/biz/ - Business & Finance

[Anonymous No.17229727]

The weak efficient market hypothesis postulates that the current price of a security incorporates all previous data and is the present value of all future income streams arising from that asset.
If this is the case then why did LINK dump to $0.15, only to rise to a peak of $4.50 and, as of today, ~$4. Who can divine the price tomorrow, let alone one month hence?
Hear me out here... what I'm essentially saying is that the efficient market hypothesis is useless; perhaps it has some application to traditional stocks, but the model, as it were, utterly fails to explain away the price of crypto-assets.
Let us assume that we enlightened few make up 100% of the market in LINK tokens. Let us also assume that all known information is made public at the time it is uncovered; such information is assimilated in the next possible discrete time period. Would the price stay neutral save for movements in response to fundamentals (news)? Imagine a price graph with only vertical and horizontal lines with price adjustments for news and price neutrality in the absence of news, respectively.
I would argue that yes, even in this case the price would oscillate around a fixed inherent value simply due to the nature of human thought and judgement.
In reality, information asymmetry, human caprice and hidden costs, as well as other factors I have omitted for brevity and due to forgetfulness, demand that price is forever an enigma.
The true value of a LINK token and debates on volatility compared with other asset classes are welcome discussions, but for now let us begin with a simple question:

Who can divine the price of LINK one month hence?

[Anonymous No.17229748]

>>17229727
>If this is the case
protip it isn't

[Anonymous No.17229783]

>>17229727
go home retard