500 has experienced drawdowns of -12%, -13%, -10%, -20% and -34%. Yet each time it’s come charging back to new highs.

Investing is always hard no matter the environment. It’s hard when stocks are falling because losing money is painful and it always feels like stocks could fall further. And it’s hard when stocks are rising because you have to balance the FOMO that comes from watching others get richer than you with the worry that any day now could be THE top.

To cope with the difficulty of investing in each of these market environments I keep things extremely simple — I just keep buying either way.

Investing periodically over time completely takes the idea of market timing and the inherent stress that comes with it, off the table. I don’t spend my time looking for the fat pitch or shoeshine boy sign of a top. I’m not trying to outsmart the market while simultaneously outsmarting myself.

And this isn’t some genius strategy by any means, it’s purely situational.

I plan on being a net saver for many years into the future. I’m perfectly comfortable with the fact that sometimes I’ll be buying an asset that has appreciated substantially, sometimes I’ll be buying an asset that has fallen substantially and sometimes I’ll be buying something that has gone nowhere for years at a time.

Take bitcoin as an extreme example.

I bought some in 2017 just in time to experience the insane run-up in prices. Then I watched my holdings fall 80% or so from there. I made some sporadic purchases in the meantime but last year finally decided to simply dollar cost average to take the guesswork out of the equation.

Now I make purchases of a set amount on a set schedule.

Based purely on my personality, I have an easier time buying an asset that is falling than rising. I’m just not a let-your-winners-ride kind of investor. I need rules in place to guide my actions. And one of the hardest things to do when you don’t have this mindset is to continue buying something that is trending higher.

But dollar cost averaging into bitcoin has forced me to buy at $10k, buy some more at $20k, a little more at $30k and still more at $40k. Had I not planned these purchases out ahead of time there’s no way I would have been able to keep buying as prices rose.¹

When bitcoin rises every single day:

I missed the boat but I'm definitely buying the next time it crashes

When bitcoin crashes:

I'm not buying this. It's probably going to zero

Repeat until angry

— Ben Carlson (@awealthofcs) January 11, 2021

Are some of those purchases going to be near or at the top of the market before a crash?

Definitely.

Will you know that ahead of time?

Not a chance.

Is this a perfect strategy?

No, but a perfect strategy does not exist.

The beauty of dollar cost averaging is you diversify across time and market environments so you don’t need to worry about the timing of your purchases as much.

https://awealthofcommonsense.com/2021/02/the-investment-strategy-that-makes-your-life-easier/

 

[JM_ 33]

1 hour ago, D@vid said:

100%, só admito ETFs em algo muito especifico que não tenha a replicação que pretendo e não esteja disponível em fundos como o Ouro, de resto não me faz sentido ter fundos de acções EUA e depois ir fazer um ETF S&P 500 por exemplo.

Se tiveres um grande fundo de maneio para despesas correntes ou outras que estejas a separar do bolo considerado poupança é batota 😁 

[Bedrock 137]

Is This 1929 or 1998?

BY CHARLIE BILELLO

10 FEB 2021

---

The CAPE Ratio just crossed above 39.¹

In layman’s terms, what exactly does that mean?

Equity valuations in the US are quite high.

How high?

Going back to 1871, the only periods in history with a CAPE above 39 are as follows…

• September 1929
• March 1998 to January 2001
• Today

In September 1929, the CAPE ratio moved above 39 for the first time in history. That same month, the S&P 500 would hit a generational high. From there, it would fall over 86% before bottoming in June 1932.

In March 1998, the CAPE ratio moved above 39 for the second time in history. From there, the S&P 500 would gain another 44% before peaking in March 2000. From the peak in March 2000 to the low in October 2002, the S&P 500 would give back all of those gains and more, declining over 50%.

So is this 1929 or 1998?

Neither. This is 2021.

No one knows what will happen from here because every time is different (see rule #4). Valuations may be the same as these years, but the path ahead most certainly won’t be.

Stocks could fall starting tomorrow (1929 example) or they could run for a few more years (1998 example), going from overvalued to more overvalued.

Or they could trade in a sideways range for years to come, frustrating bulls and bears alike.

Literally anything can happen in the short-run that is determined by sentiment (fear and greed) more than anything else. We shouldn’t be surprised by any of it.

That said, with the CAPE ratio above 39 (98^th percentile), what should investors be prepared for in the longer-run?

1) Below average forward returns…

2) Above average forward volatility…

3) Above average forward maximum loss…²

These are just averages and probabilities based on what has happened in the past at similar valuation junctures. There are always exceptions to the rule, and as we saw from 1998 trying to time the market based on valuation is a fools game. There is nothing stopping investors today from bidding up stocks to even higher multiples.

But an objective observer will note that the risk/reward in US equities is less favorable today than it has been in quite some time. That says nothing about what will happen tomorrow, but if the price one pays for something still matters, it will be a factor weighing on returns for years to come.

After the CAPE ratio hit 39 in 1929, the S&P 500 would trade at the same level 25 years later – in 1954.

After the CAPE ratio hit 39 in 1998, the S&P 500 would trade at the same level 12 years later – in 2010.

This is not 1929 or 1998, but investors are faced with a similar question: with the CAPE ratio above 39 once more, how many years into the future will the S&P 500’s current level of 3900 be revisited?

1. In this post, the CAPE Ratio is the Cyclically Adjusted Total Return Price to Earnings Ratio (TR P/E10 or TR CAPE). It is also known as the “Shiller P/E” as it was developed by economist Robert Shiller. Data source: Robert Shiller.

2. Maximum loss is calculated by taking the lowest monthly future closing value over x number years (1-10) and comparing that to the starting value.

https://compoundadvisors.com/2021/is-this-1929-or-1998

Editado 12 de Fevereiro de 2021 por Bedrock

[-------- 2582]

há 28 minutos, JM_ disse:

Se tiveres um grande fundo de maneio para despesas correntes ou outras que estejas a separar do bolo considerado poupança é batota 😁 

Desde muito novo que a primeira coisa que fiz ( obviamente com as devidas alterações temporais ) foi fazer o dito fundo de emergência ( 12 meses de despesas fixas ) que se encontra alocado no Caixa Disponível ( já esteve em tempos no ES Liquidez 🙏 saudades de ter 4% ao ano...lol, no inicio estava em depósitos a prazo mas isso já foi há 20 anos, e agora penso que estou numa boa idade de começar a canalizar tudo o que tenho de extra para a carteira de fundos, a ideia é mesmo reforçar todos os meses até à idade da reforma, mas, pretendo deixar de trabalhar antes dos 65 anos, porque espero obter a dita independência financeira antes disso, https://www.doutorfinancas.pt/financas-pessoais/poupanca/independencia-financeira-o-que-e-e-como-atingir/

 

[Bedrock 137]

Tesla spent $1.5B in clean car credits on bitcoin, the filthiest asset imaginable

Tesla bought $1.5 billion worth of bitcoin, the company said in a regulatory filing on Monday, effectively putting nearly all of the money it earned on clean car credits towards the world’s filthiest asset.

Where to begin? Let’s start with the firm’s SEC filing. As of January 2021, the Silicon Valley-based company updated its investment policy to allow it more flexibility in diversifying its returns on cash. Those changes allow Tesla to buy bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies, which it immediately did.

“Thereafter, we invested an aggregate $1.50 billion in bitcoin under this policy and may acquire and hold digital assets from time to time or long-term. Moreover, we expect to begin accepting bitcoin as a form of payment for our products in the near future, subject to applicable laws and initially on a limited basis, which we may or may not liquidate upon receipt.”

The filing does not say how Tesla bought the bitcoin or how they are custodying it. It also does not tell us how many bitcoin it purchased or for what average price. We only know Tesla bought bitcoin sometime between Jan. 1 and early February, when the price was between $30,000 to $41,000. 

Tesla says its customers will be able to buy its vehicles with bitcoin. However, “liquidate upon receipt” means that if you purchase a Tesla with bitcoins, the company is likely to sell those bitcoins for cash immediately, something that is usually done by sending the funds through a payment processor first.

This is what most large merchants do when they say they are accepting bitcoin. They convert it to cash, so they don’t have to deal with bitcoin’s wild volatility. So if you buy a Tesla with bitcoin in the future, it will likely be the same as selling your bitcoin for fiat and then handing the cash over to Tesla.

Clean car credits for bitcoin

Tesla earns tradable credits under various regulations related to zero-emission vehicles, greenhouse gas, fuel economy, renewable energy, and clean fuel. It then turns around and sells those credits to other automakers when they can’t comply with auto emissions and fuel economy standards.

In 2020, Tesla reported making $1.58 billion in selling these tradable credits it received. And here is the important bit: without those tradeable credits, the company would not have been profitable. Tesla would have lost money. So what does it do with that money? It turns around and buys bitcoin.

Bitcoin is an environmental disaster. The bitcoin network currently burns around 116.87 terawatt-hours per year, according to the University of Cambridge’s Centre for Alternative Finance. To give you an idea of how devastating that is to our climate, that is as much energy as a small country or seven nuclear power plants.

Bitcoin is such an environmental disaster it really is a crime against humanity. So what does Tesla do with their $1.5B in revenue last year from clean car credits sold to other automakers? Put it into “Destroy the Planet Inc”

— Nicholas Weaver (@ncweaver) February 8, 2021

Keep in mind, bitcoin’s energy consumption increases right alongside the price of bitcoin. As bitcoin goes up in price, more people want to mine the virtual currency for profit, leading to greater energy consumption as they pile more money into power-hungry ASIC rigs.

Bitcoin is not only filthy for its energy waste but also because it is the currency of choice in underground economies. Ransomware would probably not exist if it were not for bitcoin.

And bitcoin fits the very definition of a Ponzi scheme. It has no intrinsic value—any money new investors put into the system immediately goes out via bitcoin miners selling their 900 newly minted bitcoin per day. Tesla’s massive influx of cash will fund the bitcoin miners for about a month and a half, at most.

Elon Musk shilling crypto

Two years ago, Musk and Tesla paid a combined $40 million penalty to the SEC after Musk’s cryptic tweets about taking Tesla private led to stock fluctuations. The regulator charged him with securities fraud. As part of the settlement, Musk agreed to step down as chairman of the company, although he continued to hold the title of CEO.

Apparently, Musk has learned nothing from that experience. Last month, presumably around the time Tesla was buying up hoards of bitcoin unbeknownst to the general public, Musk caused the price of bitcoin to go up 20% when he changed his Twitter bio to include the word “bitcoin.”

Soon after changing the bio, Musk said in a tweet: “In retrospect, it was inevitable.” In retrospect, that tweet looks like an early hint that Tesla was funneling money into the digital asset.

In retrospect, it was inevitable

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) January 29, 2021

Will Musk get into trouble for his bitcoin tweets?

It is unlikely, Columbia University Law Professor John Coffee, Jr., told the Wall Street Journal, especially given that a federal judge rebuked the SEC when it sought to hold Musk in contempt in 2019. “I don’t think the commission would dare push it that far,” he said.

The latest Tesla news caused bitcoin to spike 18% this morning, sending the price to over $44,000, and setting a new all-time high.

Updates Feb. 8: Bitcoin topped $44,000 on Monday, even higher than the $43,000 I mentioned earlier. I added that in the SEC settlement Musk agreed to step down as chairman of Tesla. And I added the Coffee quote from WSJ.

https://amycastor.com/2021/02/08/tesla-spent-1-5b-in-clean-car-credits-on-bitcoin-the-filthiest-asset-imaginable/

 

Editado 12 de Fevereiro de 2021 por Bedrock

[Vidolz 295]

há 11 minutos, D@vid disse:

Desde muito novo que a primeira coisa que fiz ( obviamente com as devidas alterações temporais ) foi fazer o dito fundo de emergência ( 12 meses de despesas fixas ) que se encontra alocado no Caixa Disponível ( já esteve em tempos no ES Liquidez 🙏 saudades de ter 4% ao ano...lol, no inicio estava em depósitos a prazo mas isso já foi há 20 anos, e agora penso que estou numa boa idade de começar a canalizar tudo o que tenho de extra para a carteira de fundos, a ideia é mesmo reforçar todos os meses até à idade da reforma, mas, pretendo deixar de trabalhar antes dos 65 anos, porque espero obter a dita independência financeira antes disso, https://www.doutorfinancas.pt/financas-pessoais/poupanca/independencia-financeira-o-que-e-e-como-atingir/

 

65 não é a idade que os comuns tugas deixam de trabalhar?

Deixar de trabalhar aos 40 é que é um bom objetivo.

[5coroas 1402]

há 13 minutos, Vidolz disse:

 

Deixar de trabalhar aos 40 é que é um bom objetivo.

E se já tiveres mais de 40 anos e não tiveres ainda amealhado 1 milhão, como é que fazes?

[-------- 2582]

há 9 minutos, Vidolz disse:

65 não é a idade que os comuns tugas deixam de trabalhar?

Deixar de trabalhar aos 40 é que é um bom objetivo.

Já passei os 40, e eu comecei a "investir" noutras alturas, se tivesse agora 20 a saber o que sei hoje quem sabe se não conseguia chegar aos 40 com a dita independência financeira, até porque sou bem regrado, nada de telemóveis topo de gama, mesmo carro há mais de 10 anos etc,

[Bedrock 137]

há 18 minutos, Vidolz disse:

65 não é a idade que os comuns tugas deixam de trabalhar?

Deixar de trabalhar aos 40 é que é um bom objetivo.

Citação

Deixar de trabalhar aos 40 é que é um bom objetivo.

Quer dizer que ele já se devia ter reformado. 😇

Editado 12 de Fevereiro de 2021 por Bedrock

[elkefro 14]

há 21 minutos, Bedrock disse:

Bitcoin is an environmental disaster. The bitcoin network currently burns around 116.87 terawatt-hours per year, according to the University of Cambridge’s Centre for Alternative Finance. To give you an idea of how devastating that is to our climate, that is as much energy as a small country or seven nuclear power plants.

Bitcoin is such an environmental disaster it really is a crime against humanity. So what does Tesla do with their $1.5B in revenue last year from clean car credits sold to other automakers? Put it into “Destroy the Planet Inc”

— Nicholas Weaver (@ncweaver) February 8, 2021

Keep in mind, bitcoin’s energy consumption increases right alongside the price of bitcoin. As bitcoin goes up in price, more people want to mine the virtual currency for profit, leading to greater energy consumption as they pile more money into power-hungry ASIC rigs.

Bitcoin is not only filthy for its energy waste but also because it is the currency of choice in underground economies. Ransomware would probably not exist if it were not for bitcoin.

And bitcoin fits the very definition of a Ponzi scheme. It has no intrinsic value—any money new investors put into the system immediately goes out via bitcoin miners selling their 900 newly minted bitcoin per day. Tesla’s massive influx of cash will fund the bitcoin miners for about a month and a half, at most.

PoW is Efficient

Most people think #Bitcoin’s PoW is “wasteful.” In this article, I explore how everything is energy, money is energy, energy usage is subjective, and PoW’s energy costs relative to existing governance systems. This article is a collection of direct thoughts from many individuals in the space — my value-add was in the aggregation, distillation, and combination of narratives.

Work is Energy

The idea of “work” being energy started when the French Mathematician Gaspard-Gustave de Coriolis introduced the idea of energy being “work done.” A long time ago, the work done in the economy was entirely human. That work was powered by food.

About a million years ago, humans stumbled across fire. As a result, the energy available to us increased because now we could keep warm not just from what we ate but also from burning. So this added energy usage improved our standard of living.

Some thousands of years ago, our energy usage increased still further when we domesticated animals. Animals could labor in our place. Those new laborers also had to be fed. Large amounts of food were required to meet the energy demand, and our prosperity increased alongside.

In the last few hundred years, we built great machines. Those mechanized machines produced work, first from sources like water & wind, and then the cheaper sources like coal and gas, and now from nuclear sources (fission/fusion). Both machines and nature produce work through the utilization of energy. We have an economy based not on money, but on work and energy.

All things in our lives are closely linked to the price of energy. Purifying water requires energy. Transporting products requires energy. Manufacturing products requires energy. Cooking requires energy. Refrigerators and freezers require energy. In a free market, the cost of any good largely reflects the energy used in producing that good. Because free markets encourage the lowest priced goods, the energy used in producing any good is minimized. Money, which is the representation of the work required to generate goods and services, can also be viewed as stored energy.

 

World GDP in 2010$ compared (from USDA) compared to World Consumption of Energy (from BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2014).

In the early 20th century, industry leaders like Henry Ford and Thomas Edison were interested in replacing gold or the dollar with “the energy dollar” or “units of energy” (commodity/energy currency). The concept was popular due to its sound money characteristics, including: a well-defined unit of account, easy measurement/not easily counterfeited, divisibility into smaller units, and fungibility (that these units would be equivalent to any other unit). However, energy money was flawed — it could not be transmitted or stored easily.

 

“that in order to make a man/woman covet a thing, it is only necessary to make the thing difficult to attain.” — Mark Twain

Fast forward to October 31, 2008 — Satoshi publishes the Bitcoin whitepaper. Bitcoin’s Proof of Work (PoW) was originally invented as a measure against email spam. Only later did Satoshi adapt it to be used in digital cash. What PoW mining does under the hood, is use dedicated machines (ASICs) to convert electricity into Bitcoins (via block reward). The machine repeatedly performs hash operations (guesses/votes) until it solves a cryptographic puzzle and receives Bitcoins (block reward). The solution to the puzzle proves that the miner spent energy in the form of ASICs and electricity, a proof that a miner put in work. Bitcoin has a capitalistic voting mechanism, “money risked, votes gained” through the energy/ASICs used to generate hashes (votes). — Hugo Nguyen

When Satoshi designed PoW, he was fundamentally changing how consensus between humans is formed from political votes to apolitical votes (hashes) via the conversion of energy. PoW is proof of burn, or the validation that energy was burnt. Why is that important? It’s the most simplistic and fair way for the physical world to validate something in the digital world. PoW is about physics, not code. Bitcoin is a super commodity, minted from energy, the fundamental commodity of the universe. PoW transmutes electricity into digital gold.

The Bitcoin ledger can only be immutable if and only if it is costly to produce. The fact that Proof of Work (PoW) is “costly” is a feature, not a bug. Until very recently, securing something meant building a thick physical wall around whatever is deemed valuable. The new world of cryptocurrency is unintuitive and weird — there are no physical walls to protect our money, no doors to access our vaults. Bitcoin’s public ledger is secured by its collective hashing power: the sum of all energy expended to build the wall. And through its transparent costly design, it would take an equivalent amount of energy to tear it down (unforgeable costliness).

 

Energy Consumption

The cryptopocalypse is coming — Bitcoin’s (PoW) is so bad that it’s going to destroy the world in 2020! You may have noticed that most of the “doomsday” articles were based on the results of an analysis provided by Alex De Vries, a “financial economist and blockchain specialist” working for PWC Netherlands and author of the site Digiconomist. His estimation has already received a fair share of criticism due to its poor energy consumption calculation. But the KPI of his choosing was intentionally misleading: “the electricity consumption per transaction” for several reasons:

• The energy spent is per block, which can have a varying number of transactions. More transactions does not mean more energy
• The economic density of a Bitcoin transaction is always increasing (Batching, Segwit, Lightning, etc). As bitcoin becomes more of a settlement network, each unit of energy is securing exponentially more and more economic value.
• The average cost per transaction isn’t an adequate metric for measuring the efficiency of Bitcoin’s PoW, it should be defined in terms of the security of an economic history. The energy spend secures the stock of bitcoin, and that percentage is going down over time as inflation decreases. A Bitcoin “accumulates” the energy associated with all the blocks mined since its creation. LaurentMT, a researcher, has found empirically that Bitcoin’s PoW is indeed becoming more efficient over time: increasing cost is counterbalanced by the even greater increasing total value secured by the system.

Now that we know what the right KPI is for ROI on energy consumption, let’s take a look at how energy costs are trending for Bitcoin’s PoW.

The rate of ASIC efficiency improvement is slowing. As efficiency gains slow we can expect an increase in manufacturer competition as margins narrow.

 

https://cseweb.ucsd.edu/~mbtaylor/papers/Taylor_Bitcoin_IEEE_Computer_2017.pdf

 

https://research.bloomberg.com/pub/res/d3bgbon7nESTWTzC1U9PNCxDVfQ

All-in mining cost will shift from the upfront accessibility cost of ASIC hardware (capex) to the ongoing energy costs to operate (opex). Since the physical location of mining centers is not important to the Bitcoin network (they are movable), miners flock to areas generating surplus electricity for the lowest marginal costs. In the long-run, this has the potential to produce more efficient worldwide energy markets with Bitcoin miners performing an arbitrage of electricity between global centers. The cost of Bitcoin mining becomes the lowest (excess) value of electricity. This may solve a problem with renewable energy sources that have predictable capacity that is otherwise wasted, like hydro and flared methane. In the future, Bitcoin mining could help with renewable energy sources that have variable output — energy producers can plug in miners, and store the excess power as bitcoin.

Aluminum was a popular means of “exporting” electricity from a country with abundant renewable energy resources that are stranded (ex: Iceland). Smelting bauxite (aka aluminum ore) has huge energy requirements, and converting that into aluminum is a one way function (just like a hash). The same concerns around “unfair” energy consumption existed for aluminum nearly 40 years ago — 1979 (including concerns of centralization). All of these companies constantly scoured the planet for cheap power and other concessions. As aluminum manufacturing matured over the decades, the kWh per Kg of aluminum produced became more efficient.

 

https://www1.eere.energy.gov/manufacturing/resources/aluminum/pdfs/al_theoretical.pdf

“This global energy net liberates stranded assets and makes new ones viable. Imagine a 3D topographic map of the world with cheap energy hotspots being lower and expensive energy being higher. I imagine Bitcoin mining being akin to a glass of water poured over the surface, settling in the nooks and crannies, and smoothing it out.” — Nic Carter

Bitcoin’s PoW is the buyer of last resort for all electricity, creating a floor that incentivizes the building of new energy producing plants around disparate energy sources that would have otherwise been left untapped.

“When will the energy used for PoW *stop* growing? Precisely when enough energy producers have started doing PoW directly that the marginal return from burning a kWh of energy through PoW = the marginal return from selling that kWh to the grid — when the “premium” on PoW is reduced to zero. I call this equilibrium the “Nakamoto point.” I suspect PoW will use between 1–10% of the world’s energy when this equilibrium is reached.” — Dhruv Bansal

Some complain that Bitcoin mining doesn’t accomplish “anything useful” like finding prime numbers. While introducing a secondary reward for doing the work might seem like a virtuous idea, it actually introduces a security risk. Splitting the reward can lead to a situation where “it’s more worthwhile to do the secondary function than it is to do the primary function” (Dergigi). Even if the secondary function was innocuous (a heater), instead of an expected $100 per x hashes, we’d move to $100 + $5 of heat per x hashes. The “Mining Heater” is just another increase in hardware-efficiency, resulting in a higher difficulty and an increase in (energy used/block). Luckily, Bitcoin will never have this problem as its security is guaranteed by the purity of its proof-of-work algorithm.

Note: Bitcoin is already doing something immensely useful for society (mining wouldn’t be profitable if it wasn’t), and it isn’t rational to ask miners to perform a function that is altruistic without incentives.

 

Relative Costs

Everything requires energy (first law of thermodynamics). Claiming that one usage of energy is more or less wasteful than another is completely subjective since all users have paid market rate to utilize that electricity.

“If people find that electricity worth paying for, the electricity has not been wasted. Those who expend this electricity are rewarded with the bitcoin currency.” — Saifedean Ammous

In thermodynamics, the universe is the ultimate closed system. Bitcoin’s utilization of the excess electrical capacity consumes magnitudes less electricity than existing fiat systems which not only have power requirements banking infrastructure, but the military and political machina. The energy tradeoff for the utilization of that electricity to secure the financial system backbone is a “net positive” outcome. Below I make a rough comparison to the existing financial, military, and political systems (notes are at the bottom of the article)

Chart inspired by @hassmccook in his original article: “Economic and Environmental Costs of Bitcoin Mining”

 

 

Type I Civilization

In the hunt for cheap energy sources, we will unlock greater economic abundance in the real world. Bitcoin, through the harnessing of these new or disparate energy sources, not only moves us forward to a Kardeshev Type I economy but may bring us closer to a Kardeshev Type I energy civilization (We’re ~0.72 on the Kardashev Scale). With Bitcoin mining as an incentive, it may shrink the time we get to T1 from 200 years to less than a few decades. After reaching Type I status, there is less of a need to restrict the growth of energy consumption, which increases the standard of living for everyone.

 

The pressure to find cheap electricity sources will accelerate the effort to build fusion reactors. Nature is showing the way, powering the whole universe with nuclear fusion (stars). Humans are in the process of emulating nature by building fusion reactors. It is estimated that it will take ~$80B in research over decades to finally unlock nuclear fusion. The fuel for fusion (primarily deuterium) exists abundantly in the Earth’s ocean which could potentially supply the world’s energy needs for millions of years. Fusion power has many of the benefits of renewable energy sources, such as being a long-term energy supply and emitting no greenhouse gases or air pollution. Fusion could provide very high power-generation density and uninterrupted power delivery. Another aspect of fusion energy is that the cost of production does not suffer from diseconomies of scale. The cost of water and wind energy, for example, goes up as the optimal locations are developed first, while further generators must be sited in less ideal conditions. With fusion energy, the production cost will not increase much even if large numbers of stations are built, because the raw resource (seawater) is abundant and widespread.

“Water, water, everywhere, Nor any drop to drink.” — Samuel Taylor Coleridge

Fusion power and other cheaper energy sources will solve major problems for humanity like fresh water shortages. We are surrounded by seawater, but desalination stations, which remove salt from the seawater, require large amounts of energy. Costs of desalinating seawater are currently higher than freshwater, groundwater, water recycling, and water conservation.

Humankind’s will to explore, up the mountains, down to the sea floors, to the heart of the atom, to the very fabric of space-time; to grow, not be stifled by a limit to energy. We will reach for the stars.

Is the trustless settlement of $1.34T between counterparties annually with the added benefit of cheaper energy for all, worth the $4.5B in current mining costs? I think the answer is a resounding yes.

Editado 12 de Fevereiro de 2021 por elkefro
imagens repetidas

[-------- 2582]

há 15 minutos, 5coroas disse:

E se já tiveres mais de 40 anos e não tiveres ainda amealhado 1 milhão, como é que fazes?

E porquê 1M? a independência financeira pode ser diferente para cada um, se alguém que tem hoje 20 anos, com um rendimento anual de 12.000€, despesas anuais fixas de 7800€ e pegar na poupança de 4.200€ da diferença e investir a 7% ao ano ( não é a média de retorno do S&P500? ), aos 40 anos tem a independência financeira, porque tem um património de cerca de 195.000€ a render 7%, mas claro que só serve para pagar as despesas, mas está longe dos 1M que parece que é a meta psicológica de muitos.

Editado 12 de Fevereiro de 2021 por D@vid

[5coroas 1402]

há 8 minutos, elkefro disse:

PoW is Efficient

Most people think #Bitcoin’s PoW is “wasteful.” In this article, I explore how everything is energy, money is energy, energy usage is subjective, and PoW’s energy costs relative to existing governance systems. This article is a collection of direct thoughts from many individuals in the space — my value-add was in the aggregation, distillation, and combination of narratives.

Work is Energy

The idea of “work” being energy started when the French Mathematician Gaspard-Gustave de Coriolis introduced the idea of energy being “work done.” A long time ago, the work done in the economy was entirely human. That work was powered by food.

About a million years ago, humans stumbled across fire. As a result, the energy available to us increased because now we could keep warm not just from what we ate but also from burning. So this added energy usage improved our standard of living.

Some thousands of years ago, our energy usage increased still further when we domesticated animals. Animals could labor in our place. Those new laborers also had to be fed. Large amounts of food were required to meet the energy demand, and our prosperity increased alongside.

In the last few hundred years, we built great machines. Those mechanized machines produced work, first from sources like water & wind, and then the cheaper sources like coal and gas, and now from nuclear sources (fission/fusion). Both machines and nature produce work through the utilization of energy. We have an economy based not on money, but on work and energy.

All things in our lives are closely linked to the price of energy. Purifying water requires energy. Transporting products requires energy. Manufacturing products requires energy. Cooking requires energy. Refrigerators and freezers require energy. In a free market, the cost of any good largely reflects the energy used in producing that good. Because free markets encourage the lowest priced goods, the energy used in producing any good is minimized. Money, which is the representation of the work required to generate goods and services, can also be viewed as stored energy.

 

World GDP in 2010$ compared (from USDA) compared to World Consumption of Energy (from BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2014).

In the early 20th century, industry leaders like Henry Ford and Thomas Edison were interested in replacing gold or the dollar with “the energy dollar” or “units of energy” (commodity/energy currency). The concept was popular due to its sound money characteristics, including: a well-defined unit of account, easy measurement/not easily counterfeited, divisibility into smaller units, and fungibility (that these units would be equivalent to any other unit). However, energy money was flawed — it could not be transmitted or stored easily.

 

“that in order to make a man/woman covet a thing, it is only necessary to make the thing difficult to attain.” — Mark Twain

Fast forward to October 31, 2008 — Satoshi publishes the Bitcoin whitepaper. Bitcoin’s Proof of Work (PoW) was originally invented as a measure against email spam. Only later did Satoshi adapt it to be used in digital cash. What PoW mining does under the hood, is use dedicated machines (ASICs) to convert electricity into Bitcoins (via block reward). The machine repeatedly performs hash operations (guesses/votes) until it solves a cryptographic puzzle and receives Bitcoins (block reward). The solution to the puzzle proves that the miner spent energy in the form of ASICs and electricity, a proof that a miner put in work. Bitcoin has a capitalistic voting mechanism, “money risked, votes gained” through the energy/ASICs used to generate hashes (votes). — Hugo Nguyen

When Satoshi designed PoW, he was fundamentally changing how consensus between humans is formed from political votes to apolitical votes (hashes) via the conversion of energy. PoW is proof of burn, or the validation that energy was burnt. Why is that important? It’s the most simplistic and fair way for the physical world to validate something in the digital world. PoW is about physics, not code. Bitcoin is a super commodity, minted from energy, the fundamental commodity of the universe. PoW transmutes electricity into digital gold.

The Bitcoin ledger can only be immutable if and only if it is costly to produce. The fact that Proof of Work (PoW) is “costly” is a feature, not a bug. Until very recently, securing something meant building a thick physical wall around whatever is deemed valuable. The new world of cryptocurrency is unintuitive and weird — there are no physical walls to protect our money, no doors to access our vaults. Bitcoin’s public ledger is secured by its collective hashing power: the sum of all energy expended to build the wall. And through its transparent costly design, it would take an equivalent amount of energy to tear it down (unforgeable costliness).

 

Energy Consumption

The cryptopocalypse is coming — Bitcoin’s (PoW) is so bad that it’s going to destroy the world in 2020! You may have noticed that most of the “doomsday” articles were based on the results of an analysis provided by Alex De Vries, a “financial economist and blockchain specialist” working for PWC Netherlands and author of the site Digiconomist. His estimation has already received a fair share of criticism due to its poor energy consumption calculation. But the KPI of his choosing was intentionally misleading: “the electricity consumption per transaction” for several reasons:

• The energy spent is per block, which can have a varying number of transactions. More transactions does not mean more energy
• The economic density of a Bitcoin transaction is always increasing (Batching, Segwit, Lightning, etc). As bitcoin becomes more of a settlement network, each unit of energy is securing exponentially more and more economic value.
• The average cost per transaction isn’t an adequate metric for measuring the efficiency of Bitcoin’s PoW, it should be defined in terms of the security of an economic history. The energy spend secures the stock of bitcoin, and that percentage is going down over time as inflation decreases. A Bitcoin “accumulates” the energy associated with all the blocks mined since its creation. LaurentMT, a researcher, has found empirically that Bitcoin’s PoW is indeed becoming more efficient over time: increasing cost is counterbalanced by the even greater increasing total value secured by the system.

Now that we know what the right KPI is for ROI on energy consumption, let’s take a look at how energy costs are trending for Bitcoin’s PoW.

The rate of ASIC efficiency improvement is slowing. As efficiency gains slow we can expect an increase in manufacturer competition as margins narrow.

 

https://cseweb.ucsd.edu/~mbtaylor/papers/Taylor_Bitcoin_IEEE_Computer_2017.pdf

 

https://research.bloomberg.com/pub/res/d3bgbon7nESTWTzC1U9PNCxDVfQ

All-in mining cost will shift from the upfront accessibility cost of ASIC hardware (capex) to the ongoing energy costs to operate (opex). Since the physical location of mining centers is not important to the Bitcoin network (they are movable), miners flock to areas generating surplus electricity for the lowest marginal costs. In the long-run, this has the potential to produce more efficient worldwide energy markets with Bitcoin miners performing an arbitrage of electricity between global centers. The cost of Bitcoin mining becomes the lowest (excess) value of electricity. This may solve a problem with renewable energy sources that have predictable capacity that is otherwise wasted, like hydro and flared methane. In the future, Bitcoin mining could help with renewable energy sources that have variable output — energy producers can plug in miners, and store the excess power as bitcoin.

Aluminum was a popular means of “exporting” electricity from a country with abundant renewable energy resources that are stranded (ex: Iceland). Smelting bauxite (aka aluminum ore) has huge energy requirements, and converting that into aluminum is a one way function (just like a hash). The same concerns around “unfair” energy consumption existed for aluminum nearly 40 years ago — 1979 (including concerns of centralization). All of these companies constantly scoured the planet for cheap power and other concessions. As aluminum manufacturing matured over the decades, the kWh per Kg of aluminum produced became more efficient.

 

https://www1.eere.energy.gov/manufacturing/resources/aluminum/pdfs/al_theoretical.pdf

“This global energy net liberates stranded assets and makes new ones viable. Imagine a 3D topographic map of the world with cheap energy hotspots being lower and expensive energy being higher. I imagine Bitcoin mining being akin to a glass of water poured over the surface, settling in the nooks and crannies, and smoothing it out.” — Nic Carter

Bitcoin’s PoW is the buyer of last resort for all electricity, creating a floor that incentivizes the building of new energy producing plants around disparate energy sources that would have otherwise been left untapped.

“When will the energy used for PoW *stop* growing? Precisely when enough energy producers have started doing PoW directly that the marginal return from burning a kWh of energy through PoW = the marginal return from selling that kWh to the grid — when the “premium” on PoW is reduced to zero. I call this equilibrium the “Nakamoto point.” I suspect PoW will use between 1–10% of the world’s energy when this equilibrium is reached.” — Dhruv Bansal

Some complain that Bitcoin mining doesn’t accomplish “anything useful” like finding prime numbers. While introducing a secondary reward for doing the work might seem like a virtuous idea, it actually introduces a security risk. Splitting the reward can lead to a situation where “it’s more worthwhile to do the secondary function than it is to do the primary function” (Dergigi). Even if the secondary function was innocuous (a heater), instead of an expected $100 per x hashes, we’d move to $100 + $5 of heat per x hashes. The “Mining Heater” is just another increase in hardware-efficiency, resulting in a higher difficulty and an increase in (energy used/block). Luckily, Bitcoin will never have this problem as its security is guaranteed by the purity of its proof-of-work algorithm.

Note: Bitcoin is already doing something immensely useful for society (mining wouldn’t be profitable if it wasn’t), and it isn’t rational to ask miners to perform a function that is altruistic without incentives.

 

Relative Costs

Everything requires energy (first law of thermodynamics). Claiming that one usage of energy is more or less wasteful than another is completely subjective since all users have paid market rate to utilize that electricity.

“If people find that electricity worth paying for, the electricity has not been wasted. Those who expend this electricity are rewarded with the bitcoin currency.” — Saifedean Ammous

In thermodynamics, the universe is the ultimate closed system. Bitcoin’s utilization of the excess electrical capacity consumes magnitudes less electricity than existing fiat systems which not only have power requirements banking infrastructure, but the military and political machina. The energy tradeoff for the utilization of that electricity to secure the financial system backbone is a “net positive” outcome. Below I make a rough comparison to the existing financial, military, and political systems (notes are at the bottom of the article)

Chart inspired by @hassmccook in his original article: “Economic and Environmental Costs of Bitcoin Mining”

 

 

Type I Civilization

In the hunt for cheap energy sources, we will unlock greater economic abundance in the real world. Bitcoin, through the harnessing of these new or disparate energy sources, not only moves us forward to a Kardeshev Type I economy but may bring us closer to a Kardeshev Type I energy civilization (We’re ~0.72 on the Kardashev Scale). With Bitcoin mining as an incentive, it may shrink the time we get to T1 from 200 years to less than a few decades. After reaching Type I status, there is less of a need to restrict the growth of energy consumption, which increases the standard of living for everyone.

 

The pressure to find cheap electricity sources will accelerate the effort to build fusion reactors. Nature is showing the way, powering the whole universe with nuclear fusion (stars). Humans are in the process of emulating nature by building fusion reactors. It is estimated that it will take ~$80B in research over decades to finally unlock nuclear fusion. The fuel for fusion (primarily deuterium) exists abundantly in the Earth’s ocean which could potentially supply the world’s energy needs for millions of years. Fusion power has many of the benefits of renewable energy sources, such as being a long-term energy supply and emitting no greenhouse gases or air pollution. Fusion could provide very high power-generation density and uninterrupted power delivery. Another aspect of fusion energy is that the cost of production does not suffer from diseconomies of scale. The cost of water and wind energy, for example, goes up as the optimal locations are developed first, while further generators must be sited in less ideal conditions. With fusion energy, the production cost will not increase much even if large numbers of stations are built, because the raw resource (seawater) is abundant and widespread.

“Water, water, everywhere, Nor any drop to drink.” — Samuel Taylor Coleridge

Fusion power and other cheaper energy sources will solve major problems for humanity like fresh water shortages. We are surrounded by seawater, but desalination stations, which remove salt from the seawater, require large amounts of energy. Costs of desalinating seawater are currently higher than freshwater, groundwater, water recycling, and water conservation.

Humankind’s will to explore, up the mountains, down to the sea floors, to the heart of the atom, to the very fabric of space-time; to grow, not be stifled by a limit to energy. We will reach for the stars.

Is the trustless settlement of $1.34T between counterparties annually with the added benefit of cheaper energy for all, worth the $4.5B in current mining costs? I think the answer is a resounding yes.

Ups, belo argumento para os Estados-amigos-dos-amigos-do-ambiente perseguirem futuramente o malvados poluidores bitcoinianos.