Modeling Bitcoin Value with Vibes

Validated Individual Expert

The Market Price of Bitcoin and the “Number Go Up” Model

visualization of the analysis presented herein by twitter user @wearehodl123


Ever since Bitcoin has had a market price, and ever since scarcely imaginable Twitter clout has been up for grabs in attempting to predict it, such predictions have been readily forthcoming. We assume familiarity with a range of such prior models and will not recount here the spectrum of silliness on which they sit.

While Bitcoin has many intriguing properties worth considering as model inputs, in our opinion, all previous attempts overlook the only characteristic of Bitcoin that is truly novel: its revolutionary Number Go Up technology. Only NGU truly sets Bitcoin apart from altcoins, gold, and any other asset we might consider a competitor. It behooves us to explore this property more rigorously.

To start with, we must surely ask ourselves, with respect to what does the number go up? When does this happen?

In time, that’s when.[i]

We must also ask ourselves, is anything more important than Number Go Up? Is it possible, even in theory, that there are other factors involved?

Nah, I don’t think so.

Our task is therefore to build a price model for Bitcoin that uses as its independent variable time, and time alone. Let us work from first principles to build as rigorous a model as we possibly can, justifying every construction with logic, and backing up every data point with facts. Let’s sit down in our thinking chair and think. Let’s build the NGU Model.


photo by Jonathan Cosens, via Unsplash

Since Bitcoin is a network and benefits from network effects in the form of positive feedback, it makes sense to assume the number will go up exponentially.[ii]

Therefore, let us take the entire price history of Bitcoin, regress it logarithmically, and find a growth rate at which we think the number is likely going up as the core of our thesis, per Figure 1:

Figure 1:Bitcoin’s price history charted logarithmically with a best fit line added and its equation shown

As the reader can see, the R² of the regression is 0.87, which is pretty high for having put no thought into this whatsoever. This suggests we are tiptoeing towards a profound and almost certainly causal relationship between Bitcoin’s value and our identification of the fundamental breakthrough of the underlying Number Go Up technology. If we keep tweaking it to better fit the data we might really be onto something. Let us continue.

To make our model more realistic, we should note that the problem with Number Go Up is that sometimes the number goes down. This is most mysterious given the issuance schedule is perfectly well known over literally every period of time. We might hypothesize that there are recurring phases of excitement, perhaps caused by misleading memes on social media that cause a wave of larping in on false hopes and, naturally, larping out again when these hopes fail to materialize. Animal spirits and whatnot, as Keynes rightly observed.

Starting from our assumption of exponential growth, we can modulate the path of growth by adding a sinusoidal component, as demonstrated in the figures below.

In Figure 2 we see an exponential growth curve in red and a sine wave that has been shifted entirely above the x-axis in blue:

Figure 2:exponential function (red) and shifted sine function (blue)

Consider the product of these two:

In Figure 3 we see this new function overlaid in green:
Figure 3:exponential function (red), shifted sine function (blue), and their product (green)

It is perhaps easier to conceptualize what is really happening here if we adjust the y-axis to a logarithmic scale, as below in Figure 4. Here the exponential increase is a straight line, and the sinusoidal modulation fluctuates around this line but demonstrates the same long-term rate of growth:

Figure 4:exponential function (red), shifted sine function (blue), and their product (green), all on log scale

This is also easier to then compare to Bitcoin given we arguably need a logarithmic y-axis for the price to adequately capture its history.[iii]

Another idea might be that when people get all excited by price memes, larp in and larp out, etc., that tends to happen pretty quickly, whereas the fallout tends to take up a longer stretch of the periodicity. Bear markets are for building, after all.[iv]

We can address this by “compressing” and “stretching” our sinusoidal modulation, so to speak, as follows. Rather than f(x) = sin(x), consider instead something like f(x) = sin(x — cos(x)).

This alters the sine wave, with the original in red, and the “quick up and down then long pause” version in blue in Figure 6 below :

Figure 6:regular sine function (red) and “compressed” sine function (blue) (per formula just above)

If we now go back to the logarithmic view, we can compare exponential growth (in blue), exponential growth modulated by a regular sinusoidal wave (in red) to exponential growth modulated by our “quick up and down” wave (in green) in Figure 7:

Figure 7:exponential function (blue), product of exponential and sine function(red), and product of exponential and “compressed” sine function (green), all on log scale

This seems sensible. We might also think that the underlying exponential growth, and possibly the amplitudes of the sine waves, should be dampened. This could conceivably be because silly memes that encourage larpiness have a decaying effectiveness across periodic cycles as more and more people get used to them. Let us introduce a decay term as follows:

Where f(t) increases monotonically in t and simply slows down the growth rate without ever turning it negative (number goes up, remember — this is very important). Hence, we might compare our above “quick up and down” modulated exponential growth (in green) to one that also dampens over time (in blue), in Figure 8:

Figure 8:product of exponential and “compressed” sine function (green), ditto with dampened growth (blue), both on log scale

There is a final element of market prices we ought to try to capture as well: they wibble wobble. When the number sometimes goes down, this rarely happens in so smooth a way as the preceding discussion suggests. This is readily explained by psychology.

We propose to introduce a wibble wobble factor in the form of another sinusoidal modulation with a faster integer period, as demonstrated below in Figure 9, in the simple case as compared to a sine wave.

Figure 9:a sine wave (orange) and a smaller, higher frequency sine wave (purple)

Such that their product is a wibbly wobbly bigger sinusoidal function, per Figure 10 below:

Figure 10:the product of the two waves in Figure 9, a wibbly wobbly sine wave.

With these simple, logical, and reasonable assumptions in mind, let’s put together a model that captures all of the above. This will take the form:

Where r is the regression coefficient derived from Figure 1, the f(t)’s are the monotonic dampening of this coefficient and the sinusoidal modulations, as captured in Figure 8, g(t) parameterizes how we input “time” such that the amplitude, frequency, shift, and so on, of the sinusoidal functions are suitable for this domain, and h(t) makes it all wibbly wobbly.

Figure 11 compares our model to the historical data from December 2011 to the present.[v]

Figure 11:NGU Model vs Historical Prices

This model has an R² of 0.97. You would probably have to run the universe three or four times in order to encounter such a correlation by chance. This suggests a relationship between Bitcoin’s value and time so profound as to be barely comprehensible.

Figure 12 extends this incomprehensibility into the far-flung future such that we might at least attempt to comprehend what is coming (apologies in advance to the reader if this is too much to handle):

Figure 12:all prices forever

Alternatively, here is the price on Jan 1st at 3-year intervals for the next 27 years. Given the astounding accuracy of the model, it is safe to say that only 3% of the actual price on these dates will not be explained by these predictions:

The full numerical specification is as follows:


Although this may look complicated, note that, as promised, there is only one independent variable:


Let’s not draw too much attention to all these numbers that, okay, admittedly, define the model. Instead, let us propose the perfectly reasonable interpretation that:

The above analysis essentially proves that the price of Bitcoin is — and only is — a function of time, exactly as the Number Go Up thesis predicted. It’s unclear why we would care about any other potential input. We will move straight to questions the reader may naturally have.


photo by Towfiqu barbhuiya,via Unsplash

What is the physical significance of the model’s parameters? What are their dimensions? Can they be derived analytically? Do the physical inputs have numerical components that bear any relation?

These are natural questions to want to ask, but that’s not how Science works. These parameters were chosen because they make the backfitted R² very high, which in turn means we have to assume we have stumbled into a fundamental principle of economics. The onus is on us to work with these constants to derive further insights into marginal analysis, methodological individualism, and human action, not the other way around. This isn’t some Proof-of-Stake circle jerk, guys; we have to do the work.

Are we happy with the numeraire?

This is an excellent question (well done!) given it is core to our thesis that the number will continue to go up until Bitcoin is the only money in the world, and possibly the only asset with any value whatsoever. This means we ought to at least be suspicious of non-Bitcoiny ways of measuring value lest the model begin to reflexively feed on itself in ways that, while not impossible to mathematically capture, are probably really hard.[vi] Thankfully, this is not a concern in this case because we have chosen an extremely robust measure of consistent purchasing power: the US Dollar.

It’s very impressive that you created such a model with only one independent variable, but have you considered any confounding variables?

Firstly, thank you. As to your question, no, time is an SI Unit, meaning it literally can’t be explained in terms of anything else. Typically, yes, you should always rack your brain to consider what other, simpler phenomena - potentially with fewer or zero parameters - might explain roughly similar behavior to what you have observed in the dependent variable. But we are not going to do that.

Does this have anything to do with fractals?


The model clearly works astonishingly — almost scarily — well, but doesn’t it bother you that we don’t really know why it’s so accurate? Can we push our analysis further? What does it mean?

This is a relatable urge, but it betrays a lack of understanding of the fundamental purpose of economic analysis. The goal of the enterprise is to paramaterize the macroscopic outcome of economic activity in the past and extrapolate it to the future, not to try to understand why anybody is doing anything.

Besides, how would you even measure that? It is intrinsic to our analysis that people are kinda stupid (see the discussion preceding Figures 2 through 7) and may or may not believe any old meme rather than acting strictly rationally and in light of perfect information perfectly available to them as to Bitcoin’s properties in the future.[vii]

We see, therefore, that Number Go Up doesn’t really have a meaning, as such. It transcends such petty mathemetizations. What is the meaning of a baby’s laugh? What is the meaning of the smell of morning dew? Number Go Up is more of a vibe …


photo by Dynamic Wang, via Unsplash

Bitcoin is the first manifestation of Number Go Up technology the world has ever seen. Surely this relationship with time has value? In this article, I quantify Number Go Up and use Number Go Up to model Bitcoin’s value.

A statistically significant relationship between time and market value exists. The likelihood that the relationship between Number Go Up and market value is caused by chance is close to zero.

Adding confidence in the model:

  • It was derived from first principles, not spurious real-world observations.
  • It has one variable.
  • That variable is “time.”
  • Time is the only truly scarce asset.
  • Did we just model scarcity also?
  • 🤔

Regardless, the model clearly proves that for the price of Bitcoin at a given point in the future, the number will probably have gone up.

follow me on nostr for more mind-blowing market analysis: #npub1sfhflz2msx45rfzjyf5tyj0x35pv4qtq3hh4v2jf8nhrtl79cavsl2ymqt

and twitter @allenf32



[i]: Gigi’s Bitcoin Is Time already proved this rigorously, but it is good to go from first principles and not rely on the work of others. Interesting areas for further research beyond the scope of this study might be to explore Bitcoin’s value as a function of Hope, Venice, and Potatoes.

[ii]: negative feedback, on the other hand, will lead to being blocked.

[iii]: one of the more exciting intrinsic properties of Bitcoin is that not only does the number go up, it goes up fast.

[iv]: Building models, that is.

[v]: Technically, price data is available since July of 2010, but it messes up the model, seemingly no matter how we parametrize it. It’s important not to hamstring ourselves by taking these things too literally. The data on which a model is built and the rhetoric we use to discuss it needn’t be isomorphic.

[vi]: The mathematical term for what is being conceptually approached here is that the system may become “nonlinear.” While I have a first in mathematics from the highest-ranked undergraduate department in the United Kingdom, we only covered linear systems at that level of instruction. Nonlinear systems are waaaaay harder and their study typically begins at postgraduate level. Unfortunately, I got a job in finance, stumbled into Bitcoin, then stumbled into the present analysis.

[vii]: We note the distinct possibility that, having published this mind-blowingly accurate model, the entirety of the behavior of market participants will change. It is further possible that such an occurrence would refute many of the assumptions that went into building the model, but it’s also possible that this won’t happen.


All Comments

Recommended for you

  • AirBit Club Co-Founder Sentenced to 12 Years in Prison for $100 Million Cryptocurrency Pyramid Scheme

    The co-founder of AirBit Club, a cryptocurrency pyramid scheme that defrauded investors of over $100 million, has been sentenced to 12 years in prison for his involvement in the scheme. He pleaded guilty to wire fraud conspiracy charges in March and was sentenced in September. The scheme purported to be involved in crypto mining, but instead, the co-founder used victims' money to line his own pockets through a complex laundering scheme. The convicted fraudster was ordered to pay a forfeiture of $65 million and to forfeit other items, including 3,800 Bitcoins worth $100 million. Other defendants in the case have also pleaded guilty and are awaiting sentencing verdicts.

  • US SEC Delays Approval for Bitcoin Spot ETF Applications Again

    The US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has once again postponed the approval of several Bitcoin spot ETF applications, including GlobalX's and Ark/21Shares'. The SEC has set a final deadline of January 10, 2024, to either approve or deny Ark's application. This delay comes after a group of congressmen sent a letter to SEC chair Gary Gensler demanding an end to discrimination against spot Bitcoin exchange-traded products. The delay may have dashed hopes of a spot ETF being approved by the end of the year, according to Bloomberg ETF analyst James Seyffart.

  • People familiar with the matter: The U.S. Department of Justice has been investigating Binance for a year, and Binance and CZ may be subject to criminal charges and billions of dollars in fines

    According to sources cited by The Wall Street Journal, the US Department of Justice has conducted a year-long investigation that could result in criminal charges and billions of dollars in fines for Binance and CZ. Binance also faces a lawsuit from the US Securities and Exchange Commission, accusing Binance and CZ of illegally operating and misusing customer funds in the United States. The company has admitted to past mistakes but says customer funds are safe and is committed to compliance. A Binance spokesperson said, "We work tirelessly not only to learn from our mistakes but also to invest in teams and systems that ensure user protection." Binance.US's activities in the United States have largely disappeared. Its CEO, general counsel, and chief risk officer have all recently resigned. According to sources, Binance and the Department of Justice have been discussing for months whether CZ should step down.

  • The Chairman of the U.S. SEC will testify tomorrow at the House Financial Services Committee’s hearing on SEC oversight issues

    On September 26th, it was announced that Gary Gensler, the Chairman of the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), will testify on SEC oversight issues at a hearing of the US House Financial Services Committee on September 27th at 22:00 Beijing time. According to a committee memorandum, the hearing will examine regulatory developments, rulemaking, and activities at the SEC during a period since October 5th, 2021, including the issuance of Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 121 on March 24th, 2022, which requires reporting entities engaged in digital asset custody activities to record the corresponding assets as liabilities, and the proposal to amend the definition of "exchange" on March 18th, 2022, to expand SEC authority over digital asset trading platforms.

  • The second fund of venture capital company P1 Ventures has raised US$25 million and plans to focus on financial technology and other fields.

    Venture capital firm P1 Ventures announced that its second fund has completed a first round of fundraising of $25 million. The new funds will focus on investing in financial technology, SaaS, artificial intelligence and other fields. P1 Ventures has previously invested in several Web3 startups, including leading a $2 million pre-seed round of financing for encrypted payment company Kotani, and participating in a $3 million seed round of financing for NFT sports and entertainment platform Eksab.

  • Hong Kong Monetary Authority: It is expected that the mBridge CBDC project will gradually transition to commercialization

    On September 26th, Eddie Yue, the Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Monetary Authority, gave a keynote speech at the 2023 Shanghai Securities Market Forum, where he provided detailed information about mBridge. The platform is a joint development project between Thailand, China's Hong Kong, the United Arab Emirates and the International Clearing Bank. The mBridge project is a digital platform developed by central banks from different countries, aimed at using blockchain technology for cross-border payments. Some people believe that it has the potential to challenge the traditional globally-based payment system that relies on the US dollar. It is expected that more central banks will join and expand the scope of the project. Yue said, "We look forward to more central banks joining this open platform, and soon we will launch what we call the minimum viable product to pave the way for mBridge's gradual commercialization. Recent pilot tests have shown that central bank digital currency (CBDC) platforms can accelerate cross-border payments while reducing costs and increasing transparency."

  • Encrypted blockchain project Fhenix received $7 million in financing, led by Multicoin Capital

    Fhenix, a confidential blockchain driven by fully homomorphic encryption (FHE), announced the completion of a $7 million seed round of financing led by Multicoin Capital and Collider Ventures, with participation from Node Capital, Bankless, HackVC, TaneLabs, and Metaplanet. These funds will be used to introduce the Fhenix network to the public testnet in early next year and support the development of ecosystem applications.

  • Ruan Guoheng, Deputy Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Monetary Authority, responded to the JPEX incident: "Don't just focus on what happened in the past two weeks."

    Recent JPEX incident has attracted attention throughout Hong Kong. Ruan Guoheng, Deputy Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Monetary Authority, emphasized at the Hong Kong Bankers Summit that the Authority hopes to promote Hong Kong as a financial technology center and embrace the opportunities brought by the virtual asset field. The Authority is studying Distributed Ledger Technology (DLT) and tokenization technology, which will fundamentally change the transaction methods of financial institutions and capital markets. He believes that DLT and tokenization have the potential to improve the stability and efficiency of transactions, and believes that related technologies will change economic activities in the next five years. "Don't just focus on what happened in the past two weeks."

  • The Taiwan Financial Supervisory Commission officially released the "Guiding Principles for the Management of Virtual Asset Platforms and Trading Businesses"

    On September 26th, according to official website news, the Financial Supervisory Commission of Taiwan has officially released the "Guidelines for the Management of Virtual Asset Platform and Trading Business (VASP)", with the following key points:

  • South Korean Financial Authority: Virtual asset depositors may also be reported under the Special Financial Services Act

    South Korean financial authorities seem to have determined that virtual asset (cryptocurrency) deposit operators can also be classified as virtual asset service providers (VASPs) under the Specific Financial Information Act. The financial intelligence agency under the Financial Services Commission stated in a written reply to the office of South Korean Democratic Party Representative Lee Yong-ryoo that if virtual asset depositors engage in selling, purchasing, storing, or transferring virtual assets, they may need to report under the Special Financial Services Act.