Merged Bitcoin - Part 3

[Puppycow]

Interesting related topic:

Traders are selling themselves their own NFTs to drive up prices

I wonder how much this happens with bitcoin itself. Are people who own multiple bitcoin wallets buying and selling bitcoin to themselves to drive up prices?

 

[Chanakya]

Interesting related topic:

Traders are selling themselves their own NFTs to drive up prices

I wonder how much this happens with bitcoin itself. Are people who own multiple bitcoin wallets buying and selling bitcoin to themselves to drive up prices?

That could be one possible explanation for the otherwise surprising resilience -- in terms of not withering away entirely, as opposed to merely diminishing in value overall -- of BTC.

Again, not the only explanation. But it might be the lynchpin that holds the bubble together.

("Might.". Not "is." Without evidence that is simply speculation. But not implausible.)

 

[psionl0]

That could be one possible explanation for the otherwise surprising resilience -- in terms of not withering away entirely, as opposed to merely diminishing in value overall -- of BTC.

Which price chart have you been examining, Samson?

Without evidence that is simply speculation wishful thinking.

ftfy.

 

[Puppycow]

Some evidences (just a quick google search)

https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/wash...xchanges-need-transparency-and-accountability

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3362153

https://www.npr.org/2022/09/23/1124662811/how-wash-trading-is-perpetuating-crypto-fraud

https://markets.businessinsider.com...ptocurrency-exchange-nber-fraud-crypto-2023-1

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Interesting related topic:

Traders are selling themselves their own NFTs to drive up prices

I wonder how much this happens with bitcoin itself. Are people who own multiple bitcoin wallets buying and selling bitcoin to themselves to drive up prices?

It was a while back, but wash trading has been discussed in this thread at one point. It has been a long running problem in this space that it's often hard to tell the difference between wash trades and when real money is changing hands when it comes to assessing any real "value" of these NFTs.

 

[Chanakya]

Which price chart have you been examining, Samson?

Any price chart that goes back a few years will do.

ftfy.

Me, I wouldn't mind if Bitcoin actually dwindled to zero tomorrow. But nor would I mind, in the least, if Bitcoin zoomed up to twice the peaks it had scaled, or even higher. No wishful thinking involved.

You'd be well advised to demand a refund on any money you may have paid to learn mind-reading, and use that to get someone, someone qualified, to examine your pronounced cryptophilia. Your compulsive mindless knee-jerk reaction, that extends to snark, every time anything that might be construed as a criticism of BTC is said, it's truly bizarre.

 

[marting]

The indefatigable Molly White, has a special out on the SEC suit:

https://newsletter.mollywhite.net/p/sec-v-binance-we-are-operating-as

Some expected the SEC to file something nearly identical to the CFTC’s suit, just with references to crypto assets as securities rather than commodities, but that’s not exactly what we got. While there are similarities in the lawsuits, the new complaint from the SEC sheds even more light on Binance’s alleged activities and on the SEC’s harsher approach to the crypto industry in the US.

There's also a section on wash trading and the SEC's claims.

 

[psionl0]

Any price chart that goes back a few years will do.

Not "any". Most price charts show that since the BTC price peaked at $69,000 in November of 2021, its price tumbled to $15,500 a year later and it has been marking time in the $20,000 - $30,000 price range ever since.

This is a stock standard pattern for a digital asset as volatile as Bitcoin and any hint that it is "diminishing in value overall" exists only in your imagination.

Your compulsive mindless knee-jerk reaction, that extends to snark, every time anything that might be construed as a criticism of BTC is said, it's truly bizarre.

What is more bizarre is the number of posters who post false information about BTC then get all butt hurt when I point out their error.

Is "truth" really such a dirty word?

 

[Samson]

Which price chart have you been examining, Samson?


ftfy.

The indefatigable Molly White, has a special out on the SEC suit:

https://newsletter.mollywhite.net/p/sec-v-binance-we-are-operating-as


There's also a section on wash trading and the SEC's claims.

There are regulations that prevent private lotteries etc.
Crypto seems to have launched from left field and escaped the law of most countries.
Eta accidentally quoted psion too but will try to figure his post later.

 

[Samson]

These are interesting times for crypto.
Most alt coins are red to 20% today.
I implored you all to sell bitcoin at 27900 and was duly ridiculed.
Ok but I will continue to recommend winning trade ideas.

 

[marting]

Blackrock has filed an SEC S-1 initial registration. S-1's require a great deal of disclosure and have a risk factor section with all the concievable risks lawyers for the entity can imagine.

The S-1 has a great deal of info on Bitcoin's workings, it's evolution to now, and the various forces that can impact it's viability. Worth reading for anyone that wants to understand bitcoin and it's place in the crypto space in more depth.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1980994/000143774923017574/bit20230608_s1.htm#riskfact

Risk Factors Related to Digital Assets

The trading prices of many digital assets, including bitcoin, have experienced extreme volatility in recent periods and may continue to do so. Extreme volatility in the future, including further declines in the trading prices of bitcoin, could have a material adverse effect on the value of the Shares and the Shares could lose all or substantially all of their value.

 

[psionl0]

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1980994/000143774923017574/bit20230608_s1.htm#riskfact

Risk Factors Related to Digital Assets

The trading prices of many digital assets, including bitcoin, have experienced extreme volatility in recent periods and may continue to do so. Extreme volatility in the future, including further declines in the trading prices of bitcoin, could have a material adverse effect on the value of the Shares and the Shares could lose all or substantially all of their value.

Bitcoin doesn't have shares.

 

[marting]

Bitcoin doesn't have shares.

Of course not. Blackstone's registration statement, if and when it goes effective, creates
a publicly tradeable proxy for bitcoin. It's assets consist almost entirely of bitcoin. And it's stock price should track bitcoin pretty closely. Thus, the registration statement is required to provide detail as to what risks bitcoin has as well as details about it that would interest a potential investor in this bitcoin proxy.

There's a number of bitcoin mining companies that are public (registered with the SEC) with extensive bitcoin related disclosures. However, they are not bitcoin proxies

The iShares Bitcoin Trust (the “Trust”) is a Delaware statutory trust that issues shares (“Shares”) representing fractional undivided beneficial interests in its net assets. The assets of the Trust consist primarily of bitcoin held by a custodian on behalf of the Trust. The Trust seeks to reflect generally the performance of the price of bitcoin.

 

[psionl0]

Of course not. Blackstone's registration statement, if and when it goes effective, creates a publicly tradeable proxy for bitcoin.

I see. I got confused by your statement: "The S-1 has a great deal of info on Bitcoin's workings, it's evolution to now, and the various forces that can impact it's viability".

But apart from noting that the price of bitcoin is volatile (who'd 've thunk?) your quote was mostly about Blackstone's share price.

 

[marting]

I see. I got confused by your statement: "The S-1 has a great deal of info on Bitcoin's workings, it's evolution to now, and the various forces that can impact it's viability".

But apart from noting that the price of bitcoin is volatile (who'd 've thunk?) your quote was mostly about Blackstone's share price.

No, it was about bitcoin's uses and risks. An S-1 requires extensive disclosure and since it's about Blackstone's Bitcoin Trust iShares, designed as a proxy for Bitcoin, the focus of the S-1 is Bitcoin.

S-1's in any company focus on risk and this is not an exception. I've not run across such a detailed summary of the various future risks for Bitcoin anywhere else. Perhaps you have?

Added:
It should be noted that while the SEC's position that some cryptos are securities, Bitcoin is clearly not. At least if it doesn't change. Especially from proof of work, to proof of stake. The "stake" is what makes ETH look more like a security. Doesn't exist with PoW.

 

[psionl0]

I've not run across such a detailed summary of the various future risks for Bitcoin anywhere else. Perhaps you have?

But that summary says little more than that bitcoin's price is volatile. However, what you quoted implies that this is a recent development so I guess that's "new".

Added:
It should be noted that while the SEC's position that some cryptos are securities, Bitcoin is clearly not. At least if it doesn't change. Especially from proof of work, to proof of stake. The "stake" is what makes ETH look more like a security. Doesn't exist with PoW.

This is an example of a ruling that doesn't make sense. Staking ETH to mine ETH or BTC to mine BTC doesn't sound like a security to me. Neither is asking for any other "currency" nor are they offering anything in exchange.

Of course, financial regulators aren't trying to come up with sensible laws. They are trying to protect their monied backers.

 

[marting]

But that summary says little more than that bitcoin's price is volatile. However, what you quoted implies that this is a recent development so I guess that's "new".

I guess you have't read anything in the S-1.

The part I quoted is the bolded header for the "risk factors" section. The risk factor section runs from page 16 to 54. which is almost 40 pages. Some of it is specific to the proxy entity but most is about bitcoin. There's a hell of a lot of detail in there.

This is an example of a ruling that doesn't make sense. Staking ETH to mine ETH or BTC to mine BTC doesn't sound like a security to me. Neither is asking for any other "currency" nor are they offering anything in exchange.

Of course, financial regulators aren't trying to come up with sensible laws. They are trying to protect their monied backers.

I think as long as bitcoin does not shift from PoW to staking, it's pretty safe from the SEC calling it a security. Of course equity in mining ccmpanies are securities. No debate about that and many are registered and the public can trade shares in them. The problem with staking is that it would require some incentive to lock up your BTC for a time period. The incentive runs smack into the Howey test. So I see strong resistance to moving away from PoW. This is part of why Michael Saylor is so positive about Bitcoin though he's become downright religious about it.

 

[psionl0]

There's a hell of a lot of detail in there.

Too much! I would rather have an idea of what I am going to read before I spend half my life poring through tiny text.

Of course equity in mining ccmpanies are securities. No debate about that and many are registered and the public can trade shares in them.

Of course but these are securities because at some point you can exchange them back for dollars.

POS is different. It doesn't promise anything except the crypto that you staked with. Somebody investing in a mining company is buying securities for sure but an individual may join a mining pool by staking their own cryptos and not going via a mining company. Is the crypto still regarded as a security?

 

[marting]

POS is different. It doesn't promise anything except the crypto that you staked with. Somebody investing in a mining company is buying securities for sure but an individual may join a mining pool by staking their own cryptos and not going via a mining company. Is the crypto still regarded as a security?

Sure it does. No one is going to lock up their crypto without some compensation. Here's investopedia's description of Ether's PoS:

In Ethereum's PoS, participants are called validators, and they are required to hold a minimum of 32 ETH to participate in network validation. Validators are selected randomly to create and validate blocks, and they are rewarded with transaction fees and newly minted ETH.

And that is why the SEC no longer clearly considers ETH a commodity. It's also why Bitcoin will be reluctant to go from PoW to PoS absent some sort of regulatory clarifiction that would allow it. Might be possible politically as there is a desire to move to a more green operation.

 

[psionl0]

Sure it does. No one is going to lock up their crypto without some compensation.

But the compensation is ETH and not any official currency.

By this logic, you might as well call Monopoly money a security. People play Monopoly to get as much of this "security" as they can get.