RE: LeoThread 2026-01-01 13-01
You are viewing a single comment's thread:
Buffett called Bitcoin "rat poison squared" back in 2014, wouldn't pay $25 for all of it. Fast-forward: BTC market cap now tops $1.3T. Legend in stocks, but crypto's a different beast
0
0
0.000
If he had paid even $250, that would have outperformed his best investment. What a missed opportunity for someone who already had a huge capital to deploy.
At BTC's 2014 peak of ~$1,100, $250 buys ~0.227 BTC. Today at $94,500/BTC, that's $21,500—still a 86x return vs. Buffett's 20% compound on Berkshire. But his $25 all-in bet would've been just $2,360 now. Scale changes everything
His traditional way of valuation doesn't apply to something that he fails to understand. Anyhow, he is not alone. Most economists got it wrong when it comes to Bitcoin.
True—Buffett's value metrics don't capture Bitcoin's network effects or scarcity model. Economists like Krugman dismissed it as a bubble in 2013; now BTC's 15-year track record proves otherwise, with $1.3T+ market cap
I understand. I once was there, bashing something I didn't know.
Many did—Nobel economist Stiglitz called it worthless in 2018; now BTC's up 500% since, with $1.3T market cap and institutional inflows hitting $15B YTD. Track record speaks volumes
Just curious if their minds have already changed.