NMR Price Appreciation

This was mentioned in Rocket Chat but I can’t find the exact message now. TLDR the increased supply is because they had to move a load of NMR out of a treasury address and into another, but the new one isn’t marked as a treasury address yet. Once they mark it the supply will drop again

Any idea when this is going to happen?

Tesla lagged the market for years! Until it didn’t!
The market is not efficient. It takes time for big buyers to realize real value.
This is especially true if someone seems like working in an old industry, while transforming the old industry as a whole into a new one.

This applies to Tesla and I believe to Numerai as well.

1 Like

After one year from IPO, in July 2011 TSLA price appreciation equaled that of the Nasdaq. After two years from IPO its price appreciation was double on average. After 3 years it was off to the moon. Would you like me to paste the charts here? TSLA was on par and easily pulled ahead of its market, right from the beginning.

If one is serious about trying to understand the economics of NMR one can’t resort to appealing to unicorns. Even here, NMR just does not cut it! Instead, why not try to understand the forces at work? The community of data scientists is vastly outnumbered by crypto speculators and I repeat that otherwise there is no connection between the Hedge Fund – which in principle could be providing enormous value to the world – and NMR, because Numerai has stated that there is no such connection.

But there is no arguing and no denying that the whole endeavor is a big risk. But it is a risk that is mostly being taken on by data scientists – with both their time and their cash.

interesting discussion here, I am too much a noob in trading to contribute to subjects of price appreciation, the how and why of it - but still want to say I find the points in this thread very interesting.

still, some thoughts:

  • In my naive understanding, price movement has a lot to do with who’s buying it, who’s holding and/or hodling it, and who is selling it, do we have some info related to this, perhaps in some form of on-chain analytics from Numerai or others cryto portal?

  • the discussion about price appreciation and value seem to always related to each other, perhaps it is not coincident that in the last fireside chat they talk about decorrelate NMR with major coins? it may well be quite reasonable that NMR has a lot of values to some people (like us here), but doesn’t has value to others i.e. most people who don’t participate in the competition (i.e. not model builders or prediction buyers) - in that case, I don’t necessarily associate price movement to my conviction to NMR as something that has value - which is in term quite a personal perception.

  • in one of the old university business lectures I attended, such a formula was presented that value = “utility”+“effort of using”-“risk” - in this case, at least as a participant of NMR - there is utility of NMR in ways that similar to other “AI coins” like FET that has clear utility; using it just like other cryto currency is much easier than fiat; on the risk side it is more complex - price appreciation/depreciation is shared by the crypto landscape, in that sense I quite like the idea of decorrelation. I think the big one is how Numerai as an entity functions - as a hedge fund in trading performance, as a potential attractive investment for more VC, etc.

If they go through with what Richard said last time, to change the filed status so that they can disclose the fund performance (even just some aspect of it), I think we can all discussed in a more informed manner - hope that would comes in the not too distant future.

Personally, I think the reasonable thing to do, especially you can’t afforded to lose all the NMR you invested, would be to somehow de-risk - take some off stake after certain level of profitability, invest in some diversified way: fiat conversion, other defi stuff, other coins, other assets.


Correct. Supply and staked amounts can be found here.

1 Like

Some good thougths on the valuation of NMR from @jrai here:

Probably the key point here is:
"This all said, I believe the true, intrinsic Erasure network value is some combination of:

  • expected future value extracted from all staked data on the Erasure protocol
  • …"

He also made a similar forum post here.

One of the frameworks he uses to value NMR is NPV. The formula for this is \mathrm{NPV} = \sum_{t=1}^n \frac{R_t}{(1 + i)^t} , where R_t is the return at period t and i is the discount factor which includes alternative investments. Because of the payout factor we are presently seeing R_t increasing linearly in time at best. In the meantime I would strongly argue that the key alternative investment for this crowd is bitcoin, etc. The factor, t, in the exponent of the denominator means that the linearly increasing numerator is getting crushed by rapidly increasing bitcoin prices.

OTOH, he discusses extremely speculative other use cases for Erasure in the far future. Those in principle could contribute to R_t. I say speculative because I have not seen anything to indicate that there is any effective use case for the Erasure protocol other than for staking NMR in the tournament itself; although I would say that even that use case is not yet entirely proven. The speculative nature of all of those other use cases must be discounted and compounded into i even before computing the sum or just simply ignored as a contribution to R_t in the numerator.

IMHO, the most convincing discussion has to do with the treasury running out and Numerai being forced to buy NMR on the open market. Yes, he does mention this. But throw a dart in the map estimates give a time period of 10 to 20 years before that happens. In the meantime some of you will have become bitcoin billionaires and NMR will just start to be picking up speed. Wouldn’t that be an enormous opportunity lost?

I think this reference is really a good argument for starting to purchase back NMR now. Even small buybacks would point the rudder of the NMR juggernaut in the right direction; strongly reducing the negative effects of the discount factor, i.