Kein Tag vergeht, an dem ich nicht zu Bitcoins gefragt werde. Ein klareres Blasenzeichen kann ich mir gar nicht denken. So erging es wohl auch John Authers von der FT, der die Entwicklung von Bitcoins mit der Tulpenblase vergleicht:
- „Bitcoin nearly broke the $10,000 barrier on Monday, having only broken $2,000 for the first time earlier this year.“
–Fazit: Das kann man wohl sagen. Ich war nicht dabei, gestehe ich an dieser Stelle.
- „This is quite something, but still, claims that the bitcoin boom of the past year is in some way a repeat of the Nasdaq Bubble which finally popped in March 2000 are well wide of the mark. Here is a comparison of the two:“
–Fazit: Verglichen mit der New Economy Blase ist es etwas ganz anderes. Und das für eine elektronische Währung, die man nicht anfassen und verstecken kann …
Quelle: FT
- „Its average annual real return since people started trading it in 2010 is 411 per cent. (…) The following chart compares bitcoin returns (as calculated by Bloomberg) with returns on global stock markets since 1900, (…) Bitcoin has made money for its backers in a way never enjoyed by stock investors:“
–Fazit: Das alleine muss natürlich nicht bedeuten, dass es eine unberechtigte Preisentwicklung ist. Dennoch …
Quelle: FT
- „Going further back in history, (…) there do seem to have been some investment manias that went even further. Let us start, inevitably, with the Netherlands‘ Tulip Mania. (…) The maximum price reliably recorded for a tulip bulb during the mania was 5,200 guilders. (…) a 12lbs loaf would at the time have cost 0.4 guilders. So at the very top, you could have exchanged one tulip bulb for approximately 156,000lbs of bread, (…) Nowadays a packet of 100 tulip bulbs can be bought on Amazon for $32.98, while a 1.25lbs loaf of Sara Lee white bread will cost $1.98, so you can get roughly 5 bulbs per pound of bread.“
–Fazit: Diese Relationen waren mir so nicht klar. Das ist doch wirklich beeindruckend.
- Jetzt kommt es aber: “ But note that a bulb physically exists, and that its price can be compared with other physical objects. It is not clear that any such fundamental valuation is possible for bitcoin which is vulnerable to the risk of action by governments.“
–Fazit: Das ist auch ein Argument in meinem Artikel für die WiWo in dieser Woche.
- Tulpenzwiebeln gewannen: „(…) in four months of a little over 2,200 per cent. Over the past four months, bitcoin has only gained 253 per cent. So cryptocurrencies are still not as crazily overbought as tulip bulbs used to be– although tulip bulbs do of course have the advantage that they could grow into very pretty flowers in your garden.“
–Fazit: Es kann also noch fröhlich weitergehen. Kaufen würde ich sie dennoch nicht, weil sie auf dem „greater fool“ basieren.
- „A broader lesson is that bitcoin as an investment or speculation phenomenon is unlike anything that has been seen in a long time. It is behaving even more dramatically than most of the best documented bubbles, although it has not yet reached the excesses of the tulip bubble.“
- „History as interpreted by many of us (including me) suggests that prices will eventually come down to earth with a bump. But it gives us no steer on how much further this could go on, or on timing. Maybe bitcoin could yet match Bizarden tulip bulbs before it is done.“ –Fazit: Finger weg!
→ FT (Anmeldung erforderlich): „Tulip bulbs vs bitcoin: a bubble comparison“, 27. November 2017
Dr. Daniel Stelter / www.think-beyondtheobvious.com
