[kvakvs]

It is not worth $5.7B, don't multiply huge amounts of shares, stocks, or coins by their market value, as it is impossible to cash out at that price. If he tries to do large sell orders it will sink to 1-10% of its current price.

[onion2k]

Imagine risking $8k and cashing out with just $5.7m to $57m a year later. Who would even bother?

[LurkingPenguin]

Imagine risking $8,000, watching it go to $5.7 billion a year later, not cashing out and going down as the biggest diamond hands in history.

At the very least you could create a commemorative diamond hands NFT collection and walk away with a few million.

[adventured]

There have been much larger diamond hands scenarios.

A Japan dotcom bubble billionaire, Yasumitsu Shigeta, went from $42 billion at the peak in 2000, down to $600m by 2009 as his shares of Hikari Tsushin (mobile phone distributor) sank. Still extraordinarily rich, however that's a remarkable $41 billion decline. He went from being worth $1b to $25b in one year in 1999.

Masayoshi Son rode Softbank down by something around $75b after the dotcom bubble. Softbank lost 98% of its stock market value.

There were obviously a lot of billionaire wipeouts during the US dotcom bubble as well, as people held and sank, although none quite as dramatic as those two declines.

[bhaak]

LOL. Usually "diamond hands" isn't used for the kind of holders that lose everything.

But I really like those examples. Decreases the survivorship bias you have when this term is usually referred to.

[gaws]

> going down as the biggest diamond hands in history.

go back to reddit

[ectopod]

$57m to $570m

[onion2k]

Maybe it'd be worth it after all!

With my dismal math skills I won't be making any profitable trades though.

[short_sells_poo]

It's funny then that every time another <insert hip tech startup here> gets VC inflow they value the entire company based on the 5% of shares that the VC bought, and this valuation gets parroted on every media outlet, including YC.

It just tells you that the nature of the beast does not change. We make fun of crypto but the same kind of shilling goes on in the supposedly more sophisticated investor circles as well.

[revolvingocelot]

For whatever it's worth, that type of shenanigan is endemic everywhere else in the tech world, too. ISPs advertising speeds "up to"? SSD vendors quietly swapping SLC for limited QLC? Hat-on-a-hat super-processors in otherwise-shonky SOCs that immediately throttle themselves into uselessness but look great on paper? Prebuilt "gaming" computers with a big-name processor and a mobo pulled out of a cereal box?

It's not a "bait-and-switch", per se, it's just an information asymmetry -- that speed will be achievable on speedtest.com alone, that transfer speed looks great just as long as you haven't put more than 128gb (or whatever it is) onto the drive, if you cover the SOC in copper heatsinks (sold seperately) you can get some performance back, and the motherboard can be replaced but that rig'll play LoL just fine. If you know these things, then the game is navigable; the statements about speed or capacity or value are "true", there's "just" important and missing information about what happens once t>0 or the feeding frenzy starts or capacity is exceeded or whatever.

[carnitine]

This is just the way things are valued. Obviously you need to account for varying liquidity or whatever, but if you can sell 5% of Y for X, then Y is naturally worth 20X. Internal systems at banks report value to analysts, traders etc. in the same way, this isn’t some trick to hoodwink people, it’s just a convenient and sensible way of valuing things.

[short_sells_poo]

I disagree. It's a silly, misleading and inconvenient way to value things. Just because you can sell 5% of Y for X, it absolutely doesn't mean that Y is worth 20X. Doubly so when Y is in extremely limited supply. One could raise an objection: but hey, stocks are valued at X on the exchange, so what gives? And yes, they are, but anyone with a shred of sense knows that if you actually tried to buy or sell a significant portion of the company in question, the price you are going to get will be very-very different from what is being quoted, thus the actual true value of the company is likely to be considerably different.

Most actual professionals laugh at this kind of valuation, which is what makes the whole affair funny since a large portion of the industry is nevertheless happily using it.

I suppose one doesn't have to go too far for the reason: it benefits a large portion of the industry to value things this way, because they are implicitly inflating the value of their own investments.

Honestly, if I were to interview a quant and they claimed with a straight face that this is a sensible thing to do, I'd immediately thank them for their time and bid them farewell. It's that ridiculous.

Finally, I don't consider internal systems at banks to be some sort of benchmark for valuation. Most systems at banks are utter garbage. There are a few exceptions (option/exotics desks), but the rest is basically ran out of excel sheets.

[bsanr2]

I fully expect the price to crash gloriously once the pullback starts, to fractions of a percent, but 1% of the current is still impressive. 8 grand to $5 million? That's, uh, not too bad.

[mbesto]

Not to mention, at its current volume, SHIB is only trading $5M/day. Even if you could continually trade at that volume, it would take you ~3 years to liquidate.

[mhmmmmmm]

Where is that $5M a day figure from? Coinmarketcap lists it at 39B€ in the past 24 hours. https://coinmarketcap.com/de/currencies/shiba-inu/