That model appears to be nonsense. There’s no “stock to flow” price relationship in economics or investing. The author made it up for their piece, looked at gold, and extrapolated.

They say in the piece:

> Now contrast Bitcoin's dynamic stock-to-flow with Gold's, who's stock-to-flow of 62 is not likely in increase. As a thought experiment, try to imagine what would happen to the price of gold if were to be halved one day?

That did happen, in 1940! Gold production fell in half for years. And the gold price subsequently fell.

> That did happen, in 1940! Gold production fell in half for years. And the gold price subsequently fell.

Can I see evidence of this? Using this[1] paper and this[2] article I can see gold production by no means halved and gold prices did not fall.

[1] https://ies.princeton.edu/pdf/E15.pdf

[2] https://www.thebalance.com/gold-price-history-3305646

I was going off this chart. Looking more closely, somewhat less than half but close

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6d/Wo...

However, your first source indicates a drop substantially less than half, so perhaps the chart I looked at is not correct?

For the price I was looking at an inflation adjusted chart. In constant dollars the price seems to have stayed the same. Typing this out I now realized this must have been the gold standard and my comment was completely incorrect on this point re: gold. The price fell in real terms as it was pegged.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/ff/Go...

Please refrain from assuming that anyone asking a question is being "snarky"

Definition of snarky: critical or mocking in an indirect or sarcastic way.

What you said. The 3rd sentence in particular: I guess when enough people say something it becomes a "fact"

So that was just simply asking a question? No mocking or sarcasm? Without the last sentence you would have just been asking a question. With it, you are being snarky.