Introduction Project Overview Network Analysis Mining Ecosystem Appendix Nov 6th 2019
PROJECT RESEARCH
Digital Asset Research
Bitcoin SV believes its protocol best represents the original vision for Bitcoin. Specifically, this means that Bitcoin SV Alex Kern AC does not limit its block size and believes that developers have too much power relative to miners. Today, the network is [email protected] primarily used for storing metadata. BSV’s goal over the long-term is to provide usage both as a payments network and 212-293-7133 commodity data ledger (metadata storage). With its ambitious goals, Bitcoin SV is contributing to the necessary protocol Sam Doctor design experimentation in crypto. No cryptocurrency has achieved global adoption, thus the space needs projects to [email protected] continue tinkering with protocol designs to find the optimal one that can accommodate global adoption. • Bitcoin SV believes its protocol more closely reflects the original Bitcoin design than does Bitcoin Core or Bitcoin SV TL;DR Bitcoin Cash. Specifically, BSV believes BCH was wrong to add opcodes and make other changes not in the original protocol and will soon be removing its block size limit; BTC and BCH limit block sizes to ~2MB and 32MB, respectively (though BTC now technically uses a “block weight” limit) (Slide 14). The challenge for BSV will be to • Split of Bitcoin Cash (which prove that its protocol is not only the original Bitcoin design, but the best design for wide consumer and business itself came from split of Bitcoin adoption (Slide 9). Core) • Protocol design requires tradeoffs between scalability, security, and decentralization. Bitcoin SV can • Current block size limit = 2GB achieve ~700 TPS at 256MB miner-chosen block limit (slide 14), but mining is concentrated with two pools >40% of total network hash power. Vitalik Buterin famously coined this idea of the “blockchain trilemma.” For • Genesis upgrade in Feb ’20 to example, BSV’s hash power concentration and cost to run a full node are such that its network security is ensured remove block size cap entirely through a small group of ecosystem supporters. The differences between BSV, BTC, and BCH can be similarly • Believes its protocol design is broken out between use case, balance of power, and scalability (Slide 10). the closest representation to • BSV is the biggest block Bitcoin. BSV believes corporates will require network throughput capacity much higher the original Bitcoin protocol than what is currently needed before they are comfortable using the network. Daily transaction value on the network • Competes with Bitcoin Core averages ~$25mm with blocks 0.43% full vs. BTC daily value ~$2.6B and its blocks typically ~50% full (Slide 14). and Bitcoin Cash to own the • Today, the network is primarily used for storing metadata. Over the long-term BSV wants to be a commodity “Bitcoin” brand data ledger for the internet. For example, the two most active apps on BSV are WeatherSV and Preev. The former records weather data on-chain, while the latter is a crypto exchange rate calculator. These transactions are low • On-chain activity is low at value but high volume; these microtransactions are supported by BSV’s low fees as a percentage of on-chain $4.5mm daily volume vs. volume (Slide 21). $1,400mm for BTC and $76mm for BCH • BSV could be more profitable to mine due to the higher risk associated with a smaller project. Though, mining revenues are currently very small at ~$0.30mm per day compared to BTC $17mm and BCH $0.50mm (Slide • BSV has similar number of daily 28). But, currently BTC is slightly more profitable to mine than BSV (1.2x vs. 1.1x price-to-breakeven). transactions to BTC (~300k) Bottom line: It’s still very early days for cryptocurrency technology and there is little certainty around what the ThisThis document document is preparedis prepared solely solely for Fundstrat for clients. winning implementation could be. BSV is contributing to the necessary experimentation to test which protocol Forclients inquiries, of Fundstrat please contact Global Sales Advisors. at 212-293-7140 or via design is most likely to achieve broad adoption. The data shows that the network lags BTC and BCH email [email protected]. Bloomberg:For inquiries, RESP please FSGA contact <
BSV emerged after a contentious split of the BCH network. BSV supporters disagreed with protocol changes to Bitcoin Cash, which they contend deviate from the original Bitcoin protocol. BCH had itself emerged after a chain split with Bitcoin Core (BTC) following BTC’s addition of SegWit. These protocol disputes represent clashing visions over how best to scale (or not scale) Bitcoin. 1 • The BSV community disagreed with BCH’s proposed changes, such as adding opcodes not in the original Bitcoin protocol and maintaining protocol limits (ex. block size) that BSV believed were temporary by design. • BSV instead proposed (1) increasing max block size to 128MB from 32MB (2) restoring Satoshi opcodes from version 0.11 and (3) removing the 201 opcodes per script limit2. 2 Figure: Timeline of BTC, BCH, and BSV protocol disputes Per Fundstrat Early Late BSV believes its project is Jan ‘09 Dec ‘15 Aug ‘17 Aug ‘17 continuing the original protocol
3
BTC Core BIP125: BIP141: Early released Replace-by-fee SegWit Aug ‘18 Nov ‘18 4 BCH and BTC split
BCH community Mid disagrees on desired Nov ‘18 protocol changes 5 BSV and BCH split “Hash war” lasts 11 days
1. Opcodes: a set of commands used to construct the small range of operations that Script performs in the Bitcoin protocol. Script is the programming language within the Bitcoin protocol used for transaction processing (ex. verifying transactions). 2. 201 opcode per script limit: defends network against cyber attacks invoking high computational load by limiting the number of opcodes contained within one script (operations) Source: https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
November 6, 2019 Slide 2 Introduction Project Overview Network Analysis Mining Ecosystem Appendix
The Bitcoin SV (BSV) community believes BSV is the closest representation of Satoshi Nakamoto’s original vision for the Bitcoin protocol, undoubtedly a controversial belief. Their view of what Bitcoin was meant to be includes a raised block limit, greater power with miners relative to developers, and fewer major edits to the project source code. • Scalability, stakeholder balance of power, and use case are areas where BSV has taken its network in a different 1 direction than either BTC or BCH. • The challenge for BSV will be convincing the broader crypto community not just that BSV is the original vision for Bitcoin, but that it’s the best vision for gaining mass adoption. 2 Satoshi’s Vision?
3 • P2P Electronic cash • Decentralized network • Fixed monetary policy • Predictable inflation 4 • Scalable • Open source code ...BTC, BCH, BSV have 5 conflicting views
Source: https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
November 6, 2019 Slide 3 Introduction Project Overview Network Analysis Mining Ecosystem Appendix
BSV’s strategy is to make blocks significantly larger than what is currently needed in order to attract corporate partners. Post- Genesis upgrade, BSV’s block size limit is 2GB (though most miners are setting their block template size to 256MB). • Although we estimate transactions per second (TPS) for BSV could reach 1500, this does not account for larger transaction sizes (ex. document storage) and bandwidth needs. 600 tps is a more practical limit, especially since 1 most BSV miners currently set their block limit to 256MB. At full 2GB blocks, BSV could reach >5000 TPS depending on transaction size. • Further, at 1.1MB, BSV’s blocks are larger than BTC’s. Being 0.43% full, they can still accommodate future growth.
2 Figure: BSV is the “big block” Bitcoin in MB, 30 day moving average BSV BTC BCH What block size is just right? (a) 24H Transactions 236,479 319,354 42,363 BSV miners are setting their 3 (b) 24H Blocks 145 146 144 block limits to 256MB (c) = (b) / (a) Transactions / Block 1,636 2,189 294 32MB 2GB (d) Average Block Size (MB) 1.10 0.98 0.10 4 2MB
(e) = (d) / (c) Average transaction size (MB) 0.000670 0.000448 0.000356
(f) Miner chosen block limit (MB) 256 2 32 5 BSV chose biggest blocks for highest theoretical TPS... (g) = (f) / (e) * 144 / (24 * 3600) TPS with 256MB chosen block limit 636.8 7.4 149.8
(h) = (d) / (f) Block fill % 0.43% 49.08% 0.33% ...but low on-chain activity results in nearly empty blocks (i) = (a) / 24 / 3600 Actual TPS 2.7 3.7 0.5 and low actual TPS
Source: https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
November 6, 2019 Slide 4 Introduction Project Overview Network Analysis Mining Ecosystem Appendix
Using the Bitmain Antminer S9 and S17 Pro mining rigs as a reference, we show that both the BCH and BSV Networks are operating at slightly lower profitability than BTC. We also note that a 3rd party, coin.dance, has often shown BSV to be more profitable to mine than BTC or BCH (in our view reflecting the project’s higher risk). • Miners are acting rationally, with little arbitrage available; we expect smaller projects to deliver higher profitability to compensate miners for taking on higher risk on higher volatility of both price and hash power, 1 and lower network security. • Notably, profitability suggests miners perceive BSV risk as comparable to its larger BCH competitor.
Figure: Mining profitability for main Bitcoin forks As of 10/31/19 2 Bitmain Antminer S9 Bitmain Antminer S17 Pro
BTC BCH BSV BTC BCH BSV Total Hashpower 88,995,440 2,925,400 1,368,800 88,995,440 2,925,400 1,368,800 3 Price $9,222.00 $281.31 $128.24 $9,222.00 $281.31 $128.24 Device Hashpower, TH/s 14.0 14.0 14.0 56.0 56.0 56.0 Share of Hashpower 0.000016% 0.000479% 0.001023% 0.000063% 0.001914% 0.004091% Cost per rig $310 $310 $310 $2,969 $2,969 $2,969 4 Power consumption per device, Watts 1471.3 1471.3 1471.3 2696.4 2696.4 2696.4 Daily power cost @ 0.06 / kWh $2.12 $2.12 $2.12 $3.88 $3.88 $3.88 Overhead cost @20% $0.42 $0.42 $0.42 $0.78 $0.78 $0.78 Tokens mined per day 0.000295 0.008973 0.019177 0.001180 0.035893 0.076710 5 Depreciation / Token (24 month life) $1,460 $48 $22 $3,495 $115 $54 Cash cost per token $8,619 $283 $133 $3,949 $130 $61 Total cost per token $10,079 $331 $155 $7,444 $245 $114
Price / Cash Breakeven 1.1x 1.0x 1.0x 2.3x 2.2x 2.1x Price / Breakeven 0.9x 0.8x 0.8x 1.2x 1.1x 1.1x
Source: Fundstrat, coinmarketcap.com, blockchain.com, bitinfocharts
November 6, 2019 Slide 5 Introduction Project Overview Network Analysis Mining Ecosystem Appendix
Bitcoin SV will lift the theoretical block size limit from 2GB with its Genesis upgrade, allowing miners to set their own block cap limit. Currently the block cap limit is 2GB with most miners setting their own limit to 256 MB. This design decision is motivated by BSV’s desire to give miners greater control over the network relative to developers. • Block sizes are constrained by the 10-minute block interval and the time it takes for larger blocks to propagate 1 through the network. • In practice, the block size would increase with network usage (fuller blocks) and improved internet bandwidth. Current Genesis upgrade 2 Genesis upgrade will remove block size limit entirely...
3 2048
4
Current block size limit is 2048MB 1024 5
512 …But network capacity likely to constrain miners’ block size settings Miners can set 256 lower limit, 256 MB 256 MB currently 256MB Source: Fundstrat
November 6, 2019 Slide 6 Introduction Project Overview Network Analysis Mining Ecosystem Appendix
• Split of Bitcoin Cash (which • Block cap = 2GB • ~1 EH/s mining hash power itself came from split of Bitcoin Core) • Genesis upgrade will remove • Primary mining pools: Coingeek, block cap completely SVPool, Mempool, ViaBTC • “Big block” Bitcoin implementation • Wants to “freeze” protocol to • Mining is more centralized vs. reduce developer power other chains but mining diversity • Targeting enterprise usage to has been increasing recently drive consumer adoption • BSV does not expect all users to run full nodes and doing so is • Larger blocks = higher cost to cost prohibitive for retail users run full nodes
Overview Key features Mining
Partnerships to date include: Infrastructure supporting BSV... • CoinGeek London, Feb ‘20 • DRIVE Markets (payments) • 15+ wallets • Genesis protocol upgrade in February 2020 to eliminate all • UNISOT (supply chain) • 25+ services accepting BSV as block size caps payment • CryptoFights (gaming) • 10+ block explorers • Twetch (social media) • nChain (development arm) • ONEstore (mobile apps) • CoinGeek (media, conferences, mining, and investment) Upcoming Partnerships Community catalysts
November 6, 2019 Slide 7 Introduction Project Overview Network Analysis Mining Ecosystem Appendix
BSV emerged after a contentious split of the BCH network. BSV supporters disagreed with protocol changes to Bitcoin Cash, which they contend deviate from the original Bitcoin protocol. BCH had itself emerged after a chain split with Bitcoin Core (BTC) following BTC’s addition of SegWit. These protocol disputes represent clashing visions over how best to scale (or not scale) Bitcoin. • The BSV community disagreed with BCH’s proposed changes, such as adding opcodes not in the original Bitcoin protocol and maintaining protocol limits (ex. block size) that BSV believed were temporary by design. • BSV instead proposed (1) increasing max block size to 128MB from 32MB (2) restoring Satoshi opcodes from version 0.11 and (3) removing the 201 opcodes per script limit2. Figure: Timeline of BTC, BCH, and BSV protocol disputes Per Fundstrat Early Late BSV believes its project is Jan ‘09 Dec ‘15 Aug ‘17 Aug ‘17 continuing the original protocol
BTC Core BIP125: BIP141: Early released Replace-by-fee SegWit Aug ‘18 Nov ‘18 BCH and BTC split
BCH community Mid disagrees on desired Nov ‘18 protocol changes BSV and BCH split “Hash war” lasts 11 days
1. Opcodes: a set of commands used to construct the small range of operations that Script performs in the Bitcoin protocol. Script is the programming language within the Bitcoin protocol used for transaction processing (ex. verifying transactions). 2. 201 opcode per script limit: defends network against cyber attacks invoking high computational load by limiting the number of opcodes contained within one script (operations) Source: https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
November 6, 2019 Slide 8 Introduction Project Overview Network Analysis Mining Ecosystem Appendix
The Bitcoin SV (BSV) community believes BSV is the closest representation of Satoshi Nakamoto’s original vision for the Bitcoin protocol, undoubtedly a controversial belief. Their view of what Bitcoin was meant to be includes a raised block limit, greater power with miners relative to developers, and fewer major edits to the project source code. • Scalability, stakeholder balance of power, and use case are areas where BSV has taken its network in a different direction than either BTC or BCH. • The challenge for BSV will be convincing the broader crypto community not just that BSV is the original vision for Bitcoin, but that it’s the best vision for gaining mass adoption.
Satoshi’s Vision? • P2P Electronic cash • Decentralized network • Fixed monetary policy • Predictable inflation • Scalable • Open source code ...BTC, BCH, BSV have conflicting views
Source: https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
November 6, 2019 Slide 9 Introduction Project Overview Network Analysis Mining Ecosystem Appendix
Scalability, balance of power, and use case identity are the core areas of contention fueling the Bitcoin debate both within and between Bitcoin projects. The market will ultimately decide the right answers and so far, BTC is winning the popularity contest in the market for decentralized value transfer (measured by total market cap). • BSV desires a high throughout (scalability) data commodity network (use case identity) where power is shifted away from developers towards miners (balance of power). • The best variation will win in the marketplace as expressed through price and network activity...due to significance of network effects, winning the “popularity contest” in fork wars is crucial. Scalability Balance of Power Use Case Capacity to handle transaction Balance between devs, miners, Should Bitcoin be digital cash, activity pertinent to use case and nodes to control direction and digital gold, or a general use Their view... security of protocol commodity data ledger? BSV • 2GB block size (soon to have • Freeze protocol to reduce • Digital cash / payments no limit) developer control • Commodity data ledger • Bitcoin must scale to be a • Centralized development commodity data ledger (nChain) • Network stability = fewer changes to protocol BTC • SegWit (now over 50% of tx) • Desire active developer • Digital gold at 1st layer • Scaling isn’t free – costs community • Opportunity for payments with security and decentralization • Miners are commodity actors, 2nd layer scaling respond to incentives
BCH • 32MB block size • Desire active developer • Payments network / digital • Bitcoin must scale to be global community cash at the 1st layer P2P payments network • Miners are commodity actors; respond to incentives
Source: https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
November 6, 2019 Slide 10 Introduction Project Overview Network Analysis Mining Ecosystem Appendix
Satoshi at least entertained the notion of increasing the block size in 2010 on a discussion Bitcointalk discussion thread, and even suggested how it theoretically could be done. • The idea of raising the block size limit is a concept that has been discussed since the earliest days of Bitcoin.
Figure: Bitcointalk.com discussion thread on increasing block size limit From 2010
Theoretical solution – phasing in larger block size limit after certain number of blocks have been mined
Source: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1391350.0
November 6, 2019 Slide 11 Introduction Project Overview Network Analysis Mining Ecosystem Appendix
In one email to Mike Hearn (former BTC core developer) in 2009, Satoshi suggested that the Bitcoin network could one day scale to be much larger than the Visa’s online credit card network. In ‘09 Visa was processing ~15mm online credit purchases per day, or ~170 tps vs. BTC’s current limit of 4-7 tps. • It’s impossible to truly know Satoshi’s intentions, but this does seem to negate the notion that Satoshi would not want Bitcoin to scale significantly. • Separately, Satoshi even seems to accept the possibility of specialized mining operations.
Figure: Email from Satoshi Nakamoto to Mike Hearne re: Bitcoin Scaling From 2009
Scaling to compete with Visa
Advent of ASICs not expected
Source: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1391350.0
November 6, 2019 Slide 12 Introduction Project Overview Network Analysis Mining Ecosystem Appendix
• Block size limit is currently set to 2GB, but will be removed entirely following the Genesis upgrade (February 2020) Performance • With most miners setting block limit to 256MB, BSV theoretical TPS is currently ~700 TPS • Actual TPS is ~2.1 due to low on-chain activity; blocks are currently carrying 0.30% of total capacity
• Miner concentration is high with the two largest pools approaching ~50% of total hash power. • Though, with total network hash power ~1 EH/s, CoinGeek and ViaBTC’s significant share of hash power Security (>40%) could be viewed as a defensive measure against another non-supportive pool waging a network attack.
• nChain is the primary development team of BSV; code development is centralized with nChain controlling all code changes. Governance • The Bitcoin Association owns the BSV node software, which differs from traditional open source projects in crypto; it also funds node software development. • BSV believes more power should be with miners than with developers (mitigating BSV’s centralized development)
• BSV supports pseudo-anonymity, but not anonymity; believes there should be a minimum level of transaction visibility for regulators to effectively monitor transactions for illegal activity. Regulation • Developers are not prioritizing transaction anonymity on the network. • Supports tokenization solutions on BSV that emphasize a regulatory friendly design.
• Micropayments Use case • The long-term and ambitious vision for BSV, highlighted by the introduction in December ’18 of the “Metanet”, is for BSV to act as a commodity data ledger for the internet. applications
Source: Fundstrat, Bitcoin SV
November 6, 2019 Slide 13 Introduction Project Overview Network Analysis Mining Ecosystem Appendix
BSV’s strategy is to make blocks significantly larger than what is currently needed in order to attract corporate partners. Post- Genesis upgrade, BSV’s block size limit is 2GB (though most miners are setting their block template size to 256MB). • Although we estimate transactions per second (TPS) for BSV could reach 1500, this does not account for larger transaction sizes (ex. document storage) and bandwidth needs. 600 tps is a more practical limit, especially since most BSV miners currently set their block limit to 256MB. At full 2GB blocks, BSV could reach >5000 TPS depending on transaction size. • Further, at 1.1MB, BSV’s blocks are larger than BTC’s. Being 0.43% full, they can still accommodate future growth.
Figure: BSV is the “big block” Bitcoin in MB, 30 day moving average BSV BTC BCH What block size is just right? (a) 24H Transactions 236,479 319,354 42,363
(b) 24H Blocks 145 146 144 BSV miners are setting their block (c) = (b) / (a) Transactions / Block 1,636 2,189 294 limits to 256MB 32MB 2GB (d) Average Block Size (MB) 1.10 0.98 0.10 2MB
(e) = (d) / (c) Average transaction size (MB) 0.000670 0.000448 0.000356
(f) Miner chosen block limit (MB) 256 2 32 BSV chose biggest blocks for highest theoretical TPS... (g) = (f) / (e) * 144 / (24 * 3600) TPS with 256MB chosen block limit 636.8 7.4 149.8
(h) = (d) / (f) Block fill % 0.43% 49.08% 0.33% ...but low on-chain activity results in nearly empty blocks (i) = (a) / 24 / 3600 Actual TPS 2.7 3.7 0.5 and low actual TPS
Source: https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
November 6, 2019 Slide 14 Introduction Project Overview Network Analysis Mining Ecosystem Appendix
Bitcoin SV will lift the theoretical block size limit from 2GB with its Genesis upgrade, allowing miners to set their own block cap limit. Currently the block cap limit is 2GB with most miners setting their own limit to 256 MB. This design decision is motivated by BSV’s desire to give miners greater control over the network relative to developers. • Block sizes are constrained by the 10-minute block interval and the time it takes for larger blocks to propagate through the network. • In practice, the block size would increase with network usage (fuller blocks) and improved internet bandwidth.
Current Genesis upgrade
Genesis upgrade will remove block size limit entirely...
2048
Current block size limit is 2048MB 1024
512 …But network capacity likely to constrain miners’ block size settings Miners can set 256 lower limit, 256 MB 256 MB currently 256MB Source: Fundstrat
November 6, 2019 Slide 15 Introduction Project Overview Network Analysis Mining Ecosystem Appendix
PROS CONS
Theoretical TPS exceeds BTC and BCH High block size could inhibit network propagation BSV’s current block size limit of 2GB (and soon to be In part due to large block sizes, BSV occasionally unlimited) means that the theoretical TPS of the network experiences block reorgs though it is unclear what the is significantly higher than that of BTC or BCH. long-term detriment of such events could be.
Centralized software development brings Centralized developer community may turn off open efficiencies to process source software purists With nChain as the primary development arm of BSV, Though it brings efficiencies to software changes, a software changes are able to occur much more formalized centralized development arm may alienate expeditiously than with other chains. some members of the open source community.
Stable codebase Inhibiting developer power could have unforeseen BSV aims to create a stable codebase by reducing the consequences number of changes to it going forward. Over time this is BSV will shift power away from developers and towards something corporate entities may appreciate. miners. This could result in unforeseen consequences especially if hash power remains concentrated BSV regularly engages with community CoinGeek regularly hosts large conferences and events BSV total network hash power is low at ~1 EH/s to bring together and grow the BSV community. Network hash rate is ~1% of BTC’s hash power. The lower hash power is, the lower the cost for attacking the Owned node software discourages forking network network. The Bitcoin Association owns the BSV node software, which should discourage forking of the BSV network. Mining hash power is concentrated The two largest mining pools, CoinGeek and ViaBTC represent >40% of total network hash power.
November 6, 2019 Slide 16 Introduction Project Overview Network Analysis Mining Ecosystem Appendix
Select Leadership
Calvin Ayre CoinGeek Owner & Founder
Mr Ayre is a leader in online gaming and runs CoinGeek and its SHA256 mining operations.
Jimmy Nguyen President, Bitcoin Association and former CEO, nChain
Mr Nguyen is the President of the Bitcoin Association and previously led nChain, the entity driving BSV R&D and software development. He was previously a leading intellectual property lawyer.
Dr Craig Wright Chief Scientist, nChain
Dr. Craig Wright is an Australian computer scientist and is currently Chief Scientist of nChain, the development arm of Bitcoin SV.
Steve Shadders Chief Technology Officer, nChain
Steve Shadders , an early contributor to Bitcoin, provides project oversight and liaises with sponsors and industry.
Source: Fundstrat, CoinGeek, nChain
November 6, 2019 Slide 17 Introduction Project Overview Network Analysis Mining Ecosystem Appendix
BTC on-chain transaction value and daily fees are an order of magnitude higher than BSV or BCH. • Transaction count is more comparable across the three competing protocols, but average transactions are much smaller for BCH and BSV than for BTC. • The BSV is primarily used for metadata transfers, which helps explain why its avg. transaction value is so low.
Figure: Transaction levels for BTC, BCH and BSV 7 day moving average Daily BSV fees Transaction Value ($M) Transaction Count of $220 trail Daily Fees ($) BTC’s $325k
BTC BCH BSV BTC BCH BSV BTC BCH BSV $4,096 4,096,000 $1,310,720 $2,048 2,048,000 $655,360 $327,680 1,024,000 $1,024 $163,840 $81,920 $512 512,000 $40,960 256,000 $256 $20,480 128,000 $10,240 $128 Tx value $5,120 64,000 $2,560 $64 spiking up $1,280 32,000 to catch up $640 $32 to Tx count 16,000 $320 $160 $16 8,000 $80 $8 4,000 $40 $20 $4 2,000 $10 1,000 $5
$2
Jul Jul '19
Jan'19
Sep '19
Nov'18 Jul Jul '19
Mar '19
May '19
Jan'19
Sep '19
Nov '18Nov
Mar '19
May '19
Jul Jul '19
Jan'19
Sep '19
Nov'18
Mar '19 May '19
Source: Fundstrat, Coinmetrics
November 6, 2019 Slide 18 Introduction Project Overview Network Analysis Mining Ecosystem Appendix
• BSV’s block size has been growing since the spring, and is now comparable to BTC’s block size despite significant differences in the makeup of each network’s respective block composition. • Both BTC and BCH block sizes have been roughly static over the past year while BSV has seen its average block size climb from lows in June 2019.
Figure: Average block size BTC, BCH and BSV Since 11/15/18, 7 day moving average
4500kB BTC BCH BSV BSV average block 4000kB size has grown while BTC and BCH have 3500kB been stable…
3000kB
2500kB
2000kB
1500kB
1000kB
500kB
0kB Nov '18 Jan '19 Mar '19 May '19 Jul '19 Sep '19
Source: Fundstrat, Coinmetrics
November 6, 2019 Slide 19 Introduction Project Overview Network Analysis Mining Ecosystem Appendix
Exchange volume is substantially higher than on-chain volume, our measurement of “speculation relative to utility.” • BTC exchange volume is currently 15.9x on-chain volume, BCH is 17.2x while BSV is 20.4x. • At 20.4x greater than it’s on-chain volume, BSV’s speculative relative to utility is higher than both BCH and BTC.
Figure: On Chain and Exchange daily traded value $ millions, 7 Day Moving Average BSV exchange volume is 20.4x on- On-Chain Volume chain volume Exchange Volume
BTC BCH BSV $4,096 $65,536 BTC BCH BSV $2,048 $32,768 $16,384 $1,024 $8,192 $512 $4,096 $256 $2,048
$128 $1,024 $512 $64 $256 $32 $128
$16 $64 $32 $8 $16 $4 $8 $2 $4 Nov '18 Jan '19 Mar '19 May '19 Jul '19 Sep '19 Nov '18 Jan '19 Mar '19 May '19 Jul '19 Sep '19
Source: Fundstrat, Coinmetrics
November 6, 2019 Slide 20 Introduction Project Overview Network Analysis Mining Ecosystem Appendix
BTC remains relatively expensive to transact on, compared to BCH and BSV, although all have much lower costs than traditional payment networks. • BCH and BSV have lower fees as % of on chain volume despite having lower average transaction sizes. • Large block size and low fees allow for users to save data files to the blockchain for use cases such as legal / real estate documents and contracts.
Figure: Fees as a % of on chain transaction volume 7 Day Moving Average
BTC BCH BSV 0.08192% BSV fees are currently 0.001% of 0.04096% on chain volume 0.02048%
0.01024%
0.00512%
0.00256%
0.00128%
0.00064%
0.00032%
0.00016%
0.00008%
0.00004%
0.00002%
0.00001% Nov '18 Jan '19 Mar '19 May '19 Jul '19 Sep '19 Source: Fundstrat, Coinmetrics
November 6, 2019 Slide 21 Introduction Project Overview Network Analysis Mining Ecosystem Appendix
Active addresses for BTC have been relatively stable over the past year. • BSV and BCH’s active addresses were both high at the original split but fell sharply over the following weeks. • BSV addresses have been ticking up since early 2019 and now exceed BCH.
Figure: Daily active addresses for BTC, BCH and BSV 7 Day Moving Average
BTC BCH BSV 1,024,000
256,000
64,000
16,000 Steady growth in active addresses since early 2019
4,000 Nov '18 Jan '19 Mar '19 May '19 Jul '19 Sep '19
Source: Fundstrat, Coinmetrics
November 6, 2019 Slide 22 Introduction Project Overview Network Analysis Mining Ecosystem Appendix
BSV’s price performance has exceeded that of BCH since their split in November 2018. • BSV is up ~7% since the Nov 2018 launch, while BTC is up 50% and BCH is down 40%. • Most of the BSV price action took place between 5/20 and 7/1, delayed compared to the sharp BTC recovery starting 4/1.
Figure: Rebased price for BTC, BCH and BSV Figure: Absolute price for BTC, BCH and BSV Since 11/15/18, 30 day moving average BSV price recovery Log scale, since 11/15/18, 7 day moving average was later, shorter and faster than BTC 250 BTC BCH BSV BTC BCH BSV $12,800
$6,400 200 $3,200
$1,600 150 $800
$400 100 $200
Rebased:100 on 11/15/18 $100 50 $50
$25 0 Nov '18 Jan '19 Mar '19 May '19 Jul '19 Sep '19 Nov '18 Jan '19 Mar '19 May '19 Jul '19 Sep '19
Source: Fundstrat, Coinmetrics
November 6, 2019 Slide 23 Introduction Project Overview Network Analysis Mining Ecosystem Appendix
Below we show the price performance (indexed to 100) of BSV and its peers for the first 365 days since their launch in order to gauge how BSV has performed relative to other cryptocurrencies. • BSV’s price performance has lagged its competitor group average over its first year (launch was November ’18). • Its launch in mid November ’18 coincided with a crypto bear market that lasted through March ’19.
Figure: Price performance for BSV and select other tokens First year from initial release, 30 day moving average; dashed lines are tokens launched in bull market, solid lines in bear market. Bear market launch Bull market launch
BCH DCR ZEC DASH XMR DOGE GRIN LTC AVG BSV 16384 BSV is flat since 8192 launch, but trailing 4096 DASH peer average 2048 LTC 1024 512 256 BCH 128 64 GRIN XMR 32 16 DCR
Day Day MAvg, rebased to 100as of1 day DOGE
- 8 ZEC 30 4 2
1
1 9
17 33 49 65 89 25 41 57 73 81 97
105 121 137 153 177 193 209 225 241 265 281 297 313 329 345 113 129 145 161 169 185 201 217 233 249 257 273 289 305 321 337 353 361 Days from release
Source: Fundstrat, Coinmetrics
November 6, 2019 Slide 24 Introduction Project Overview Network Analysis Mining Ecosystem Appendix
Below we show active address growth (indexed to 100) of BSV and its peers for the first 365 days since their launch in order to gauge how BSV has performed relative to other cryptocurrencies. As a fork, BSV started with a lot more initial addresses than some of the peers. • Active addresses for BSV bottomed at 22% of the average over the first 30 days. • Currently, BSV active addresses are at 120% of the initial average active addresses.
Figure: Active addresses for BSV and select other tokens First year from initial release, 30 day moving average; dashed lines are tokens launched in bull market, solid lines in bear market. Bear market launch Bull market launch
BCH ZEC DCR DASH XMR DOGE GRIN LTC AVG BSV
1024 ZEC 512 LTC 256 DASH 128
64 DCR
32 DOGE
Day Day MAvg, rebased to 100as of1 day 16 - BCH
30 Active addresses have 8 been growing steadily
4 since bottom at ~60 days
3
12
21
30
39
48
57
66
75
84
93
102
111
120
129
138
147
156
165
174
183
192
201
210
219
228
237
246
255
264
273
282
291
300
309
318
327
336
345
354 363 Days from release
Source: Fundstrat, Coinmetrics
November 6, 2019 Slide 25 Introduction Project Overview Network Analysis Mining Ecosystem Appendix
Below we show transaction count and transaction value growth (indexed to 100) of BSV and its peers for the first 365 days since their launch in order to gauge how BSV has performed relative to other cryptocurrencies. • BSV’s transaction count and transaction value have grown since launch at a lower rate than its peer group.
Figure: Transaction Count and Transaction Value for BSV and select other tokens First year from initial release, 30 day moving average; dashed lines are tokens launched in bull market, solid lines in bear market.
Transaction Count Transaction Value
BCH DASH XMR DCR ZEC BCH DASH XMR DCR ZEC DOGE GRIN LTC AVG BSV DOGE GRIN LTC AVG BSV 1024 XMR 4096 512 LTC 2048 ZEC 256 1024 DCR 128 512 64 DASH 256 32 BCH 128 16 DOGE 64 8 32
Day MAvg, rebasedDay to 100 as of day 1 4 Day MAvg, rebasedDay to 100 as of day 1
- 16
- 30 2 30 8 1 4 0.5 Transactions 2 ... transaction increasing... value bottomed
0.25 1
3
2
21 39 57 75 93
20 38 56 74 92
111 129 147 165 183 201 219 237 255 273 291 309 327 345 363
110 128 146 164 182 200 218 236 254 272 290 308 326 344 362 Days from release Days from release
Source: Fundstrat, Coinmetrics
November 6, 2019 Slide 26 Introduction Project Overview Network Analysis Mining Ecosystem Appendix
BSV has mined ~400 fewer blocks than expected since 12/1/2018, coinciding with a general decline in hash power. • Compared to the theoretical number of blocks that should have been mined since 11/15/2018, BTC miners have earned an excess of 1200 blocks, worth ~$122 million. In other words, mining hash power has grown faster than difficulty over most difficulty adjustment periods. • BCH has mined about 160 fewer blocks than it should have, mostly through year end 2019. • On the other hand, BSV miners earned ~400 fewer blocks, despite difficulty staying roughly static since Dec 1 2018. Figure: Cumulative blocks mined less theoretical blocks mined at 10- Figure: Mining difficulty minute intervals Since 11/15/2018 (BSV launch) Since 11/15/2018 (BSV launch)
BTC BCH BSV 1500 250 BTC BCH BSV Stable mining difficulty YTD, but cumulative block shortfall 1000 growing 200
500 150
0 100
Rebased:0 on 11/15/18 Rebased:100 on 11/15/18 (500) 50
(1000) 0 Nov '18 Jan '19 Mar '19 May '19 Jul '19 Sep '19 Nov '18 Jan '19 Mar '19 May '19 Jul '19 Sep '19 Source: Fundstrat, Coinmetrics
November 6, 2019 Slide 27 Introduction Project Overview Network Analysis Mining Ecosystem Appendix
Using the Bitmain Antminer S9 and S17 Pro mining rigs as a reference, we show that both the BCH and BSV Networks are operating at slightly lower profitability than BTC. We also note that a 3rd party, coin.dance, has often shown BSV to be more profitable to mine than BTC or BCH (in our view reflecting the project’s higher risk). • Miners are acting rationally, with little arbitrage available; we expect smaller projects to deliver higher profitability to compensate miners for taking on higher risk on higher volatility of both price and hash power, and lower network security. • Notably, profitability suggests miners perceive BSV risk as comparable to its larger BCH competitor. Figure: Mining profitability for main Bitcoin forks As of 10/31/19 Bitmain Antminer S9 Bitmain Antminer S17 Pro
BTC BCH BSV BTC BCH BSV Total Hashpower 88,995,440 2,925,400 1,368,800 88,995,440 2,925,400 1,368,800 Price $9,222.00 $281.31 $128.24 $9,222.00 $281.31 $128.24 Device Hashpower, TH/s 14.0 14.0 14.0 56.0 56.0 56.0 Share of Hashpower 0.000016% 0.000479% 0.001023% 0.000063% 0.001914% 0.004091% Cost per rig $310 $310 $310 $2,969 $2,969 $2,969 Power consumption per device, Watts 1471.3 1471.3 1471.3 2696.4 2696.4 2696.4 Daily power cost @ 0.06 / kWh $2.12 $2.12 $2.12 $3.88 $3.88 $3.88 Overhead cost @20% $0.42 $0.42 $0.42 $0.78 $0.78 $0.78 Tokens mined per day 0.000295 0.008973 0.019177 0.001180 0.035893 0.076710 Depreciation / Token (24 month life) $1,460 $48 $22 $3,495 $115 $54 Cash cost per token $8,619 $283 $133 $3,949 $130 $61 Total cost per token $10,079 $331 $155 $7,444 $245 $114
Price / Cash Breakeven 1.1x 1.0x 1.0x 2.3x 2.2x 2.1x Price / Breakeven 0.9x 0.8x 0.8x 1.2x 1.1x 1.1x
Source: Fundstrat, coinmarketcap.com, blockchain.com, bitinfocharts
November 6, 2019 Slide 28 Introduction Project Overview Network Analysis Mining Ecosystem Appendix
BSV needs much more storage than either BCH or BTC. • Assuming a 50% block fill on BSV, the blockchain would grow at almost 4.5 TB per month or 200+ TB over 4 years. • Over the same timeframe, even if 100% full, BCH’s blockchain would grow by 7 TB, and BTC’s by less than 0.5 TB. • The need for large storage capacity could shut out individual hobbyists from running BSV nodes.
Figure: Incremental storage needs for a node over the next 4 years Each block = 1 TB of storage
BSV BCH BTC
BSV BCH BTC Block Size 2048 MB 32 MB 2 MB Block Fill 50% 100% 100% Block Frequency 10 mins 10 mins 10 mins Daily Storage 147456 MB 4608 MB 288 MB Monthly Blockchain Growth 4.42 TB 0.14 TB 0.01 TB Storage in 48 months 212.3 TB 6.6 TB 0.4 TB BSV’s big blocks lead to large storage needs…
Source: Fundstrat, coinmarketcap.com, blockchain.com, bitinfocharts
November 6, 2019 Slide 29 Introduction Project Overview Network Analysis Mining Ecosystem Appendix
We priced out computing and bandwidth requirements for a full node for BSV, BTC and BCH. • A BTC node can be run on a budget i3 desktop or laptop, while a BCH node requires just slightly more mid-range resources, including additional connected storage. • A full BSV node requires significant compute power, storage, and bandwidth to be able to process, store large blocks, and bandwidth – especially uploads speeds – for timely propagation of the state of the blockchain. • A BSV node could cost $7000 upfront, a high end internet connection, and $80-90 in monthly hard disk purchases.
Figure: Estimated monthly cost to run a node in 4 years Note: We assume unit costs for HDDs and bandwidth decline by 1% p.m.
BSV BCH BTC $900 $843
CPU Specs 12-core i9 i5-9400 i3-8100 $800 Memory 64 GB 12 GB 8 GB Over time BSV nodes Power Consumption 1500 W 300 W 300 W $700 could cost 14 times Price $7,095 $520 $395 more per month $600 Storage Cost / TB $20 $20 $20
Specifications HDD Power Consumption / TB 5.6 W 5.6 W 5.6 W $500 Recommended Internet Bandwidth 1 Gbps 250 Mbps 100 Mbps $400
$300 Depreciation (48 month life) $148 $11 $8
Hard Disk Purchases $88.47 $2.76 $0.17 $200 Bandwidth Costs $105 $80 $65 Electricity $116 $15 $13 $100 $77 $62 Cost in 48 months $384 $77 $62
MonthlyCosts $0 Source: Fundstrat, amazon.com for hardware prices, Comcast Xfinity and Stealth communications for dedicated broadband prices https://bitcoinsv.io/2019/08/02/bitcoin-sv-node-system-requirements/, BSV BCH BTC https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/80y78b/current_bitcoin_cash_node_hardware_requirements/, https://bitcoin.org/en/full-node#special-cases Cost in 48 months is less than sum of line items assuming future costs of storage and bandwidth are lower than current, declining at 1% per month
November 6, 2019 Slide 30 Introduction Project Overview Network Analysis Mining Ecosystem Appendix
BSV takes a different stances on the role of miners in the network than does BTC or BCH. Specifically, BSV believes miners should have more power than they do currently in either the BTC or BCH networks. • Currently CoinGeek and ViaBTC control >40% of hash power. Though this does prompt security concerns, it’s important to remember that CoinGeek is heavily invested in the success of BSV. • Thus, launching an attack against BSV would conflict with their own economic and personal interests. • The CoinGeek pool is a part of CoinGeek.com, which is a significant supporter of the BSV network (CoinGeek hosts the largest BSV conferences globally); SVPool (5% of hash power) is a personal initiative of Craig Wright.
Figure: Mining pools’ share of network hash power As of 9/30/19. Past 7 days. BSV BTC BCH Top 2 pools account for >40% of BSV hash power Bitcoin.com 9.0% Antpool Poolin AntPool BTC.com 7.1% Coingeek 12.7% 12.6% 9.8% ViaBTC 22% BTC.top ViaBTC 23% F2Pool 15.9% BTC.com 12.2% 5.1% Mempool 16.8% 6% BTC.com SVPool 9.8% ViaBTC 5% 7.1% BTC.top OKEx 12.2% Huobi Other 5% 6.6% Other Other 39% 56.8% 22.7% BTC.top 5.6%
Source: Fundstrat, coin.dance
November 6, 2019 Slide 31 Introduction Project Overview Network Analysis Mining Ecosystem Appendix
• Primary development • Funds node software development arm of Bitcoin SV • Sponsors conferences in support of BSV • 1 of 2 largest BSV mining groups
• 1 of 4 largest BSV mining groups • Owner of Bitcoin SV’s node software
Source: Fundstrat, CoinGeek, nChain
November 6, 2019 Slide 32 Introduction Project Overview Network Analysis Mining Ecosystem Appendix
• Company: Enterprise blockchain service provider • Why BSV: BSV offers high transaction throughput with low transaction fees, and smart contract functionality.
• Company: Enterprise-class blockchain products for financial services and supply chain • Why BSV: DRIVE Pay real-time remittance using BSV’s ledger for recordkeeping and BSV for bridge currency.
• Company: Social media platform; twitter-like platform where micropayments add financial incentives to user interactions • Why BSV: Users can earn and spend BSV through their interactions with other users on the platform. For example, creating text replies (no image) costs $0.02 and liking a post costs $0.10, of which $0.09 goes to the content creator.
• Company: Online gaming company • Why BSV: Maintain permanent record of past games on BSV ledger; potential for in-game items to become tradeable within broader digital ecosystem.
Source: Bitcoin SV
November 6, 2019 Slide 33 Introduction Project Overview Network Analysis Mining Ecosystem Appendix
There are several wallet providers supporting BSV, including those listed below… • Bitcoin SV can be traded on 80 exchanges, although liquidity is limited on many of them. • Making BSV more accessible to a wider audience is crucial to broadening adoption.
Figure: Bitcoin SV Wallets Figure: Select Bitcoin SV Exchanges Diverse options make it easier to hold and trade BSV across markets
Source: Fundstrat, Bitcoinsv.io, bitcoinassociation.net
November 6, 2019 Slide 34 Introduction Project Overview Network Analysis Mining Ecosystem Appendix
There are several block explorers as well as numerous developer tools to support the BSV ecosystem. • These tools help engineers build out products and applications on the Bitcoin SV blockchain. • A diverse set of applications is necessary for Bitcoin SV to grow share vs competing blockchains. There are now over 300 published BSV applications and developer tools. Figure: Select Bitcoin SV block explorers Figure: Other Bitcoin SV tools
Block explorers improve Developer tools support transparency community growth and maturation
Source: Fundstrat, Bitcoinsv.io
November 6, 2019 Slide 35 Introduction Project Overview Network Analysis Mining Ecosystem Appendix
nChain proposed The Metanet as a blockchain powered, browser based distributed peer Internet. The proposal would create a directed graph that can be reconstructed off chain and can essentially preserve the versions and history of content data, preserving the state of, say, geospatial / image archive as of a point in time. The data can be accessed in a trustless manner owing to the proof of work that goes into securely validating the data. • One possible example application is the ability to securely validate the visual progress of a construction project, especially if payment installments are to be released based on construction milestones. • The BSV team has discussed many potential applications, including academia and social media, shown below. • We would view adoption in construction, real estate, and illiquid asset title management as crucial evidence of broader success in meeting a market need.
Figure: Metanet example – Institutional record storage and interaction with social media
Social media tree Academic credentials on social media point back to institution for verification
An institution can follow its students by year
Source: nChain
November 6, 2019 Slide 36 Introduction Project Overview Network Analysis Mining Ecosystem Appendix
Many of the opportunities for value creation in the economy by crypto projects stem from cryptocurrencies’ ability to offer users frictionless (or near-frictionless) transfer of value (the transfer of 1s and 0s which represent value in digital economy).
Bitcoin SV has multiple vectors for value creation Bitcoin Bitcoin Category Description Bitcoin SV Core Cash Ripple Ethereum Litecoin
Enterprise cost Financing and savings tracking l l
Reduced Payments payment fees l ◔ l l ◑ l
Trusted asset Digital commodity storage and l ◔ ◑ ◔ retrieval
Funding platform Enable open or token open to sourced funding l l l l l public
New business New payment models streams l ◑ ◑ l ◑
Source: Fundstrat
November 6, 2019 Slide 37 Introduction Project Overview Network Analysis Mining Ecosystem Appendix
While some cryptocurrencies have gained traction as a potential store of value, the notion of a decentralized cryptocurrency gaining mainstream adoption is still far out on the horizon. • As Facebook’s attempt at launching Libra has shown, there are still significant regulatory hurdles and it’s unclear that the public in the developing world is looking for alternative payment methods.
Figure: Payment instruments by attribute
As a payments rail, cryptocurrency faces regulatory and technological hurdles to mass adoption
Source: G4S and Payments Advisory Group
November 6, 2019 Slide 38 Introduction Project Overview Network Analysis Mining Ecosystem Appendix
This research is for the clients of Fundstrat Global Advisors only. For important disclosures and rating histories regarding sectors or companies that are the subject of this report, please contact your sales representative or Fundstrat Global Advisors at 150 East 52nd Street, New York, NY, 10022 USA. Analyst Certification (Reg AC) Alex Kern, the research analysts denoted by an “AC” on the cover of this report, hereby certifies that all of the views expressed in this report accurately reflect their personal views, which have not been influenced by considerations of the firm’s business or client relationships. Neither I (Alex Kern), nor a member of my household is an officer, director, or advisory board member of the issuer(s) or has another significant affiliation with the issuer(s) that is/are the subject of this research report. There is a possibility that we will from time to time have long or short positions in, and buy or sell, the securities or derivatives, if any, referred to in this research Conflicts of Interest This research contains the views, opinions and recommendations of Fundstrat. The Bitcoin Association is a client of Fundstrat and receives Fundstrat’s published research reports. The Bitcoin Association has commissioned/paid for this specific research project and has permission to distribute. This report is intended for research and educational purposes. General Disclosures Fundstrat Global Advisors is an independent research company and is not a registered investment advisor and is not acting as a broker dealer under any federal or state securities laws. Fundstrat Global Advisors is a member of IRC Securities’ Research Prime Services Platform. IRC Securities is a FINRA registered broker-dealer that is focused on supporting the independent research industry. Certain personnel of Fundstrat (i.e. Research Analysts) are registered representatives of IRC Securities, a FINRA member firm registered as a broker-dealer with the Securities and Exchange Commission and certain state securities regulators. As registered representatives and independent contractors of IRC Securities, such personnel June receive commissions paid to or shared with IRC Securities for transactions placed by Fundstrat clients directly with IRC Securities or with securities firms that June share commissions with IRC Securities in accordance with applicable SEC and FINRA requirements. IRC Securities does not distribute the research of Fundstrat, which is available to select institutional clients that have engaged Fundstrat. As registered representatives of IRC Securities our analysts must follow IRC Securities’ Written Supervisory Procedures. Notable compliance policies include (1) prohibition of insider trading or the facilitation thereof, (2) maintaining client confidentiality, (3) archival of electronic communications, and (4) appropriate use of electronic communications, amongst other compliance related policies. Fundstrat does not have the same conflicts that traditional sell-side research organizations have because Fundstrat (1) does not conduct any investment banking activities, (2) does not manage any investment funds, and (3) our clients are only institutional investors. This research is for the clients of Fundstrat Global Advisors only. Additional information is available upon request. Information has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable but Fundstrat Global Advisors does not warrant its completeness or accuracy except with respect to any disclosures relative to Fundstrat and the analyst's involvement (if any) with any of the subject companies of the research. All pricing is as of the market close for the securities discussed, unless otherwise stated. Opinions and estimates constitute our judgment as of the date of this material and are subject to change without notice. Past performance is not indicative of future results. This material is not intended as an offer or solicitation for the purchase or sale of any financial instrument. The opinions and recommendations herein do not take into account individual client circumstances, risk tolerance, objectives, or needs and are not intended as recommendations of particular securities, financial instruments or strategies. The recipient of this report must make its own independent decision regarding any securities or financial instruments mentioned herein. Except in circumstances where Fundstrat expressly agrees otherwise in writing, Fundstrat is not acting as a municipal advisor and the opinions or views contained herein are not intended to be, and do not constitute, advice, including within the meaning of Section 15B of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. All research reports are disseminated and available to all clients simultaneously through electronic publication to our internal client website, fundstrat.com. Not all research content is redistributed to our clients or made available to third-party aggregators or the media. Please contact your sales representative if you would like to receive any of our research publications. Copyright 2019 Fundstrat Global Advisors LLC. All rights reserved. No part of this material June be reprinted, sold or redistributed without the prior written consent of Fundstrat Global Advisors LLC.
November 6, 2019 Slide 39