This is an opinion editorial by Brandon Green, the chief of staff for BTC Inc and an organizer of the Bitcoin 2023 conference. Bitcoin 2023 and Bitcoin Magazine are both operated by BTC Inc.
If you’re reading this, congratulations, you’ve now experienced a true bitcoin bear market. Yes, the winter is cold, and no it may not warm up for a little while, but it is in these moments, when the freezing air fills your lungs and the ringing in your ears from the noise of the past two years starts to fade, that the entire mission comes back into focus and the signal starts to shine a path in front of you again.
It is a winter wonderland indeed. And while, somehow, it continues to surprise everyone that winter follows summer, let us not forget that spring is sure to come, too, and it’s best to start preparing for it properly.
We’ve experienced quite a few of these seasons at Bitcoin Magazine, and it seems like after each cycle, we get a little closer to figuring out how hyperbitcoinization will truly progress, and what we need to do as a community and industry in order to help get us there. Unfortunately, the mechanism by which we figure this out tends to be via pain and harsh lessons.
In 2013 to 2014, we learned “not your keys, not your coins” as the largest exchange in all of Bitcoin (by far) collapsed. In 2017 to 2018, we learned how governance should work in a system without defined governance via bitter fork wars. Now, in 2021 to 2023, we’re learning how the introduction of credit and debt cycles affect and distort markets, as well as the various attack vectors introduced by paper bitcoin and IOUs, especially in a system with near-instant settlement.
Indeed, Bitcoin is taking us through a speedy crash course on the past 2,000-plus years of financial innovation. Anyone following Bitcoin’s trajectory closely can rightly consider him or herself an expert in monetary theory, among other things.
However, it is not enough to merely learn these lessons.
In the cold of winter, we do not hibernate; we build. It’s time to take these lessons from the past decade and apply them to the future of the global financial system. Many of the companies and projects helping us do that are already here, fine tuning their offerings and building a robust infrastructure for us to utilize. Many more have not even been imagined yet.
Bitcoin 2019 was founded four years ago, in the heart of the 2018 bear market on the heels of the bitter civil war. The goal was to “Make Bitcoin Fun Again”, heal wounds and help craft a path forward for this industry.
The industry surrounding Bitcoin grew tremendously over the proceeding four years, and our conference was designed to be an enabling force in that growth. Many of today’s Bitcoin-focused companies were founded at our events. Startups were pitched and funded. Companies met with and hired key employees. Business partnerships were forged in our meeting rooms. Products and services (and more!) were announced on our stages. You’d be hard pressed to find a company in our space that didn’t change the trajectory of their business by attending or sponsoring our conference.
In 2019, the community was divided and Bitcoin hadn’t properly been prioritized in the broader discourse. In 2023, the community is stronger than ever, but the industry surrounding Bitcoin has gotten absolutely rekt. The graveyard of companies that became overextended, overleveraged or outright fraudulent is huge. There are massive gaps in the products and services those companies created, and massive opportunities to build new products and services with the core tenets of Bitcoin as the focus. We have a unique opportunity to reimagine what a financial system with Bitcoin at its center looks like, and the Bitcoin 2023 conference will be our first chance to come together as a community and do just that.
Bitcoin 2023 is coming on May 18, 2023. The companies and builders who attend have a chance to be the leaders who shape the future of our industry for years to come. The ideas generated among attendees and speakers can be the underpinnings of the next growth phase of the industry. We will build back with Bitcoin at the core of every product and service on the market. And we will prove to the world that an idea whose time has come cannot be stopped.
This next epoch will perhaps be the most pivotal to Bitcoin’s success. Bitcoin’s “prove it” moment is upon us, and the whole world is watching. The future of Bitcoin awaits.
An independent review of the water industry is to recommend sweeping changes to the way the sector is managed, including the potential replacement of Ofwat with a strengthened body combining economic and environmental regulation.
Former Bank of England governor Sir Jon Cunliffe will publish the findings of the Independent Water Commission on Monday, with stakeholders across the industry expecting significant changes to regulation to be at its heart.
The existing regulator Ofwat has been under fire from all sides in recent years amid rising public anger at levels of pollution and the financial management of water companies.
Campaigners and politicians have accused Ofwat of failing to hold water operators to account, while the companies complain that its focus on keeping bills down has prevented appropriate investment in infrastructure.
In an interim report, published in June, Sir Jon identified the presence of multiple regulators with overlapping responsibilities as a key issue facing the industry.
While Ofwat is the economic regulator, the Environment Agency has responsibility for setting pollution standards, alongside the Drinking Water Inspectorate.
More on Environment
Related Topics:
Sir Jon’s final report is expected to include a recommendation that the government consider a new regulator that combines Ofwat’s economic regulatory powers with the water-facing responsibilities currently managed by the EA.
In his interim report, Sir Jon said options for reform ranged from “rationalising” existing regulation to “fundamental, structural options for integrating regulatory remits and functions”.
He is understood to have discussed the implications of fundamental reform with senior figures in industry and government in the last week as he finalised his report.
Environment Secretary Steve Reed is expected to launch a consultation on the proposals following publication of the commission report.
The commission is also expected to recommend a “major shift” in the model of economic regulation, which currently relies on econometric modelling, to a supervisory approach that takes more account of individual company circumstances.
On Monday, the government’s long-awaited review into the UK’s water industry will finally report.
The expectation is that it will recommend sweeping changes – including the abolition of the regulator, Ofwat.
But frustrated customers of the water companies could rightly complain that the process of taking on this failing sector and its regulator has been slow and ineffective.
They may be forgiven for going further and suggesting that how Labour has dealt with water is symbolic of their inability to make an impact across many areas of public life, leaving many of their voters disappointed.
This is an industry that has been visibly and rapidly declining for decades, with the illegal sewage dumping and rotting pipes in stark contrast with the vast salaries and bonuses paid out to their executives.
It doesn’t take a review to see what’s gone wrong. Most informed members of the public could explain what has happened in a matter of minutes.
And yet, despite 14 years in opposition with plenty of time to put together a radical plan, a review is exactly what the government decided on before taking on Ofwat.
Month after month, they were asked if they believed the water industry regulator was fit for purpose despite the obvious disintegration on their watch. Every time the answer was ‘yes’.
As in so many areas of government, Labour, instead of acting, needed someone else to make the decision for them, meaning that it has taken over a year to come to the simple conclusion that the regulator is in fact, not fit for purpose.
As they enter their second year in office, maybe this can provide a lesson they desperately need to learn if they want to turn around their fortunes.
That bold decisions do not require months of review, endless consultations, or outside experts to endlessly analyse the problem.
They just need to get on with it. Voters will thank them.
Sir Jon has said the water industry requires long-term strategic planning and stability in order to make it attractive to “low-risk, low-return investors”.
The water industry has long complained that the current model, in which companies are benchmarked against a notional model operator, and penalised for failing to hit financial and environmental standards, risks a “doom loop”.
Thames Water, currently battling to complete an equity process to avoid falling into special administration, has said the imposition of huge fines for failing to meet pollution standards is one of the reasons it is in financial distress.
Publication of the Independent Commission report comes after the Environment Agency published figures showing that serious pollution incidents increased by 60% in 2024, and as Thames Water imposes a hosepipe ban on 15m customers.
Ofwat, Water UK and the Department for the Environment all declined to comment.
On June 6, online real estate service Opendoor was so desperate to get its beaten-down stock price back over $1 and stay listed on the Nasdaq that management proposed a reverse split, potentially lifting the price of each share by as much as 50 times.
The stock inched its way up over the next five weeks.
Then Eric Jackson started cheerleading.
Jackson, a hedge fund manager who was bullish on Opendoor years earlier when the company appeared to be thriving and was worth roughly $20 billion, wrote on X on Monday that his firm, EMJ Capital, was back in the stock.
“@EMJCapital has taken a position in $OPEN — and we believe it could be a 100-bagger over the next few years,” Jackson wrote. He added later in the thread that the stock could get to $82.
It’s a long, long way from that mark.
Opendoor shares soared 189% this week, by far their best weekly performance since the company’s public market debut in late 2020. The stock closed on Friday at $2.25. The stock’s highest-volume trading days on record were Wednesday, Thursday and Friday of this week.
Jackson said in an interview on Thursday that the bulk of his firm’s Opendoor purchases came when the stock was in the 70s and 80s, meaning cents, and he’s bought options as well for his portfolio.
Nothing has fundamentally improved for the company since Jackson’s purchases. Opendoor remains a cash-burning, low-margin business with meager near-term growth prospects.
What has changed dramatically is Jackson’s online influence and the size of his following. The more he posts, the higher the stock goes.
“There’s a real hunger for buying the next big thing,” Jackson told CNBC, adding that investors like to find the “downtrodden.”
It’s something Jackson’s firm, based in Toronto, has in common with Opendoor.
When Opendoor went public through a special purpose acquisition company in 2020, it was riding a SPAC wave and broader gains driven by low interest rates and Covid-era market euphoria. Investors pumped money into the riskiest assets, lifting money-losing tech upstarts to astronomical valuations.
Opendoor’s business involved using technology to buy and sell homes, pocketing the gains. Zillow tried and failed to compete.
Opendoor shares peaked at over $39 in Feb. 2021 for a market cap just above $22.5 billion. But by the end of that year, the shares were trading below $15, before collapsing 92% in 2022 to end the year at $1.16.
Rising interest rates hammered the whole tech sector, hitting Opendoor particularly hard as increased borrowing costs reduced demand for homes.
Jackson, similarly, had a miserable 2022, coinciding with the worst year for the Nasdaq since 2008. Jackson said his key client withdrew its money at the end of the year, and “I’ve been small ever since.”
‘Epic comeback’
While his assets under management remain minimal, Jackson’s reputation for getting in early to a rebound story was burnished by the performance of Carvana.
The automotive e-commerce platform lost 98% of its value in 2022 as investors weighed the likelihood of bankruptcy. In the middle of that year, with Carvana still far from bottoming out, Jackson expressed his bullishness. He told CNBC that April that he liked the stock, and then promoted its recovery on a podcast in June. He also said he liked Opendoor at the time.
Investors willing to stomach further losses in 2022 were rewarded with a 1,000% gain in 2023, and a lot more upside from there. The stock closed on Friday at $347.52, up from a low of $3.72 in Dec. 2022, and almost triple its price at the time of Jackson’s appearance on CNBC in April of that year.
After Carvana’s 2022 slide, “then obviously began an epic comeback,” Jackson said. Opendoor, meanwhile, “continued to roll down the mountain,” he said.
Jackson said that the fallout of 2022 led him to pursue a different method of stockpicking. He started hiring a small team of developers, which is now four people, to build out artificial intelligence models. The firm has experimented with several models —some have worked and some haven’t — but he said the focus now is using what he’s learned from Carvana to find “100x” opportunities.
In addition to Opendoor, Jackson has been promoting IREN, a provider of power for bitcoin mining and AI workloads, and Cipher Mining, which is in a similar space. He’s seen his following on Elon Musk‘s social media site X, which he said was stuck for years between 32,000 and 34,000, swell to almost 50,000. And after a lengthy lull, investors are reaching out to him to try and put money into his fund, he said.
Jackson has a lot riding on Opendoor, a company that saw revenue and number of homes sold slip in the first quarter from a year earlier, and racked up almost $370 million in losses over the past four quarters.
In early June, Opendoor announced plans for a reverse split — ranging from 1 for 10 to 1 for 50 — to “give us optionality in preserving our listing on Nasdaq.” With the stock now well over $1, such a move appears less necessary, as shareholders prepare to vote on the proposal on July 28.
“I think it’s a terrible idea,” said Jackson. “Those things usually further cement a company’s move into oblivion rather than hail some big revival.”
Opendoor didn’t respond to a request for comment.
Banking on growth
Analysts are projecting a more than 5% drop in revenue this year, followed by 20% growth in 2026 and 12% expansion in 2017, according to LSEG. Losses are expected to narrow over that stretch.
Jackson said his analysis factors in projections of $11.5 billion in revenue for 2029, which would be well over double the company’s expected sales for this year. He looked at the multiples of companies like Zillow and Carvana, which he said trade for 4 to 7 times forward revenue. Opendoor’s forward price-to-sales ratio is currently well below 1.
With Zillow and Redfin having exited the instant-buying home market, Opendoor faces little competition in allowing homeowners to sell their property online for cash, rather than going through an extended bidding, sales and closing process.
Jackson is banking on revenue growth and increased market share to lead to a profitable business that will push investors to value the company with a multiple somewhere between Zillow and Carvana. At $82, Opendoor would be worth about $60 billion, which is roughly 5 times projected 2029 revenue.
Jackson said his model assumes that “like Carvana, Opendoor can prove that it can permanently turn the tide and get to sustained profitability” so that the “market multiple would get reassessed.”
In the meantime, he’ll keep posting on X.
On Friday, Jackson wrote a thread consisting of 11 posts, recounting the challenge of having “99.5% of my AUM” disappear overnight after his primary investor pulled out in 2022.
“Translation: he fired me for losing him too much money,” Jackson wrote. He said he almost shut down the fund, and was even encouraged to do so by his wife and accountant.
Now, Jackson is using his recent momentum on social media to try and attract investor money, while still reminding prospects that he could lose it.
“All I have is my reputation,” he wrote, “and, unless I keep picking good stocks, it will be gone.”