[HN Gopher] $3B in Bitcoin was sold in a last-ditch attempt to s... ___________________________________________________________________ $3B in Bitcoin was sold in a last-ditch attempt to save UST from collapse Author : SirLJ Score : 300 points Date : 2022-05-16 14:52 UTC (8 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.cnbc.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.cnbc.com) | joosters wrote: | "Sold" | | It's hard to show that they really sold these coins. Certainly, | the LFG transferred the coins to some different exchanges. But | did they truly sell them? | | If I was running a dodgy ponzi scheme and saw it collapsing | catastrophically, I don't think I'd be throwing good money after | bad trying to futilely patch it up. Much better to stash the | remaining assets away somewhere and personally cash out later on. | | Also, _"In a sense, the market is going to take that as kind of | bullish."_ - a.k.a. the standard 'this is good for bitcoin' | quote, applicable whatever the news is! | DonHopkins wrote: | >In a sense, the market is going to take that as kind of | bullish. | | The Levenshtein distance from bullish to bullshit is only 3. | j245 wrote: | And the distance between love and glove is only 1.. who cares | ? | GaylordTuring wrote: | The fact that this comment has been downvoted is a | testament to how Hacker News has a collective CDS | (Cryptocurrency Derangement Syndrome). If you somehow think | that an argument saying that two words are spelled almost | the same way and therefore should say something about | reality is a good argument, then I'm afraid you've totally | lost it when it comes to this topic. | DonHopkins wrote: | The glove is losing its touch! | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ih4auGvzw4A | hypertele-Xii wrote: | This is actually a decent joke, buried under a dismissal. | sangnoir wrote: | A dark joke, with perhaps a hint of OJ Simpson, but a | solid nerd joke nonetheless. | kgwxd wrote: | I thought maybe a message about using protection. | jeffwass wrote: | A reference to this classic perhaps? https://en.wikipedia | .org/wiki/The_Chaser_(The_Twilight_Zone) | mcv wrote: | Honestly, that was what I read at first. Only when I read | your comment, did I realise it said "bullish". | | I'm not sure my initial reading was really incorrect, though. | [deleted] | gjvc wrote: | >Also, "In a sense, the market is going to take that as kind of | bullish." - a.k.a. the standard 'this is good for bitcoin' | quote, applicable whatever the news is! | | Good observation. I may not be Warren Buffet, but it angers me | greatly to see this kind of moronic chatter masquerading as | informed opinion on finance or market dynamics. | lizknope wrote: | I just assumed that 99% of the people saying "this is good | for bitcoin" are using the phrase as a meme mocking bitcoin | and cryptocurrency in general. | zeven7 wrote: | That's true, but then the price does go up on cue anyway. I | see it as a way to express frustration that you know it | will go up anyway | vmception wrote: | Sure, it's a commodity and trades like a commodity. | | Anything that stops a supply from overwhelming demand results | in an increase in price. | | Commodities traders accept the seasonality of their assets, | and arent perma-bulls, with the exception of metals traders. | Bitcoin inherits a mixture of stock traders and metals | traders sentiment, where perma-bulls mentality of "number go | up forever" is present but less warranted. | | There are obvious periodic supply and demand movements in | bitcoin, just like there is in oil, natural gas, and other | commodities. | gjvc wrote: | to what are you replying? | TomSwirly wrote: | Oil and gas are vitally useful. They have actual value to | make things and move things and power things. | vmception wrote: | > Oil and gas are vitally useful. They have actual value | to make things and move things and power things. | | And what was the point of that copypasta? | | Analogies compare dissimilar things in the ways that they | are alike, not the ways they are not alike. The trading | patterns and supply and demand pressures are the ways | they are alike, whether you respect _why_ such pressures | exist or not. | ChaseMeAway wrote: | "Weak analogy | | Definition: Many arguments rely on an analogy between two | or more objects, ideas, or situations. If the two things | that are being compared aren't really alike in the | relevant respects, the analogy is a weak one, and the | argument that relies on it commits the fallacy of weak | analogy. | | Tip: Identify what properties are important to the claim | you're making, and see whether the two things you're | comparing both share those properties."[1] | | [1]https://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-and- | tools/fallacies/ | | I suspect the poster you are responding to disagrees that | it is a relevant comparison, since commodities, their | value, and subsequently the way in which they are traded | is in some way influenced by their "vital" civilizational | importance. | | The implication here is that crypto does not share that | crucial (for the analogy) property of vital importance, | and as such the trading patterns/market forces are not | comparable. | | In this case is it reasonable to point out that the | analogy is weak, we do not have to ignore how the two | candidate comparables are different if they differ in | fundamental ways. | vmception wrote: | The trading patterns have been identified twice now. I'm | sure its been insightful to someone. | this_user wrote: | There certainly seemed to be a lot of selling pressure on BTC | at the time that pushed the price below $30k that has since | abated. It is not implausible that this had something to do | with LFG's supposed activities. | Nuzzerino wrote: | I would hope that there would be some kind of evidence that can | corroborate this. A sudden movement of 3B is a lot to hide on a | public ledger, exchanges or no. Someone will certainly be | connecting the dots. | exdsq wrote: | I saw a twitter thread that this was a sell off to repay | investment whales at a better rate than the real one - it was | some big twitter guy in the space but I couldn't find it if I | tried. If anyone knows the one I mean, please comment it | here! | Nuzzerino wrote: | I'm sure it will come up if it's backed by evidence and | newsworthy, but don't hold your breath. | vmception wrote: | > Also, "In a sense, the market is going to take that as kind | of bullish." - a.k.a. the standard 'this is good for bitcoin' | quote, applicable whatever the news is! | | Yes all weekend I had been wondering and cautious based on how | much bitcoin was left to sell! Its just a commodity, supply can | be faster than demand, specifically when one whale is expected | to flood the market | | Terra Luna rallied 500x (50,000%) off the lows. Minting many | millionaires that bought that dip. The rumors were that the | recovery plan involved a bunch of the bitcoin collateral. I | couldn't verify that well. | | Knowing its all gone (or the selling pressure is done, whether | you believe it was sold or not) is very helpful | | Terra Luna resumes its crash too | NovemberWhiskey wrote: | > _Terra Luna rallied 500x (50,000%) off the lows._ | | The patient is alive! There may no longer be a head attached | to the body; but - look! - the little finger is twitching. | vmception wrote: | Right, there is no takeaway, retail was making it a meme | coin for the lulz and this is about volatile fun trading | opportunities from people like me that have no care for the | name of any asset or ticker. | | A buy the dip trade fueled by unverifiable rumors of a | recovery plan. | NovemberWhiskey wrote: | "dead cat bounce" is what we call it in trad fi. | vmception wrote: | Yep, never seen a bounce with that amplitude and speed | before, personally. | | I love how crypto can have so many exchanges accessible | simultaneously. Prices all over the place. Chart and | price aggregators all over the place. Massive information | asymmetries. Better to make your own pricing tools and | have better information than others, the bar is quite low | so its easy to get an advantage here than in tradfi. | ordinaryradical wrote: | Where is this rally you reference? All the charts I can find | sink to zero with no significant movement after that point. | zyemuzu wrote: | I saw people verifiably 5x catching the bottom, I have seen | nothing of 500x at all. | [deleted] | vmception wrote: | Kucoin and Binance | | But other people are more willing to explain it | javert wrote: | There are lots of scenarios where the Luna becomes somewhat | valuable again. A truly major crypto coin like Luna has never | truly disappeared. Probably someone will make a fork like | "Luna Classic." There are lots of these things (ETH classic, | Bitcoin Cash, Bitcoin SV) that have zero rationale for | existing, but are still traded with a high valuation. | | tl;dr people will attempt to reflate their bags; some | moderate success cannot be ruled out. | skinnymuch wrote: | Eth classic is a good one to exist to remind people about | what decentralization means these days and what trust the | contracts/code really means. | jandrese wrote: | Huh? | | https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/terra-luna/ | jcranmer wrote: | The absolute low appears to be ~2e-5, and the (very | temporary) high after that is 6e-3, which is a ~300x rally. | However, the 6e-3 high was very temporary, with 4e-4 being | the more durable high, with current prices running ~1-2e-4. | | ...I'm finding it easier to refer to the prices here in | scientific notation, and to look at the price graph in log | scale. That gives you an idea of how far the price has | gone. | vmception wrote: | Yeah, 300x, 500x, overnight, eventually we'll be talking | some significant money | vmception wrote: | You would be better off using a spreadsheet updated with | your own data points than price aggregators. | | But that very website says the 24 hour low was $0.00001675 | and the current price of $.00016 is 10x higher | | The reality is that the lows on specific exchanges had more | zeroes than that | skinnymuch wrote: | Sure but how much legit volume did those specific | exchanges do at those price points allowing more than 50x | or 100x returns? | vmception wrote: | Amongst all volume I was not particularly amused by the | 15minute bars, it would have been hard to move 7 figures | usd, but they could eat a 6-figure market order easily. | The rest would need just a little patience. | | No need for me to move the goal post to legit vs not real | volume, there were some AMMs that had the same liquidity | depth. | skinnymuch wrote: | Yeah I was just curious and was on a phone so couldn't | dig deeper. | | Of course for a chump like me, 100x'ing anything like $1K | would be moderately life changing (mostly short term | easing of career and life pressure) | vmception wrote: | Yeah I was watching it closely and should have dropped | $5k in | | I love buying the dip, I just didnt like the infinite | inflation. I do my dip buys when there is a better | information asymmetry that I perceive because the market | cant code. I'm not good at these retail meme coin | rallies. | jandrese wrote: | I mean this is penny stock trading at this point. It's | easy to show huge theoretical returns when you don't | actually have money in there distorting the market. | NelsonMinar wrote: | I'm sure we'll have an orderly audit and accounting for the | loss of funds as adjudicated by the appropriate courts! | vmception wrote: | By 2032? | | We need new songs, "you just got Do Kwon'd" instead of "Mt | Goxxed" | vkou wrote: | Just as a reminder about how Mt Gox played out - it looks | like all the people who lost money on it will receive 1:1 | fiat-denominated compensation for their losses, Mark | Karpeles won't serve a day in prison, and is likely to walk | away with ~3 billion worth of BTC[1]. | | Who'd have thought that failing to operate a bitcoin | exchange is a thousand times more lucrative than actually | operating one! | | [1] If Mark owed you a bitcoin back in 2014, you're not | going to get that bitcoin back. You're going to get | somewhere between ~$200 and ~$600 back. He's going to keep | the other $30,000. | rglullis wrote: | That is assuming that the whole "we got hacked" is a | complete fabrication. It is possible, but isn't it | completely short sighted? | | I mean, who would change places with him? His head has a | price, and he will never be able to hide anywhere in the | world or spend any of that money. He is going to live the | rest of his life being watched by authorities all around | the world and he will have thousands of people believing | he is holding the stash. | vmception wrote: | The US government indicted the BTC-E founder, that | indictment details the hack of many exchanges including | Mt Gox. | | Gox was fractional before Karpeles even bought it, due to | this hack of bitcoin. | dayvid wrote: | Edit: Looked deeper into it. It's a really weird story, | where it looks like they got hacked (https://www.theguard | ian.com/technology/2017/jul/27/russian-c...), he tried to | fake financial data to make it look like they had money, | and he got caught. In the end, he's making more money off | of lying and the original investors are screwed. That's | really lame. | | It's also unfortunate, because a lot of the vibe I get | from crypto people I run into (more online than in- | person), is survival of the cleverest, and anything is | cool if you can get away with it. People I knew outside | of crypto who are into it (more on the eng-side), are | pretty cool, though and usually don't only trust Bitcoin | and see most alt-coins as scams. | vmception wrote: | Nobody got paid yet. This is going to drag out for a long | long time. | | I also think the BTC-E issue is bigger and gives me | reason to think Mark Karpeles wrongfully served jail time | in Japan (for the reason that he served time, there could | be other reasons if people like that kind of | consequence). | newguynewphone wrote: | Every crypto nut I have interacted with, will call you | all sort of derogatory terms if you don't agree that web3 | is the future and if a scam happens on any exchange, its | because the user were stupid to trust them. Zero | accountability for the scammers and fraudsters, it's | always the "stupid" users fault. | adastra22 wrote: | This information is out of date. The creditors took over | the distribution process and are going to distribute the | remaining bitcoin pro rata to creditors. Mark Karpales | served about 2 years in prison. | runarb wrote: | > Mark Karpales served about 2 years in prison. | | I do not think ha actually did serve any time. "he was | sentenced to 30 months in prison, suspended for four | years, meaning he will serve no time unless he commits | additional offenses over the next four years." according | to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Karpel%C3%A8s . | vmception wrote: | Because they took so long that the remaining assets value | when up 300x ($100 - $30000) | | Any way, believe it when I see it | joecool1029 wrote: | I remember getting Zhou Tong'd. I think that was the first | song trend: Example: | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NG1qooBzE2w | Melting_Harps wrote: | Wrong track, this is the one you're looking for: | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-z9Jwp2x86o | | I saw them live, but was too lost in conversation during | 95% of their performance, which is a shame because they | went dark not longer after that. Still, ZT was a solid | part of the history back then. | | And for a more relevant track for the current sentiment: | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEBP9dpVM70 | nullc wrote: | I think it's a simpler explanation to assume that they would | have robbed it by taking their huge stashes of luna and | exploiting their 'buying'... it would hold up much better under | scrutiny and they could still manage to transfer a significant | fraction of the value into their pockets. | eric_cc wrote: | > 'this is good for bitcoin' | | A total ponzi scam coin crashed. This IS good for Bitcoin. | Bitcoin is not Luna nor is it one of the thousands of other | garbage scam coins. The faster those coins are proven scams the | better. | | Too many people falsely equate "Bitcoin === Crypto".. or "a fan | of bitcoin is a fan of all crypto". | | So I'd bounce this back to you: How is Luna's Ponzi crash NOT | good for bitcoin? | shkkmo wrote: | > Too many people falsely equate "Bitcoin === Crypto".. or "a | fan of bitcoin is a fan of all crypto". | | > So I'd bounce this back to you: How is Luna's Ponzi crash | NOT good for bitcoin? | | Doesn't the first line answer the second? | eric_cc wrote: | > Doesn't the first line answer the second? | | To be clear, you're suggesting: "because people are | uneducated about bitcoin and crypto, when one project fails | they will incorrectly connect it to bitcoin. And that's bad | for Bitcoin." | | These events are great opportunities to educate ignorant | people. > 0 such ignorant people will learn more about | bitcoin and why it's not like crypto like Luna. Greater | education is extremely good for Bitcoin and bad for scam | coins - which rely on ignorance. | emerongi wrote: | Most people investing in crypto just want to put in $1 | and take out $2. Trying to educate people about | cryptocoins is practically a waste of time at this point | - they just don't care. Events like these _are_ bad for | Bitcoin on a pure value basis, for anyone invested in | Bitcoin. | | That's just my opinion, though. | minsc_and_boo wrote: | It's worse than that. | | Every dollar taken out of crypto is at the expense of | someone else. Those coiners trying to change $1->$2 are | heavily incentivized to lie, manipulate, and convince the | naive in the public to put their $1 in. | | You could say this is everything with a public market, | but with stocks or bonds you also have a legally binding | contract to organizational assets that have _value_. | Buybacks, issuing new units, dividends, etc. provide | other avenues for cash injection to get your $2 out. | | BTC doesn't even have the bare minimum regulation to | prevent bad actors from exploiting the public, which is | why it's _worse_ since the public only sees coiners | trying to whitewash an inefficient database. | eric_cc wrote: | You're thinking about short term traders who want to | accumulate more $USD. And sure, they are one actor in the | bitcoin eco. Others use bitcoin as their primary | currency. And still others would prefer BTC as their | currency but, due to tax laws and infrastructure, are | hindered from doing so. | | You're judging all current btc owners by bucketing them | into one easy-to-consume cliche. Not all btc users give a | shit about more fiat. Considering the buying power of | fiat is a perpetual dip, it's not exactly the best thing | to accumulate. | minsc_and_boo wrote: | >Others use bitcoin as their primary currency. | | No, not really. | | While some crypto-enthusiasts are using BTC as hobby | money (in which most payment processors convert to USD | right away anyway) the vast majority of people using BTC | are speculators. | ethanbond wrote: | If these are good opportunities to bolster the | credibility of BTC et al., the community must just do a | very poor job of capitalizing on those opportunities. It | is strictly a bad look to have headline after headline | affiliating this entire economic sector with fraud, and | frankly the shills' reactions just make the headlines | even more unflattering. | eric_cc wrote: | > headline after headline | | This has more to do with media and social media thought | bubbles. This is no different than any other topic in the | news. There are highly intelligent takes out there. But | click bait, trolling, and confirmation bias bs rises to | the top in certain areas of media and social media. | tromp wrote: | Next you will be suggesting that Tether crashing will be good | for bitcoin... | Ancapistani wrote: | It will be, on a long enough time scale. | | I have USD sitting in an account waiting for that to | happen, in fact. | jabits wrote: | Agree. Unfortunately your USD (and mine) are currently | losing about 8% of their value (annualized)... | snovv_crash wrote: | Tell me, what assets exactly are backing BTC which stop it | from crashing just like Luna? | GaylordTuring wrote: | Nothing, but I guess I don't have to tell you that, since | your question seems rhetorical in Nature. However, what | keeps BTC from crashing is the same psychological effect | that keeps Twitter, Facebook, Nike, or Coca-Cola from | crashing: Brand awareness. | | Bitcoin sucks compared to many other cryptocurrencies, | still it's the most popular one because it was the first, | because people know about it, and because people know that | other people know about it. | | Even if you could fork Twitter and put it behind a | different domain name, for example , Twutter, and you would | add some functionality that everybody would like to have | (let's say an edit button), most people would still go to | Twitter. | | If you could sell the rights to use the name Coca-Cola or | Nike, even if you had to make it clear to the customer that | the new product that you sold had nothing to do what so | ever with old product, the names alone would be worth a | couple of fortunes. | | So what's stopping Bitcoin from crashing is the brain virus | (or meme if you want) that has infected hundreds of people | around the globe and made them believe that other people | will know about and believe that Bitcoin is valuable. | | And since Bitcoin isn't hooked up to a doomsday device like | Luna and UST was, it can't destroy itself. | paxys wrote: | Nothing is stopping BTC from crashing to zero, so why is it | not crashing to zero? | postalrat wrote: | "Nothing is stopping BTC from crashing to zero" isn't | true. Although it can still crash to zero. | rednerrus wrote: | Because they continue to print Tether to prop the price | up? Am I doing this right? | eric_cc wrote: | LUNA minted trillions of brand new tokens within the span | of a day or so rendering the token worthless. This is due | to the way LUNA was tied to the algorithmic stablecoin UST. | It was a true ponzi. | | BTC's max supply is capped and the release schedule of new | coins is fixed and predictable. There is no possible way | that trillions of new bitcoins could suddenly be created. | matheusmoreira wrote: | > There is no possible way that trillions of new bitcoins | could suddenly be created. | | There absolutely is: fractional reserve banking. | Exchanges are already operating that way. They offer | loans, savings accounts and everything. | chaostheory wrote: | Not a fan of Bitcoin, but you're confusing Robinhood | synthetic IOUs with Bitcoin. They are not the same thing. | eric_cc wrote: | > There absolutely is | | Banks and/or exchanges cannot create more bitcoin. | matheusmoreira wrote: | Sure they can. You deposit 1 BTC, they loan it out to | someone else. Boom, 2 BTC. | eric_cc wrote: | No. There is still 1 BTC in this scenerio. When you | choose to deposit your 1 BTC you've lost custody of it | and somebody else has gained possession of it. All you | have is a promise that you'll get it back - which is not | === BTC. | winkeltripel wrote: | If it is close enough for a real bank in USD, it's | probably okay for an exchange in bitcoins, right? If the | bank/exchange maintains a 5% reserve, every unit of | currency can produce a multiplier/velocity of 20. Bank | loans substantially increase the ability of businesses to | fund activity. | matheusmoreira wrote: | You said what happened to Luna can't happen to BTC | because the BTC supply is capped. It's not. The inability | to mine new BTC doesn't actually matter. The pseudobanks | we call exchanges are still able to introduce numberless | BTC into circulation through loans. The result is | inflation and possibly market crashes in case of | defaults. Really no different from what Tether and every | other bank is doing. | | I've written more detailed posts about this: | | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31375366 | MadcapJake wrote: | Laymen here: How can they introduce numberless BTC? I | thought that was the crux of what makes this different | from fiat: you can only transact from one address to | another, no institution in between. | eric_cc wrote: | > BTC supply is capped. It's not. | | Yes, it is. They are not introducing BTC into | circulation. This is verifiable via the blockchain. | | Banks creating IOU's or derivatives or whatever other | abstraction they can come up with never generates new | BTC. You'd hope that people foolish enough to work with | such financial institutions would know the risk of | possessing nothing but an instrument created by the bank. | If you're unwilling to take custody of your own bitcoin, | you better damn well do some good research on third party | custodians. | matheusmoreira wrote: | How much BTC exists in the blockchain is ultimately | irrelevant. What matters is the amount of BTC actively | circulating. | | If you deposit 1 BTC on Binance, then I can get your BTC | in the form of a loan. I can even withdraw your BTC. | Meanwhile, Binance records still say you have 1 BTC, they | even allow you to trade with it. So there's really 2 BTC | in circulation. That BTC is duplicated, it's in multiple | places simultaneously. | snovv_crash wrote: | And of course, the music keeps playing as long as Binance | has liquidity. | codehalo wrote: | Still doesn't have anything to do with Bitcoin, or the | bitcoin supply. | warkdarrior wrote: | That is correct. And, fundamentally, this is possible | because the Bitcoin chain is not the only ledger out | there tracking BTC. Each (centralized) exchange has its | own internal ledger, tracking how much BTC its customers | have. | TomSwirly wrote: | > There is still 1 BTC in this scenerio. | | You simply do not understand finance. Consider | Eurodollars as another example: | https://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/eurodollar.asp | gardenhedge wrote: | > You deposit 1 BTC, they loan it out to someone else. | Boom, 2 BTC. | | Do you mean "they" purchase a second bitcoin with the | second person's loan money? if not, where does the second | bitcoin come from? (Hint: think about the blockchain) | kemotep wrote: | Bitcoin is fungible. That Bitcoin doesn't have to be | *exactly* yours but they update their ledger and loan 1 | BTC to someone after you deposit your 1 BTC into the bank | account. Based on the interest rate of that loan, the | bank is giving you a cut in Satoshis. If you choose to | withdraw the 1 BTC before the other person's loan is pid | back, they must provide you 1 BTC. They can choose to | take that 1 BTC from someone else's account or use the | profits they make in loans and other financial | transactions to provide you that 1 BTC. | | On the blockchain, there only exists the 1 you deposited, | the 1 that was loaned, and the 1 that was generated as | profit by the bank. The blockchain tracks these | transactions. The bank only has to settle these | transactions when someone withdraws and when someone is | depositing. Internally, there can be as many or as little | transactions are as necessary. | NovemberWhiskey wrote: | You'll have to explain how that's usefully different from | the fiat context. | eric_cc wrote: | First you'll have to explain to me why you would give | somebody your bitcoin and allow them to give it to | somebody else! | NovemberWhiskey wrote: | ... because they promise to give you back one BTC plus | something else of value? | TomSwirly wrote: | https://www.bankrate.com/glossary/r/repurchase-agreement- | rep... | | Every single day it's Economics 101 here. | matheusmoreira wrote: | Interest. Right now Binance is offering 5% APY for BTC | savings. If you give them your BTC, you'll stack sats | automatically. | alecbz wrote: | You really don't need to explain why; it's enough to | observe that people do it. | Karunamon wrote: | Because there's no such thing as unbacked BTC. You either | have the UTXOs pointing at an address you hold the keys | for, or you do not. | | If someone loans you BTC, the supply of BTC has not | increased. | matheusmoreira wrote: | > If someone loans you BTC, the supply of BTC has not | increased. | | True when _someone_ does it, false when a fractional | reserve bank does it. | | When someone loans money to someone else, money | physically changes hands and there is no concept of a | reserve. Banks are able to maintain the illusion of full | reserves even though they operate in a state of perpetual | insolvency. | NovemberWhiskey wrote: | So is Binance a bank, when it offers 5% APY Bitcoin | savings accounts? Or is it perhaps a shadow bank, which | is to say an entity that creates money supply through | credit without regulation? | Karunamon wrote: | Please explain the mechanism by which a "bank" is able to | transfer to you an amount of BTC that they do not have | wallet control over? | | This is a critical difference. A bank can loan you fiat | money that they do not physically have, with the almost | always correct assumption that most people won't want to | convert that database entry into cash at the same time. | | This is not possible with bitcoin. Either the bank has | the coins in wallets they control to send to a wallet you | control, or they do not and can't. | NovemberWhiskey wrote: | > _Please explain the mechanism by which a "bank" is able | to transfer to you an amount of BTC that they do not have | wallet control over?_ | | BTC that's in an offline wallet is like cash under the | bed; and you're right that no-one is lending money that | they have under the bed. | | However, a significant number of BTC owners don't keep | their money in their own wallets - they keep it at an | exchange, which almost certainly commingles it with other | owners in shared wallets. | | You can certainly take a maximalist position here and | assert that the exchange is the real owner, because they | have the private keys. The fact of the matter is that the | real world includes a difference between legal and | beneficial ownership; and has done since well before the | existence of fiat currencies - because it's useful. | NovemberWhiskey wrote: | All bitcoin is "unbacked". There's no intrinsically | useful asset behind bitcoin. Your private key is just a | bundle of bits. Bits are so abundant as to be worthless. | eric_cc wrote: | Same with paper fiat currency. | snovv_crash wrote: | Actually paper fiat currency is accepted by a government | to pay property tax. In this way you need it to keep | possession of land, so the entire land value of the | linked country, and all the infrastructure built on it, | is the backing for 'fiat' currency. | datadata wrote: | Accepting some form of unbacked currency does not give | the currency intrinsic value and therefore make it | backed. El Salvador made bitcoin legal tender, which | means that USD or Bitcoin could be used to pay property | taxes there, that doesn't mean that suddenly Bitcoin is | backed by El Salvador property. | peyton wrote: | I think I responded to your other comment, but I don't | think this is true. Do you have any further reading? | | A currency is not backed by land value. It's usually | "backed" by a combination of sovereign debt obligations | and its status as legal tender. | NovemberWhiskey wrote: | I think that's right - fiat currency is not asset backed; | in the case of the USD, it's backed by "the full faith | and credit" of the U.S. government. | NovemberWhiskey wrote: | I know? The point is: neither bitcoin nor fiat currencies | are asset-backed. In both cases, there are commercial | entities that offer accounts where you can deposit the | "thing", and the "thing" is then loaned to someone else, | and this is done for some kind of valuable inducement. | | The question is: why is one called fractional reserve | banking, a behavior that is acknowledged to increase the | money supply, and the other one called "oh no this is | definitely not increase of the money supply, it's just | you relinquishing custody of your bitcoin and why would | you do that, there's no reason you'd ever do that". | Karunamon wrote: | You know good and well what was meant, and that isn't it. | Stop it. | NovemberWhiskey wrote: | Actually, no, I literally have no idea what you meant - | by all means, please amplify! | overtonwhy wrote: | If a majority of the miner pool decides to make a change | the change is made. That's how decentralized concensus | works right? | meowkit wrote: | Well, not quite. | | If a majority of miners fork their clients away from the | bitcoin code repo by removing the coin cap, they would be | creating a "new bitcoin". If the inter-subjective | consensus of users also decide to use this new bitcoin it | will be the defacto. Otherwise it will just be another | fork (call it Bitcoin NoCap) like bitcoin cash, bitcoin | diamond, bitcoin gold, etc. | | The original "bitcoin" network (before the cap removal) | would still propagate by whoever has the chain history. | | The reality is that any attempts to split the chain to a | state without a cap, at least with the current cultural | consensus at this time, will result in a dead chain after | a short period as people sell off the coins on the new | fork. | | https://www.investopedia.com/tech/history-bitcoin-hard- | forks... | snovv_crash wrote: | Luna crashed because people lost trust in it. The only | reason people have trust in BTC is because other people | have trust in it. If that ever changed, there is no | actual use for a BTC, and they are thus intrinsically | worthless. | | Fiat currency has the backing of a government. The | government demands certain payments of this currency in | order to own land, and also for some extra rights like | mineral extraction, fishing licenses etc. Thus, as long | as the government is viable and can confiscate the land | of those who don't pay, there will be demand for the | currency, and it will be proportional to the value the | government assigns to the property and the rate of tax. | | Thus, the currency is stable, because you know at the end | of the day, there will always be a buyer who needs to pay | their taxes. | peyton wrote: | I don't understand your argument. What happens during | hyperinflationary periods or other currency collapses? | The government stops demanding payments? | Strom wrote: | Bitcoin also has the backing of a government - El | Salvador. | | I would rather argue though that even government backed | currencies are fully dependant on trust, not government | usage of it. Just check out any government currency | hyperinflation event. | dmitrygr wrote: | yup... https://www.datacenterdynamics.com/en/news/el- | salvador-risks... | nradov wrote: | El Salvador is a failed state about to default on its | national debt. It's not a real "government" in the way | that most of us would define the term. | samatman wrote: | To be perfectly clear, you're claiming with a straight | face that government issued currencies are stable because | there will always be a buyer who needs to pay taxes? | | Any reasonable definition of stability precludes | hyperinflation, we agree on that right? | eric_cc wrote: | > Luna crashed because people lost trust in it. | | No. It crashed because trillions of tokens were created | rendering each token worthless. | snovv_crash wrote: | Then why did the total Luna market cap go down? Surely if | people still had trust it should have just diluted the | token values? | orangepurple wrote: | Both can be true | kristopolous wrote: | That's not the point here. It's behaviorist. | | Prices stay changed because the beliefs change. | | If people had thought this was a sane and reasonable move | that didn't really affect things the price would quickly | return despite the quantity increasing. | | The believed durability of the token changed | | No matter what strategy is to be used to try to repeg it, | it will only work if there's faith in the price. | | Price isn't a thing it's a relationship between people | about a thing | seoaeu wrote: | You have it backwards. The trillions of tokens were | created _because_ people lost trust in it. Specifically, | the loss of trust instigated the price drop from $1 to | ~98C/. That 's what started the collapse. Only afterwards | did the "death spiral" of minting of more tokens, which | degraded trust, which decreased the price, which drove | more minting, etc. happen | nwiswell wrote: | It's chicken and egg. | | People lost trust because they knew people losing trust | would cause a death spiral, and they wanted to get out | before everyone else. | | It was a fire in a crowded theater. Bitcoin depends on | trust, yes, but there's no Damoclean sword like there was | for Luna. Some people losing confidence does not | necessarily lead to others losing confidence. | stickfigure wrote: | There were two coins involved; the overprinting of Luna | corresponded with lost confidence in UST. The obvious | conclusion is that "algorithmic" stablecoins are | bullshit. | | Whatever fate lies ahead for Bitcoin, it doesn't have | this particular weakness. It's not "leveraged" in the | same way as Luna/UST. | lfmunoz4 wrote: | namdnay wrote: | You have the chronology wrong. The tokens were created | because the price kept slipping, and the more the price | slipped the more tokens were printed, the more people | panicked etc | rubyfan wrote: | A better argument might be fiat currency is stable | because governments hold a monopoly on violence. | | But governments can be poorly run so I suppose "stable" | is not the right word. | pirate787 wrote: | No assets though-- the only thing backing bitcoin are | "greater fools" | eric_cc wrote: | Same fiat paper currency. | moistly wrote: | Wow. Talk about destroying any credibility you'd hoped to | hold onto. Total foot-gun action. | snovv_crash wrote: | As I said on the other thread, there is a government with | a police force backing fiat. They also guarantee they | will buy the fiat currency and in exchange give you the | continued use of the land you own. This is why it is | called 'fiat', which means backed by law or authority. | [deleted] | vageli wrote: | Governments have demonstrated that they do not have to | accept their own currency [0] and have demonstrated a | willingness to drive the value of their currency down. | [1] | | [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Indian_banknote_d | emonetis... [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018%E2%80 | %932022_Turkish_curr... | throwanem wrote: | Fortunately, one side effect of being long BTC is that | the owner of the position becomes immune to bullets, | batons, liens, and civil actions. | mejutoco wrote: | You can pay your taxes with it at the very least. | thehappypm wrote: | Not really. You get to keep your property if you pay fiat | to your local government every year. That is backstopping | its value. | romeros wrote: | Polycat finance only had 3 Million Tokens. That's the max | supply. There will never be more than 3 Million Tokens. | And yet the price tanked and will never ever recover. It | traded at $60 a piece. Now it is trading in cents. | | Quant has only 12 Million Tokens. No new tokens will ever | be created. It topped at $400 a piece. Now it is trading | at $72. It could go down all the way to fractions of | cents. | | Reality doesn't matter. Perception of reality is all that | matters. Likewise, Bitcoin could only ever have a 21 M | supply cap and it could end up trading in fractions of | cents just like the above two coins in the future. | jtaft wrote: | Do you think the value of Bitcoin will go to zero due to | lost private keys? | eric_cc wrote: | I think it would sooner be rendered obsolete for another | reason before this scenario. | | It would take a long, long time for this to play out. | thedudeabides5 wrote: | BTC is not pegged, that's the diff. | | When you don't claim a value, you don't need a 'backstop.' | NovemberWhiskey wrote: | There were two pieces of this particular crypto asset | framework. The first part was Luna, which was a generic | coin with no pegging mechanism or backing assets. The | second part was Terra, which was a USD-pegged stable | coin. | | The novelty was a guaranteed mint/burn mechanism across | the two which was intended to maintain the peg on Terra. | | As the prior poster correctly asserts, Luna was never | pegged. | snovv_crash wrote: | You always need a backstop, otherwise you only have | scarcity and not intrinsic value. Scarcity gives value in | a bull market when people want in, but only a backstop | gives real intrinsic value in a bear market when people | want out. | | It isn't like you can reverse the mining process and get | back the electricity which was used to mint your BTC or | something. | loceng wrote: | What functionality was different between Bitcoin and Luna? | | Is Luna not run off of Bitcoin? | | So if Luna could function as a Ponzi scheme, why doesn't | Bitcoin inherently have that same capability or function | embedded into it? Or is there something preventing that from | happening with Bitcoin? | | Confused. | eric_cc wrote: | Terra (token LUNA) is its own chain. Trillions of brand new | LUNA tokens were minted within the span of a day or so | rendering the token worthless. This is due to the way LUNA | was tied to the algorithmic stablecoin UST. It was a true | ponzi. | | BTC's max supply is capped and the release schedule of new | coins is fixed and predictable. There is no possible way | that trillions of new bitcoins could suddenly be created. | loceng wrote: | So I don't think this point proves they're different | functionality - other than the single factor of with more | controllers then "printing" a bunch of coins wiping out | the value decided by the market isn't easily possible? | | It's this single point of failure ("one" controller vs. | distributed to diversify risk) that you're stating is | what makes it a true Ponzi vs. Bitcoin? | NovemberWhiskey wrote: | > _There is no possible way that trillions of new | bitcoins could suddenly be created._ | | That's a slightly strong perspective; it is not | impossible; it is merely extremely hard. | eric_cc wrote: | > it is merely extremely hard. | | Care to elaborate how it could be done? | | Even if it were to happen, which it could not, the chain | would fork from the moment before the hack and continue | on without the hack. | NovemberWhiskey wrote: | Change to Bitcoin Core; hard fork; majority of miners and | nodes move to new fork. | | The only reason we're not calling "Bitcoin Cash" by the | name "Bitcoin" is that the last part didn't happen, | right? | eric_cc wrote: | Consensus. Why would the majority people adopt broken | bitcoin? | NovemberWhiskey wrote: | You asserted it was impossible; it isn't. It's merely, as | I said, extremely hard. | anothernewdude wrote: | Bitcoin already faces this problem. | sha255 wrote: | It's interesting how cryptocurrency advocacy makes | otherwise intelligent people discard all principles of | engineering with forceful statements like "it's | impossible," when the only thing realistically standing | between someone and as much Bitcoin as they want is SHA-2 | compromise. I'm amazed with the money in play that it | hasn't happened yet. It speaks to the strength of the | SHA-2 suite (and, complicatedly for me, the NSA) that | it's survived this well with a giant target on its back | thanks to cryptocurrency. | | Even here, you've assumed such an event would be a hack. | Sure, one is not going to introduce trillions of coins, | but a fast way to design a desired SHA-2 solution is a | lot of cryptocurrencies' factorization heel and played | correctly could slowly make one incredibly wealthy | (played poorly, it'd just collapse the entire currency | and probably the whole idea). | | You know how we're all terrified of fast factorization | and its implications for cryptography? Do you really | think with the basically five minutes of research the | industry has into quantum computing that SHA-2 is good | enough for the entire life of a currency? We've already | shown that coins can't fork to change stupid shit, so I | mean, good luck with an owned hash. So, hard, not | impossible. Just don't forget: once upon a time we | thought MD5 was awesome and you've never heard of MD4. | eric_cc wrote: | "It's impossible" - I agree it's almost always too | strong. | | However, remember we're discussing the creation of | trillions of bitcoin. Even if it occurred, do you really | believe the chain would remain? It would be forked. I | just can't imagine a chain being totally compromised and | its users being okay with it - both would need to be | true. | solveit wrote: | A smart attacker wouldn't create trillions of bitcoin, | they would create a steady trickle of bitcoin | indistinguishable from a medium-sized private mining | operation that is too small to be noticed for a good | while but large enough to make the attacker very very | rich. It won't be noticed for months or even years and | you _cannot_ erase years of history. There will be no | fix, only damage control. | | That said, SHA-2 being broken is not very high up on my | list of cryptocurrency failure modes if only because | there are much more immediate concerns... and I suspect | most other people implicitly feel the same way. | deadbunny wrote: | That not how bitcoins are created. You don't just make a | few extra. The block reward is fixed, if someone made a | block with more than the block award it'd be rejected by | the network. | 0110101001 wrote: | It's certainly debatable whether Bitcoin has any real | worth as a currency or as an investment, or if it's just | another giant speculative bubble waiting to fall apart. | | But it's definitely looking like "anonymously drop a | protocol and disappear" was a smart move. | | All these Ethereum-based token coins seem like they're | trying to answer the question "what if Bitcoin had a | central banker, but it's a kid in his 20s with a CS | degree?" | parkingrift wrote: | If people react to the Luna ponzi by exiting crypto or not | entering crypto, the price will continue to fall. | | ...hey, wait... that also sounds like a ponzi. | matheusmoreira wrote: | > Too many people falsely equate "Bitcoin === Crypto".. or "a | fan of bitcoin is a fan of all crypto". | | It pretty much is. I can open the price graph for any coin | and assume the bitcoin movements are similar. Small dip in | bitcoin price? Alts get destroyed. Even ethereum gets | destroyed. | eric_cc wrote: | Sure price movements are in sync during general risk on/off | pressures. | | Same can be said about categories of companies in the stock | market. e.g. SAAS companies, oil companies, etc move | together.. | lamontcg wrote: | > "In a sense, the market is going to take that as kind of | bullish." | | I mean everything is a bit oversold right now on negative | emotions, both in the crypto space and in the stock markets. | | There's probably going to be a positive bounce just because | markets don't move in straight lines. | | There is always the chance that something else explodes due to | stress tomorrow and hits the headlines and crypto and/or stocks | start melting down again (nothing is ever a sure bet), but it | feels like we're closer to hitting a point of selling | exhaustion and an inflection point of negative sentiment. | gjvc wrote: | > I mean everything is a bit oversold right now | | you ain't seen nuthin' yet | 300bps wrote: | _I mean everything is a bit oversold right now_ | | Everythinig was way overbought when considering the money for | those past purchases came from an accommodative Fed that | flooded the economy with $9 trillion that currently sits on | its balance sheet, lowered interest rates to literally 0 and | the government sending out stimulus like it was candy. | | All of which are either done or ending. | | So I think a better way to phrase it is that the market is | repricing with the new information, it isn't oversold. | everybodyknows wrote: | Hmm, it does seem the balance sheet has reached a plateau, | but the curve only rounded to it around March: | | https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/WALCL | | Funny how debt is ignored by big media and the short fiat | rates get all the attention. | | Edit: Fed balance sheet relative to GDP, 2003 to present: | | https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=Pvii | Jabbles wrote: | > There's probably going to be a positive bounce just because | markets don't move in straight lines. | | To emphasize the uncertainty in your "probably", I will point | out that Luna didn't bounce: | https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/terra-luna/ | everfree wrote: | Luna's supply hyperinflated (from 100 million Luna to 6 | trillion Luna) to try to save UST's backing, as designed. | That's why its price got rammed irreversibly into the | ground. | | Cryptocurrencies in general, and shares of stocks, do not | hyperinflate. | pcthrowaway wrote: | Oh, it absolutely did, it crashed down to 4 zeros, then | bounced back up to 3, roughly a +300%-1000% price movement | over the course of a day. Of course, liquidity may have | been incredibly low, but there were reports of people | turning $40 into $400 in the aftermath of all this. | | Obviously, it crashed so much, the "bottom" was anyone's | guess (well.. zero is the only one that makes sense now). | But there are bounces all the way down. If you drop a | bouncy ball down an infinite staircase it doesn't take a | straight line down. | throwaway743 wrote: | Saw 6 decimal places for several candles (a close, open, | and lows) on 1h timeframe the other day on one exchange. | Then back up to 3-4 places. | Enginerrrd wrote: | >I mean everything is a bit oversold right now on negative | emotions, both in the crypto space and in the stock markets. | | ...Things have corrected SLIGHTLY from an absolutely historic | bubble and you think it's OVER sold? | | Meanwhile, we have significant inflation, rising interest | rates, supply shocks that still haven't been sorted out and | signs of economic slowdown. | | Prices have been out of touch with reality for a long time. | We aint anywhere near a bottom yet IMO. | izzydata wrote: | Stock prices are back around where they were before the | pandemic. It may have already been overvalued at that time, | but perhaps it is a level of overvalue that people are | comfortable with as we were already there before the system | got flooded with money. | mcguire wrote: | Wilshire 5000 / US GDP: | https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=qLC | | That is normalized to 1 in late 2007. At the end of 2021, | it was 2.53; at the end of the first quarter of this year | it's at 2.37. In 1Q 2020, it was 1.80. Stock prices have | been increasingly disconnected from the economy | 2014-2015. | [deleted] | actionablefiber wrote: | > Stock prices are back around where they were before the | pandemic. | | This is not true, at least not for the U.S. stock market. | Market indices are still up 20-30% over pre-pandemic | levels. | arcticbull wrote: | Cool, and that was 2 years ago, during which many index | components grew 20-30% year over year. Folks lose | perspective on just how good these companies are at | growing their revenues. | | GOOG for instance, was making a trailing $160B per year | going into COVID. Now it's making a trailing $270B per | year. [1] | | The S&P 500 P/E ratio is down to 20 from 25 on January 1, | 2020, so the S&P 500 at least is 17% cheaper now than | before COVID. [2] | | And looking at mid-cap tech? Shopify is trading at a | lower ticker price than at the bottom of the COVID drop | on March 19, 2020 - despite having tripled their revenue | since then. | | A lot of companies are _really_ cheap right now. | | [1] https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/GOOG/alphab | et/reve... | | [2] https://www.multpl.com/s-p-500-pe-ratio/table/by-year | devoutsalsa wrote: | As I've been learning about value investing and growth | stocks, it feels like we're in a weird middle. Stocks aren't | cheap enough to attract the people who want to buy at a | discount, and they're not sexy enough to rally on the hype | train. I don't know what's going to happen in the short term, | and I wouldn't really want to pretend that I do. | lkrubner wrote: | "everything is a bit oversold right now on negative emotions" | | No!!! | | The Fed is raising rates. That is reality. That is not an | emotion. That is absolute economic fact. Inflation is high | and will remain high for at least a year (maybe longer). The | period from 2008 to 2022 is going to be remembered as an | abnormal period when we experienced abnormally low rates. The | low rates fueled speculation, and bid up certain stocks and | assets. | | The era of low rates is over. It is possible that you might | live another 100 years and never again see a 14 year stretch | where rates average as low as they did from 2008 to 2022. | | Emotions? No. These are not emotions. Rising rates are a | material fact that people need to adjust to. | zippergz wrote: | The emotion is the entirely predictable market overreaction | to rate changes we all knew would eventually be coming. | Market swings are drastically out of proportion to the | actual impact these rate changes will have on the | underlying businesses. In both directions. It's ALL | emotion. | echelon wrote: | > The era of low rates is over. It is possible that you | might live another 100 years and never again see a 14 year | stretch where rates average as low as they did from 2008 to | 2022. | | Goodness, I hope not. The amount of progress we've seen in | these years has been astounding. Deep learning, SpaceX, | smart phones. I felt like things had gotten stagnant, then | we truly started hitting our stride. | ryathal wrote: | I think there are going to be two periods remembered in | 2008-2022. The 2008-2012-15 where interest rates were made | low to prevent a depression and it worked. The the | 2012-15-2022 period where interest rates were kept | abnormally low because politicians didn't want to be blamed | for hurting the stock market causing a bubble that pops | when interest rates are forced to rise. | spywaregorilla wrote: | > The era of low rates is over. It is possible that you | might live another 100 years and never again see a 14 year | stretch where rates average as low as they did from 2008 to | 2022. | | The interest rate is currently at 1%. In the 80s it hit | 20%. I expect it'll go negative in the next 20 years. | mcguire wrote: | The inflation rate also hit 13.55% in 1980 and didn't go | much below 6% between 1973-1982. | arcticbull wrote: | > Inflation is high and will remain high for at least a | year (maybe longer). | | Is it? Month over month inflation numbers are only slightly | elevated, in the annualized 3% range. This isn't | particularly high - the high inflation already happened, | it's over. | | CPI and PPI numbers both came in good. PPI of particular | note, services were up 0% month over month, and commodities | 1.3% for a blended 0.56% (in line with expectations). | Commodities of course are likely to correct hard and fast | once the geopolitical situation resolves. | | The market is forward looking, so don't get stuck on a dead | narrative! | | > The era of low rates is over. | | I'm not sure we know this either. If the hikes play out, | we'll land around what, 2-3% for the fed funds rate? That's | low, historically. And that's a big if, IMO, since | inflation is showing signs of being quite well controlled | again, and the Fed's goal isn't to achieve a specific funds | rate - just low inflation and high employment. High funds | rate hurts the employment goal. | | It's fun to speculate but important to remember, you're | just speculating. So am I. There's no certainty here, and | it's pretty easy to construct a compelling counter- | narrative. | | All we know for sure right now is the Fed funds rate is 1%. | mcguire wrote: | " _If the hikes play out, we 'll land around what, 2-3% | for the fed funds rate? That's low, historically._" | | But it's not the 0.1% that drove money out of other asset | classes (i.e. bonds) because they couldn't generate any | returns. | arcticbull wrote: | Do you really see folks broadly moving from risk assets | to a 2-3% interest savings account in a 3.x% inflationary | environment? | acchow wrote: | How does anyone determine what oversold is? | | S&P has only retraced to March 2021. Nasdaq to Oct 2020. A | bunch of COVID plays like Zoom, Peloton, etc only back to | summer 2019 levels. That's only 3 years back. | | If you look at the dot-com boom, S&P bottomed out in 2002 | back to 1997 levels. That's a 5 year retracement. Currently | S&P has barely gone back 14 months. | | The GFC was worse - bottomed in Dec 2008 hitting 1996 levels | - a 12 year retracement. I'd say going back beyond an entire | economic cycle is probably _actually_ oversold. | foobiekr wrote: | By what metric are things oversold? Valuations are still | crazy by most perspectives, price/earnings, debt/revenue, | etc. etc. etc. | | Expect more losses. | slv77 wrote: | Even if nobody is bullish on the fundamentals there will | still be short sellers looking to cover short positions | which can drive markets up. | | One of the benefits of allowing shorting of stocks is that | it provides liquidity even in the worst of times. | lumost wrote: | The fact that crypto is correlated with tech stock valuations | should be raising eyebrows. Flash back a few years and the | hypothesis that bitcoin would hedge inflation/fiat | depreciation was standard. If BTC is correlated with | equities, why not just hold productive equities? | ascendantlogic wrote: | You mean flash back a few years to the pre-pandemic era? I | think its safe to say the ripples of that particular | boulder hitting global financial markets will be felt for | decades to come. | jliptzin wrote: | I never understood the argument why crypto was a good store | of value. Sure, it's an ingenious new transactional system, | making global payments mostly frictionless, etc, but that's | true whether the value of 1 Bitcoin is $1 or $50,000. If | everyone's just converting back to fiat anyway, only | keeping enough BTC transiently to settle transactions, why | hold it long term? | mgfist wrote: | Well it's actually a pretty bad transactional currency | because it costs so much to transfer btc. So it's kinda | the opposite, where people mostly hold it instead of | transacting. The argument for a store of value is that of | gold but easier to store and transfer, better security | etc.. Whether it's a good one is for you to judge. | mrb wrote: | "costs so much to transfer btc" | | That's not true. The typical credit card processing fee | ranges from about 1.3% to 3.5%. Average international | remittance fees are about 7%. For comparison the average | Bitcoin fee is about $1 right now, so 1% on a $100 | transaction. So Bitcoin compares favorably to its | competitors. | mdorazio wrote: | 1) why are you comparing to credit cards? The average ACH | transfer costs zero dollars. | | 2) why did you pick $100 as your basis? If I try to buy a | $5 sandwich in Bitcoin and have to pay 20% transaction | fee that is not a good platform for transactions. | | I like some parts of crypto, but transaction fees on most | coins right now are not one of those parts. | brazzy wrote: | Greed. | Terry_Roll wrote: | > I never understood the argument why crypto was a good | store of value. | | Its digital gold thats it, its no more a store of value | than antique's, rare cars, fine arts etc etc and | unsurprisingly those markets can also see the bottom drop | out of them for decades. Ultimately its people en masse | who decide what something is worth, but big players can | manipulate those markets with resources, laws, taxation, | media sentiment and its easy to spook people when they | value something, so dont get attached to anything if you | dont want to be manipulated. | | The other thing to note is, it only takes a few hundred | million PS on the Asian market to get the GBP to drop | against the USD in time for European markets. So there | are very few entities who can cause the crypto market to | fall like this. Think about that. | ttfkam wrote: | Gold can be used for corrosion-resistant electrical | contacts, infrared reflectors for space telescopes, | decoration in gaudy penthouses, and more even if everyone | decided it was useless as a currency. | | An antique desk that loses all value in the open market | can still be used as a desk or at least firewood. | | A rare car can still be used to transport yourself, as a | prop in a movie, or scrap for other projects. | | A "worthless" painting can still inspire, liven up a | room, or gifted as a gag. | | Crypto that loses its value has no other underlying | utility over and above the output of /dev/random. That's | a MASSIVE difference and more clearly demarcates BTC as a | money laundering/Ponzi scheme rather than "digital gold" | or a viable currency. | sfblah wrote: | That's not totally true. The value of a Bitcoin does | relate to how much effort miners put in. So, $1 might be | low enough to allow some sort of attack on the network. | vel0city wrote: | > The value of a Bitcoin does relate to how much effort | miners put in. | | It looks like you have the causal relationship there | backwards. A bitcoin currently has value, so there's a | lot of effort miners put in to get the block rewards + | fees. But the amount of effort a miner puts in doesn't | make the price go up, the price can move independently to | hashrate. | nickff wrote: | If the transient use of a cryptocurrency is increasing, | the demand for it will be, and the price will follow. If | the price is increasing fast enough, it could be worth | holding. The same is true of any money or asset used for | payments/settling debts (like gold or silver). | Barrin92 wrote: | this doesn't work super well because if a currency | appreciates in value due to usage and you start to hold | it, that means there's less of an incentive to spend it | in the first place. That's one of the reasons why we're | not trading in gold coins any more, it's almost | exclusively turned into an appreciating store of value. | | Deflationary currency is undesirable as a means of | exchange because you don't want to use it, and that is | also one of the reasons why central banks target low | inflation rates. | richardwhiuk wrote: | Only if people hold it for the transaction for a | significant length of time. If people want to get out | ASAP, then the faster that transactions happen, the less | demand for bitcoin there will be. | jjtheblunt wrote: | > mostly frictionless | | isn't the prohibitive electric bill to reconcile the | distributed ledger the ultimate showstopping friction? | meetups323 wrote: | This is why IMO blockchains should be designed to be | inflationary. On one hand it just makes sense that as | more compute is added transactions should be able to | process faster and tokens should be minted more rapidly, | such that by "mining" you are producing real value | (allowing the chain to process more transactions per | second and more people to acquire tokens), on the other | very few people use crypto for anything besides | speculation so such a coin would never be widely adopted. | wonnage wrote: | I think this is why the fiat system is inflationary (low | level inflation is seen as healthy). Assuming that | productive projects exist, you never want lack of capital | to be the reason that they're not done. The free market | is never going to _perfectly_ allocate capital, therefore | there should be some extra money in the system to allow | for errors. The errors would cause inflation (money | supply increased, but productive output did not), but | this is better than being overly cautious. | | Incidentally this is why austerity in debt-laden | countries is kind of a terrible idea. You're taking a | broken economy and removing what little slack remains in | the system. And if the economy was broken due to | corruption or incompetent government, you're kind of just | betting on regime change at this point, which (apart from | the human toll) won't be great economically either. | lbotos wrote: | > If everyone's just converting back to fiat anyway, only | keeping enough BTC transiently to settle transactions, | why hold it long term? | | People _aren 't_ doing this now though. | | They are buying bitcoin and _holding_ (hodl) or they are | trading that bitcoin for other crypto. | | I think most people aren't using it as a currency, more | so speculation | dstroot wrote: | Eyebrows raised. What this is showing is that both tech | stocks and crypto were being propped up by the same | investors/behavior (speculation) and are highly correlated. | I thought this was a good test regarding crypto being a | "store or value" since inflation devalues fiat currency, | one hypothesis was crypto would rise with market turmoil | and high inflation as "digital gold". I guess that | hypothesis was incorrect. | twox2 wrote: | IMO, this hypothesis hasn't been adequately tested. By | all accounts inflation is bad, but not THAT bad. However, | I'm sure Bitcoin and most Cryptocurrency is looking | pretty stable with respect to Venezuela's 2,00,00% | inflation. Bitcoin as a hedge against economic turmoil | requires real economic turmoil. | lumost wrote: | A Venezuelan could also own dollar/euro denominated | assets or commodities. BTC would need to be better and | more stable than those for someone to view it as an | effective hedge. | | If US or EU inflation hit 2000% there would be global | consequences. There is no reserve asset currently large | enough to redenominate US denominated assets, aid | payments would collapse, and currencies pegged to the | dollar would collapse. Betting on BTC for such a world is | reasonable, as there would be a reasonable chance your | gold reserves would be become inaccessible, seized, or | both. However ammunition might be a more effective | financial hedge in this situation. | FabHK wrote: | > A Venezuelan could also own dollar/euro denominated | assets or commodities. | | If they're allowed to. Which underscores that the true | innovation of Bitcoin is to circumvent rules and | regulations. | caffeine wrote: | > The fact that crypto is correlated with tech stock | valuations should be raising eyebrows | | Because fiat volatility in inflation/rate hikes | respectively (ie the NPV of a USD) completely dominates the | other factors. | | The volatile leg here is the fiat dollar, and everything | denominated in it is whipsawing around as its value | changes. | mdoms wrote: | Unlike volatility in crypto markets? | simonh wrote: | Yes, unlike crypto markets which don't move anything else | no matter how volatile they are, because they are | economically irrelevant. | mstipetic wrote: | What else should it be correlated to? It's not like there's | anything to support it's underlying value | twofornone wrote: | It's a shame, a couple years ago BTC was anticorrelated | with markets. Then institutional investors started playing | and since then crypto largely just tracks the markets. I | wonder, where do these investors park their cash when they | sell holdings during downturns? | throwaway743 wrote: | Likely due in part to many people thinking crypto markets | trade only between 9-4 on weekdays and crypto being tech | related. | ascendantlogic wrote: | > I mean everything is a bit oversold right now on negative | emotions, both in the crypto space and in the stock markets. | | I like your optimism but we are still well above what most | people would consider reasonable valuations. That said there | are trillions of new dollars out there that won't want to sit | on the sidelines decaying at an 8% clip forever. It will be | interesting to see how it plays out. | djantje wrote: | I don't understand, if $3B in bitcoin is sold to save UST we | should also be able to see a equivalent of that $3B in | Terra/Luna/UST buys? | | I don't understand crypto, and or how the Luna/UST works, but if | you supported/buy something this should be visible, not only in | vanished bitcoins, or am I mistaken? | jallen_dot_dev wrote: | Do we not? Volume of trades was in the billions during the | collapse. | px43 wrote: | It was supposed to be quicker, and automatic, to prevent the | collapse, but it's a relatively new system and still under | manual control. In theory some set of humans have been tasked | with slowly buying more and more UST to build up confidence, | and restore the peg. This can't really happen because LUNA is | worth basically zero now, but who knows. | djantje wrote: | Ah, yes, this part I can understand: to late with support and | then the UST holders started selling, taking their loss, and | in the proces devaluating UST | | But the backing of UST(or Luna?) should be visible in soms | large/or a lot of transaction in a small time window | somewhere, if they started buying/supporting it with $3B, I | would think | netheril96 wrote: | The volume of UST and Luna are huge for the past few days. Way | more than several billions. | ck2 wrote: | So in other news, people saw enough value in bitcoin to buy $3 | billion's worth | | I mean that's not a trivial amount by any explanation right? | kwertyoowiyop wrote: | Seems like they just used magic beans to buy other magic beans. | hitovst wrote: | Sooner or later people are going to have to actually understand | Bitcoin, and will then see that 99% of the rest of crypto are | scams. | | If you don't understand that freedom is the most relevant part of | Bitcoin/crypto, you probably also don't understand that the few | good things you take for granted if life are due to the remaining | residue of freedom.. and why you didn't care when slavers | eliminated it. | | Figure it out soon, and save yourself things even more important | than wealth. | lubesGordi wrote: | It'd be funny if a crypto crash acted as a contraction in money | supply thereby helping out inflation. Finally a use for crypto! | low_tech_love wrote: | "Analysis from the company shows that 52,189 bitcoins were moved | to a single account at crypto exchange Gemini" | | Oh yeah sure they saw their coin going to s*%t and thought "yeah | let's just throw away a couple billion dollars just so people | won't think we are scammers". Sure. The Vatican has started a | process to canonize these saints. | vmception wrote: | uh yes exactly? thats the only reason they bought the bitcoin | in the first place | | Terra Luna was already stupid enough, its stupid to make this | part controversial because that was the purpose of this | collateral, just as its stupid to not believe the bitcoin was | sold after transfer to the exchanges (many people believe that | its still owned, or was given to some whales to bail just them | out, or the founder keeps it for himself) | | https://bitcoinist.com/terra-luna-will-buy-10-billion-worth-... | | https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2022-04-19/crypto... | stingraycharles wrote: | I know that it's the plan, do they have any evidence (like | transaction ids) that it actually happened? | | I haven't followed this a lot but from what I gathered | there's not a lot of transparency around this. If so, why | not? | vmception wrote: | There are transaction IDs to the exchanges | | There wont be transaction IDs after that because its not | onchain | | You and the community could ask for an audit by an | accounting firm like Deloitte, like the rest of the | business world uses, itll come out a quarter or two from | now leaving us all in exactly the same spot for now. The | transparency expectations make almost no sense or lack | inspiration. | jtbayly wrote: | Please explain _why_ I should believe that the money was | used for this purpose in a field where every other | example I can find is a scam. | | It seems incredibly unreasonable to assume that these | particular people are goodies, when everybody they are | with are baddies. | 1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote: | There was a peer-to-peer network solution that was associated | with this "Luna" cryptocurrency that has been discussed on HN | several times. The network did not have any ostensible connection | to a cryptocurrency, it looked like just another p2p software | project on the surface, but if one read all the documentation one | could discover the connection to "Luna". Wondering if anyone | remembers the name. | vmception wrote: | I mean that was the expected outcome and now people are like | "proof of the expected outcome!?!" | | Following months of outcry about the unsustainable nature of | Terra Luna, Do Kwon through his foundation tried to partially | collateralize the stablecoin with bitcoin, with a goal of buying | up to $10bn of bitcoin. He got $3-5bn (at the time, price changed | a lot), and this prolonged the confidence system for _one | additional month_. | | And then it imploded and sold the collateral, of course it was | partial collateral so it failed to do anything in a bank run. | | So it doesnt matter whether we get records from exchanges or not. | Nothing different would happen. People want to see Do Kwon have | more reasons to have charges against him, but there's no need to | attribute it to malice, everything can be explained by | incompetence already. | vkou wrote: | The guy was running a blatant Ponzi scheme (20% risk free yoy | return for anyone investing in a 'stable' coin is a Ponzi), and | it's the fourth time he's tried this (it's the first time it | grew to multiple billions). | | He's not stupid, he's just a predator, and just like any other | predator, belongs in prison. | dlubarov wrote: | The 20% interest was just a short-term user acquisition | scheme, funded by some of the initial LUNA tokens. I don't | think anyone claimed that it was sustainable. | | A Ponzi would be if Anchor used users' deposits to pay out | the 20% rewards, which isn't what happened here. | tempnow987 wrote: | A ponzi is if there is not actual asset backing the ponzi | "values". Ie, the "stablecoin" will not actually hold | value. | | Wasn't Cashberry or something like this? Russian based? | Ultimately no assets behind it, so when the music stopped | they couldn't redeem the values. | gamblor956 wrote: | No, a ponzi scheme is very specifically defined as an | "investment fraud that pays existing investors with funds | collected from new investors." | (https://www.investor.gov/introduction- | investing/investing-ba...) | | A common part of the scheme is to promise high returns | with little to no risk. | vkou wrote: | > funded by some of the initial LUNA tokens. | | Which were bought by users in a zero sum-game. | | A ponzi is a zero-sum game where new entrants finance old | exits. Just because the funding for the ponzi is done in a | different currency doesn't mean it's not one. | | You can't create a closed system that generates wealth, and | when you're growth hacking with your users' money, you are | running a fraud. | dlubarov wrote: | Anchor protocol always retained the full amount of each | UST deposit, plus additional rewards (whose funding was | external to Anchor), so clearly Anchor is not a Ponzi, as | I thought you were implying originally. | | Would you assert that any undercollateralized currency is | a Ponzi? (Seems like stretching the definition to me.) Or | that any system with unsustainable rewards is a Ponzi, | even if there was no expectation that they were | sustainable? | vkou wrote: | You have the look at the system as whole, not just the | UST side of it. The system as a whole was not doing | anything that generated value, and could only pay yield | as long as people were paying money into it. | | This was the major innovation of UST. A ponzi that's | sufficiently obfuscated that if you look at any part of | the system in isolation, it seems fine. | | You can have an uncollateralized currency - like baseball | cards, but that's not what UST was. It made additional | promices (like being a stablecoin, and offering yield). | | You maybe even theoretically can create an | uncollateralized stablecoin (that remains stable) but | you're not going to attract $XY billion into your | stablecoin without dangling a carrot to convince the | greedy to invest. Investing into a stablecoin is | stupid[1], because its price can't go up - so in this | case, the carrot was fraudulent yield. | | UST only had value because it was backed by Luna, and it | only had demand for it because of the promises of yield. | Luna was backed by nothing but speculation, driven by | demand for UST. Once net money stopped flowing into the | Luna ecosystem, the whole thing collapsed. | | Any system that only works as long as net value flows | into it, but produces no value of its own, but promises | yields is a ponzi. | | [1] Yes, there are use cases for it that don't involve | speculation, but those use cases aren't going to see the | market cap explode at the rate Tera/Luna did. | seoaeu wrote: | The details of the protocol are just obfuscation. The | 10,000 ft view is that people converted USD to tokens so | they could earn 20% interest. As the dust settles, we can | see the outcome looks exactly like a Ponzi: | | (1) The folks running the scheme walked away with a | couple billion dollars | | (2) Those who cashed out early got back their original | investment plus interest | | (3) Everyone else lost all/most of their investment | | Notably, all the extra money received by groups (1) and | (2) came from (3). | aqme28 wrote: | > People want to see Do Kwon have more reasons to have charges | against him, but there's no need to attribute it to malice, | everything can be explained by incompetence already. | | Does there need to be malice rather than incompetence, for | charges to be filed? | lvass wrote: | >So it doesnt matter whether we get records from exchanges | | It matters a lot. The rumor mill has it LFG directly rescued a | few whales in the first sign of crisis. This is a very serious | accusation I'd urge no one proclaim without definite proof. | | If they concentrated their usage of the reserves to keep the | peg earlier, possibly anyone selling below $1 would take an | immediate loss and no noticeable depeg would even happen. The | way it was handled is extremely useful information to markets | and particularly to market makers. | [deleted] | nradov wrote: | What's the point? There was never a real "market" in any | meaningful sense. Since the beginning it was always a fake | scam to separate suckers from their real (fiat) money. A | combination of Ponzi scheme and shell game. | vmception wrote: | > Nothing different would happen. People want to see Do Kwon | have more reasons to have charges against him | zrail wrote: | > The rumor mill has it LFG directly rescued a few whales in | the first sign of crisis. This is a very serious accusation | I'd urge no one proclaim without definite proof. | | What would it change to have that information? Afaict none of | this is regulated in any regard so if that happened, would | there be any impact what so ever? | lvass wrote: | In Singapore? Maybe that's not where some relevant parties | are. I'm not a lawyer. I'm sure there are more things in | this world that can cause impact besides existing | regulation though. | [deleted] | throwaway92394 wrote: | > Afaict none of this is regulated in any regard | | I'm not saying they're applicable here - but off the top of | my head, money laundering, taxes, and fraud regulations | still apply to crypto (at least in the US). The | moneylaundering/taxes are rather explicitly stated, the | fraud regulations apply regardless of what the thing is. | PragmaticPulp wrote: | > Afaict none of this is regulated in any regard so if that | happened, would there be any impact what so ever? | | Many laws and regulations that were written before | cryptocurrency existed still apply to cryptocurrency. | | People can't do an end-run around existing laws by wrapping | crimes in cryptocurrencies and pretending laws don't apply | to them. | simmerup wrote: | Apply but aren't enforced | sakopov wrote: | What's everyone's thoughts on Gemini dollar? Gemini claims [1] | that GUSD is FDIC insured up to $250K and audited [2] by a third | party called BMP [3]. I also remember reading that Gemini is used | by a number of IRA custodians, so I'd assume that they're pretty | heavily regulated. | | [1] https://www.gemini.com/dollar | | [2] | https://assets.ctfassets.net/jg6lo9a2ukvr/VOtyB4tBb0G4FVt6Eq... | | [3] https://www.bpm.com/ | rollcat wrote: | From [1]: | | > GUSD is an Ethereum ERC-20 token | | Last time I checked (EVERY time I checked), Ethereum was still | based on proof of waste. | | My thoughts are the same as they've been for many years | straight, on everything crypto-"currency": it's a massive scam | at best; more realistically, along with everything else in the | proof of waste category, somewhere on the top 10 list of things | most harmful to all life on Earth. | | I don't understand how anyone even tries to mis-represent it as | anything else. | hacker_newz wrote: | This really doesn't add to the discussion. Can you provide a | more nuanced take other than 'crypto is a scam'? | once_inc wrote: | I agree on your points about Ethereum and all alt-coins. | Bitcoin is another matter though, because it has the majority | hash rate. Please note that bitcoin mining is a fraction of a | fraction of all energy use in the world, and as an industry, | well ahead of its peers in terms of green energy usage. Using | electricity is not a problem; carbon emission are, and there | a a very substantial number of other industries that are in | orders of magnitude worse to our environment (among which is | gold mining, clothes dying and disposable plastics). Using | electricity to separate money and state is well worth the | cost to me. | | edit: bring forth thy downvotes, HN. | rollcat wrote: | > Please note that bitcoin mining is a fraction of a | fraction of all energy use in the world | | A fraction of a fraction is still a fraction. If you're | going to make an argument about actual energy usage, please | quote actual numbers. | | > [...] as an industry, well ahead of its peers in terms of | green energy usage. | | Bitcoin is not an industry. An industry has a product or | service. Bitcoin's "service" is subsidising greed and | speculation using natural resources - at the expense of | everyone else. Blockchain, as a data structure, is a | solution in search of a problem. So far the only "value" | I'm seeing is runaway speculation. | | It does not matter which source of energy Bitcoin is using, | it's fundamentally still based on the premise of proof of | waste. It doesn't matter that it's "green", the same green | energy could have been used to burn less coal elsewhere; or | we could've avoided building the power plants to begin | with. Ethereum is at least trying to move to proof of | stake, although they're consistently under-delivering. | | > [...] there a a very substantial number of other | industries that are in orders of magnitude worse to our | environment [...] | | This is very true. But what is also true, is that another | actor being worse doesn't justify your endeavor's own | crimes. Just because your neighbor is beating their | partner, doesn't mean you can kick a stray cat. | | > Using electricity to separate money and state is well | worth the cost to me. | | And that's exactly what is wrong with proof of waste: it's | worth the cost to *you*. You've never asked *me*, if it's | OK for you to destroy the planet that *I* am also living | on, let alone if I share your views on how noble the goal | is. | | Separating money and state sounds like a bold wish. | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29322172#29323906 | | Please don't take this comment as an attempt at a personal | attack - I have no way of knowing your actual stake, what | I'm trying to protest is the game itself. | | > edit: bring forth thy downvotes, HN. | | Don't worry, they're coming to both sides. I would always | prefer to see arguments rather than downvotes, so thank you | for taking a stance. | mdoms wrote: | Is it a cryptocurrency? Then it's a scam. | everfree wrote: | It's a completely different ball game from UST. | | UST didn't even claim to be fully backed, whereas Gemini's | third-party auditing accounting firm attests to GUSD being | fully backed, under the scrutiny of the New York State | Department Of Financial Services. | sakopov wrote: | I wasn't claiming they're same. Was just wondering what the | thoughts are on another stablecoin which claims to be fully | backed by USD and how valid those claims actually are. Not | sure why I'm getting downvoted. | everfree wrote: | I didn't assume that you were claiming that, and I didn't | downvote you. | | If I had to guess, people here are pretty sensitive to any | crypto project being mentioned in the comments out of the | blue, so that may be part of the reason for downvotes. | latchkey wrote: | I'm kind of amazed that the Bitcoin price wasn't affected more | given this event as well as the larger macro events with the | stock markets, Fed and inflation. | throwaway1777 wrote: | A lot of speculation that not all of this btc was actually | sold. Sure it was transferred to an exchange but know one | really knows what happened after that. | zekrioca wrote: | In the above sentence, I think the first "know" should really | be "no" :) | paulpauper wrote: | it dropped 20% over the past week and keeps falling now. | fullstop wrote: | Netflix has dropped 45% over the last month, Amazon 27%, TSLA | 27%, Disney 17%, BTCUSD 26%. | | I'm definitely not sold on Bitcoin, but it tracks along with | tech stocks for some reason. | ChrisClark wrote: | Yeah, the previous crashes have been a lot more violent. The | current bubble is definitely over though. Bubbles come like | clockwork every 4 years (due to the 50% supply cuts every 4 | years) it would be interesting to see if it happens again. | | Though an earlier bubble could be kicked off when ethereum cuts | it's supply by 90%. | datalopers wrote: | > The current bubble is definitely over though | | Why do you say "over"? I see BTC reaching $20k this summer | and then falling to <$10k as miners fold. | onlyrealcuzzo wrote: | Why would miners folding cause Bitcoin to drop in value? | | The same amount of Bitcoin will be mined no matter what. | ItsMonkk wrote: | Not quite. Bitcoin difficulty adjusts every 2000 blocks, | which typically happens every two weeks. If the hashrate | drops, those blocks happen less often, so the adjustment | happens less often. | | These past years the Bitcoin ASICs have been tremendously | profitable, and as a result the demand for the hardware | goes up, leading to huge profits for the hardware makers. | These past few months have seen a drop in Bitcoin, which | drops the profit for miners, but as it is still above | electricity prices, only results in cheaper hardware. | | If Bitcoin drops below the electricity line, you will see | miners all over the world start to turn off their | devices. And once that happens, block time will rise, and | that will start making the entire network less trusting. | This will cause a spike of people selling their coins, | and with less blocks this means a packed exit. With the | packed exit, you would think this would incentivize | mining as transaction fees go way up, but those fees come | directly from the value of the coin, so once this starts | the value of the coin is going to drop heavily. | | With mining profitability dropping the further this goes, | the longer block times, the more the price of Bitcoin | goes down. If Bitcoin goes below 10k quick enough, it | won't ever see another difficulty adjustment, and the | entire chain dies. The developers might chose to hard- | fork and change the difficulty changes algorithm, but as | we've seen with Bitcoin Cash, these changes are political | and don't tend to end well. | latchkey wrote: | This all sounds good on paper, except for the fact that | large miners don't sell their bitcoin. Even when they do, | it isn't on the open markets and happens in ways that | don't affect the price (OTC) and by selling options. | tromp wrote: | > Bitcoin difficulty adjusts every 2000 blocks | | It's 6*24*7*2 = 2016 blocks, the number of 10 min | intervals in 2 weeks. | postalrat wrote: | If mining becomes a major expense because the price of | bitcoin is too low to recoup the cost of electricity how | long would it take for the difficult to adjust? | | If miners and shutting down during that time I'd expect | the time between blocks to increase. | manquer wrote: | Miners are also large holders of Bitcoin in addition to | mining and those bitcoins are likely leverage then to buy | equipment. | | As the bitcoin price drops , they will have more margin | calls and new coins are not that profitable. You can | expect lot of mining sales to happen and orders get | fullfilled as selling the equipment becomes more | attractive. | | Some of the smaller/more leveraged ones will definitely | fail at long term prices of say 20k or less . | ChrisClark wrote: | I mean it's not going back up to $60k. The bubble is over, | but it's only the start of a longer bear market, so yeah, | it can go much lower. | eric_cc wrote: | > I mean it's not going back up to $60k. | | Oh man. I'll have fun poking you next year about how | embarrassingly wrong you were. | ChrisClark wrote: | I wouldn't say next year, but by 2025 I think there will | be a new ATH. But I'm just very conservatives in my | predictions. | TomSwirly wrote: | Cool! Can I see what sort of mathematical model you use? | What inputs, what outputs? | | What are the fundamentals? | | I know you don't have any such thing, just a "hunch" that | you believe is authoritative. | Melting_Harps wrote: | > But I'm just very conservatives in my predictions | | Which were ultimately based on what exactly? See, TA in | this space is the demarcation of those who know exactly | nothing, but feel the need to contribute their | misinformed opinion: short of being a whale who can make | the market move (Bearwhale) I doubt you really have | anything of substance to base your opinion. | | And even then it's literally impossible to call a high, | I've been in this for over 10 years and the 'price | discovery' mechanism is really just not there. And most | of the innovative stuff happens during times when the | price is low. | | Consider two things: Mining/Hashing power is at ATH, and | we just 2x the amount of nations who have adopted its a | national currency--with more expressing interest and are | meeting with the President of El Salvador as we speak. | | And yet we are sub 30k... again, I think no one knows | anything about what the price will do, but that doesn't | stop people for relying on conjecture to explain x, y, z | event in this space. | | Tether was a joke, and Luna was a scam... what this has | to do with BTC is entirely lost on anyone with any | semblance of knowledge: they dumped BTC, sure, but that | is like conflating what Pellaton's stock price drop means | for Apple's long term viability. | eric_cc wrote: | Ah fair enough. I misunderstood your comment. I thought | you were suggesting 60k was the ALL TIME high bitcoin | will ever achieve. | | As for timelines - that's anybody's guess. | datalopers wrote: | Oh, yeah we're in the same page, I misinterpreted your | original comment. | jonnydubowsky wrote: | There have been massive advancements in the use of | various options, futures and other structured products | specifically designed to increase optionality for Bitcoin | miners to weather bear markets without closing up shop. | | This is definitely a proving ground and only those mining | operations with the most resilient strategies will | survive. | | Many will continue to thrive. | | The future outlook on the crypto markets enters a new era | towards the end of this year. | | Fidelity is introducing cryptocurrency investment | services to all of its 401K investors, every company | 401k, across the $2.4 trillion in 401(k) assets they | represent (in 2020, or more than a third of the market at | the time). | | They will allow individuals to allocate up to 20% of | their portfolio to cryptocurrency, for those who | participate. | latchkey wrote: | Just to confirm, you don't feel it'll ever go to 60k? | ChrisClark wrote: | Not at all what I said or think. I only mentioned this | current bubble is over. I'm not talking about the next | one. | | It most likely won't hit $60k this year, but there is a | new bubble like clockwork every 4 years. And like I said, | another bubble could be kicked off earlier when the | ethereum emission drops 90%. That could drag bitcoin up a | bit and trigger an early start to the next bubble. | id wrote: | Even if it goes below $10k, that would be normal price | action for Bitcoin. It would start to get interesting if it | goes below $1k. | paulpauper wrote: | that would be worse than 2018 | TomSwirly wrote: | Better, rather. | fsckboy wrote: | > _The current bubble is definitely over though_ | | with bitcoin hovering ~$30K, still seems like there's air in | the bubble. a 50% drop (from $60K) is pretty normal for | bitcoin. It could drop a lot more without shaking the | confidence of the hodlers | ChrisClark wrote: | Yeah, I mean the bubble is over, it's not going to $60k. It | still can drop a lot further. | | Am I using the word bubble wrong? Another responded in the | same way. | | I mean it's now definitely a bear market, and going down, | not up. | [deleted] | ptudan wrote: | Unweathered protocols on eth failing shouldn't affect bitcoin. | They're only related insofar as they are both crypto. The $3B | in bitcoin sold could have been anything. | carnitine wrote: | A 3bn fire sale is going to have a price effect no matter the | reasoning behind it. | firloop wrote: | Minor nit but Terra isn't a protocol on Ethereum, Terra is | its own L1 that competes directly with Ethereum. | ptudan wrote: | Lol duh, I totally knew this. Thanks for the correction | idkyall wrote: | Well, the value that collapsed was the exchange rate of BTC to | LUNA, which is now at fractional cents per coin after | hyperinflation... They kind of gave a $3B liquidity exit for | holders to dump their LUNA tokens into via the LUNA/BTC pairs | that they were market making | muttantt wrote: | "stablecoins", NFTs, etc. are just HYIPs reimagined. | gruez wrote: | NFTs maybe, but stablecoins? How are they comparable to "HYIPs" | (high yield investment program)? Specifically, where are the | "high yields"? | ericsoderstrom wrote: | 20% APY for staking UST | davidw wrote: | patio11's twitter commentary has been extra spicy lately. | snotrockets wrote: | Calling it short is underselling it (lame pun not intended). This | was allowing friends & family to cash out, leaving the rest of | the public high and dry. | gizmo686 wrote: | I'm confused. I understand wanting to have a reserve fund to help | maintain a peg. National currencies do this as well, including | selling their reserves to prop up their own currency when needed. | | However, why would a stablecoin put its reserved in Bitcoin; an | asset that is highly correlated with the entire crypto ecosystem, | and highly volatile relative to the asset against which they want | to maintain a peg. | rory wrote: | They had a small amount of other "stablecoins" as well [0]. I'm | guessing it was some mix of an ideological opposition to | holding actual USD and a desire to speculate on the ecosystem, | which the market allowed for a time. | | [0] https://twitter.com/LFG_org/status/1526126703046582272 | stjohnswarts wrote: | sounds like they're throwing good crypto after bad crypto... | nikolay wrote: | A lot of desperation like Elon Musks' "send me your crypto and I | will double it", which screams "buy as much crypto as you can to | double it so that we can fix my problem with losing billions". | quasse wrote: | I am extremely out of the loop on the latest crypto developments | / schemes, but | | * Where did this foundation get $3B to buy Bitcoin? | | * Is there any proof at all that they traded it to a counterparty | who actually attempted to prop up UST and didn't just run off | with them? | folli wrote: | * From Crypto Bros putting cash in Luna, hoping it will reach | the moon, as the name implies. The foundation bought BTC as | hedge in case Luna/Terra goes haywire. | | * No, there's no proof. | Traster wrote: | That's where it gets incredibly funny. They persuaded | everyone that UST was worth $10Bn dollars and then went and | bought $3Bn of BTC with the profits. At which point the | obvious question is "Hey - isn't this asset by definition | worth $3Bn"? And the answer is "Oh, no, by the time it drops | from $10Bn to $7Bn we've burned all our collateral and it's | worth 0". | seoaeu wrote: | The even funnier aspect is that that instead of trying to | stabilize the token or just liquidating all UST at 30C/ on | the dollar, the creators decided to abscond with all the | collateral and leave UST holders with nothing | woodruffw wrote: | > Is there any proof at all that they traded it to a | counterparty who actually attempted to prop up UST and didn't | just run off with them? | | This brings up an exceedingly funny point: blockchains excel at | making every transaction public (a property that nearly nobody | actually wants) and _simultaneously_ offering complete privacy | to institutional actors. | | In other words: privacy for me, but not for thee. | rchaud wrote: | Reminds me of the Peruvian general Oscar Benavides: "For my | friends, everything; for my enemies, the law." | | The whales got a bailout, while retail got market forces. | juanci_to wrote: | Peron said a more radical version of this on camera[0]: "To | friends, everything; to the enemy, not even justice" | | "Al amigo, todo; al enemigo, ni justicia." | | [0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDh9M9aty4U | thebean11 wrote: | Why can't non-institutional actors achieve the same level of | privacy? Seems like it would be much, much easier for smaller | actors since they are dealing in much smaller amounts.. | woodruffw wrote: | > Why can't non-institutional actors achieve the same level | of privacy? | | Non-institutional actors are transacting over an immutable | public ledger. Institutional actors are transacting via | backchannels. In other words: the cryptocurrency | transaction space is "schizophrenic": the traffic that | supports high valuations is not settled on the chain | itself, but via gentlemen's agreements. Non-institutional | actors could do the same thing (and get the same privacy), | but then it's just normal money laundering instead of | "decentralized finance." | thebean11 wrote: | > Institutional actors are transacting via backchannels. | | As in, they are keeping funds on centralized exchanges? | Users can do the exact same thing if they want, not sure | I get your point. | woodruffw wrote: | See the original comment: the point is that there's no | actual way to verify the central claim ("$3B in Bitcoin | was sold [...]"). We're expected to take everyone's word | for it. This is in marked contrast to how two arbitrary | users are expected to transact via a blockchain. | thebean11 wrote: | How would you verify that something was sold outside of a | blockchain? The receiver of the item would need to prove | it's in their possession, which is pretty easy on BTC. | | I guess I'm not sure how you get from that to privacy | only being achievable by institutions? | woodruffw wrote: | I didn't. That's not a property I want in a financial | system; it's one I want in a legal system. | | The only points being made are that (1) virtually nobody | _actually_ wants their entire life 's transactions | recorded on an immutable public ledger, and (2) the | people whose economic activity currently backs the | speculate value of these coins play by a different | rulebook entirely. | thebean11 wrote: | > the people whose economic activity currently backs the | speculate value of these coins play by a different | rulebook entirely | | I guess this is where I don't know what you mean, | specifically | [deleted] | Traster wrote: | On the second point, to be fair you can look at the UST graph | and see that someone did indeed burn a tonne of Luna to support | UST. It's probably impossible to really prove that every penny | went to supporting it, and it's probably impossible/unlikely | that Do Kwon really bankrupted himself for this, but at the | very least we can say someone decided they were going down with | the ship and set a lot of money on fire. Difficult to see who | would've done that other than LFG. | seoaeu wrote: | Burning Luna (which can be created out of thin air) and | burning USD/Bitcoin are entirely different things. | Traster wrote: | The point is that UST had significant rallies- that | indicates a massive effort to support it that failed. | skinnymuch wrote: | It's impossible Do Kwon bankrupted himself. No one is going | to do something no one believes any one in crypto or Wall | Street would do and keep quiet about it: be selfless, stick | to your previous words that critics never believed, and not | be keeping a good chunk of money for yourself. | | If this happened, we will be seeing massive PR about this. Do | Kwon would become a huge symbol and become a millionaire | again if he actually did that and opened his life and books | to scrutiny to prove everything as much as possible. | georgeecollins wrote: | This is a dry run of the Tether (USDT) collapse. | nathanvanfleet wrote: | "Dry" in what way exactly? It seemed rather wet with the | enormous amount of loss? | seattle_spring wrote: | I think you're getting Terra and Tether mixed up. Parent was | saying the Terra explosion was a dry run for the forthcoming | Tether implosion. | helsinkiandrew wrote: | Tether is atleast supported with real world assets (USD/bonds | etc). The amount and quality of the assets might be debatable | but it can't go into a death spiral to zero like Luna and UST. | georgeecollins wrote: | That's another way of saying it is a more legitimate scam | which is why it has lasted longer. You are correct. | calbruin wrote: | It can go into a death spiral. If confidence in Tether wanes, | AND Tether is holding underperforming "cash equivalents", | Tether can go to zero overnight. | caymanjim wrote: | Says who? Serious question. Is there any auditing of Tether's | claims, by a reputable real-economy firm? Is there any legal | or regulatory authority involved at all? | onlyrealcuzzo wrote: | Only 3.87% of Tether was backed by dollars: | https://siliconangle.com/2021/05/13/tether-releases- | reserve-... | | So it could drop pretty far. | celestialcheese wrote: | That's a bit old - | https://tether.to/en/transparency/#reports | | Closer to 50% tbills and cash. | | All caveated with if you trust MHA Cayman auditors. | | The other 50% could be anything, and likely sketchy as they | are chasing yield and extremely cagey about revealing | anything about their holdings. | Salgat wrote: | I definitely don't trust their auditor, they're based out | of the cayman islands and don't have the best reputation. | https://www.coindesk.com/markets/2022/01/26/tethers-new- | acco... | | It's funny because this is pretty trivial stuff to audit | for a 3rd party, yet they only open their books to a | private company of their choosing with questionable | background. It's obvious what's going on. This is the | biggest issue with crypto traders, they're too damn | gullible as long as the news fits their agenda. | qgin wrote: | A 50% drop would trigger 99% of holders attempting to | cash in. | scoopertrooper wrote: | They only promise that their treasure bills "have a | maturity of less than 90 days". That won't help them much | if there is a run on the Tether bank. | onlyrealcuzzo wrote: | Why wouldn't it? | | IIUC, Tbills have been quite liquid since the mid | 1980s... | stjohnswarts wrote: | Nothing invokes trust like the combination of the words | cayman and auditors. | TheAlchemist wrote: | It's not an auditor. They just signed an attestation, | which is not even remotely close to an audit, saying that | they saw the numbers Tether showed them - that's it ! | | If my memory is good, they even specifically mention in | the attestation that they didn't see the details (just | the aggregated numbers) and they didn't check the process | by which the management calculated those numbers. | | So yeah, it's taking much longer than most people expect, | but the issue is certain - Tether will collapse to 0 at | some point. | jpmattia wrote: | > _Only 3.87% of Tether was backed by dollars_ | | For comparison: Citibank had only 11.73% Tier 1 capital in | their 2021 report: https://www.citigroup.com/citi/investor/ | quarterly/2021/ar20_... Couldn't find a breakout of their | Tier 1, but it includes high-quality credit items as well, | so actual dollars is well below 11.73%. | | So in other words: SiliconAngle.com is writing clickbait | and doesn't understand modern banking. | dfdaffg423rag wrote: | I don't think anyone's going around using shares of | Citibank stock as currency, are they? Because that's one | of the many criteria that need to be true for that | comparison to make any sense. | | Blows my mind because stablecoins could be so easy-- hold | some cash and hold some US treasuries. Pocket the | interest. Become rich. | jpmattia wrote: | > hold some cash and hold some US treasuries. Pocket the | interest. Become rich. | | Not getting what you're saying here: Only banks should | have that privilege? | dfdaffg423rag wrote: | I'm saying, if you're making a US dollar backed | stablecoin, you could do it with minimal risk and still | profit handsomely by just holding US treasuries. | | Instead, we have stablecoins backed by all sorts of | things like commercial paper in cryptocurrency exchanges. | namdnay wrote: | Who is going to put their money in a stable coin paying | 0.2% interest when the guy next door is offering 20%? | Answer:anyone sane, but they wouldn't be there in the | first place | JumpCrisscross wrote: | > _Only banks should have that privilege?_ | | Yes, in exchange for the privilege of money creation you | need tight regulations and public disclosures. | | Banking left unregulated turns into this mess time and | time again. You'd think people would be more disciplined | about betting private money creators. But they aren't. | They never are. Particularly not when their neighbor is | showing orders of magnitudes of paper gains. This was | true in antiquity. It was true in our era of free | banking. It's proven true, again, in crypto. | jpmattia wrote: | > _Banking left unregulated turns into this mess time and | time again._ | | And yet, regulated banking also turns into a mess time | and time again. | threeseed wrote: | Depends on your country. In Australia, our banks are | among the most regulated and survived through the GFC | with barely a scratch. | | Regulation is proven to work in the financial system. You | just need to make sure you have enough of it which often | the US hasn't. But in recent years that has been fixed | up. | | Also it's a false comparison. There is one Tether and | tens of thousands of banks. | [deleted] | mountainofdeath wrote: | Money Market funds already do this and the collapse of | money market funds is usually a harbinger of worse things | to come. Money market funds are non-FDIC insured places | to park short term cash, typically backed by some | combination of AAA commercial paper, municipal bonds and | various vintages of T-Bills. Some also are exclusively | holding California and New York City bonds and are are | totally tax free. Money market funds can do things like | suspending redemption in case of a panic to let things | settle. | | The idea behind USDC is to collateralize it 1:1 like a | money market fund provided the underlying bonds hold. | Tether is doing fractional reserve banking but has no | central bank to act as a lender of last resort. Even | then, banks pay into the FDIC which retains reserves | itself like any other insurance. | | Tether works as long as the money flowing in >= money | flowing out. | | A severe run on Tether would dry up liquidity very | quickly. | jcranmer wrote: | Tether's latest report says that it held about $140 | million more in assets than liabilities, out of a $78 | billion liability. It also says it holds about $5 billion | in cryptocurrencies. So a 3% fall in cryptocurrencies | would make Tether _literally_ insolvent--or about an | averagely bad day in cryptocurrency. | | Let that sink in for a minute: Tether, _by its own | admission_ is _barely_ solvent, so barely solvent a | single not-especially-bad day would render them | insolvent. | | Now consider that this barely solvent state has persisted | for their entire reports--they've always cited a very- | barely-solvent state of their finances. Given that Tether | has already admitted to lying in the past (and | essentially cooking the books to mislead the public into | thinking they were solvent), and that the books always | seem to come out just perfectly not-quite-insolvent | despite investing in very volatile assets, is it more | likely that Tether has somehow found an investment | strategy that just barely keeps them solvent, or that | they are in fact insolvent and using every | it's-technically-not-lying trick they can to get people | not to realize it? | | For what it's worth, as far as I understand it, Tether's | Tier 1 capital isn't 3.87% but... 0.0%. Nothing Tether | has produced has indicated any capital that can be raided | to provide extra assets in the case that assets lose | value--note that such capital _isn 't_ a part of the | asset/liability ratio. | bpt3 wrote: | Did Citibank claim that its value was one-to-one backed | with U.S. dollar reserves until they were caught not | doing so? | | If not, they're probably not a relevant comparison to | Tether. | jpmattia wrote: | > _Did Citibank claim that its value was one-to-one | backed with U.S. dollar reserves until they were caught | not doing so? If not, they 're probably not a relevant | comparison to Tether._ | | I'm not getting what you're saying here: They should make | good on their initial message from several years ago? | They should now keep all assets in dollars and not earn | interest? | bpt3 wrote: | > They should make good on their initial message from | several years ago? | | Yes. | | > They should now keep all assets in dollars and not earn | interest? | | Since that was how they initially generated interest in | the asset, yes. | onlyrealcuzzo wrote: | Irrelevant because for >99% of depositors (NOTE - not | total deposits) FDIC insurance will pay them out in the | event of a bank run. | | For the vast majority of users - the difference in 1:1 | backing and FDIC insurance is irrelevant. This is the | reason you'll almost certainly never see a global bank | run. It's the reason why we probably will eventually see | a Tether bank run. | bpt3 wrote: | We agree, the person I was responding to doesn't seem to | grasp that. | caymanjim wrote: | Real banks practice fractional-reserve banking, where | they are required to hold a percentage of assets as cash | or central bank deposits. It's well-regulated and | diversified. It's audited. Individual account holders' | deposits are insured (FDIC in the US). This is all well- | known and understood and reliable. Runs can still happen, | shady accounting practices can still happen, and | sometimes banks fail. Sometimes they fail | catastrophically, and people can lose money, but it's | about as trustworthy as things get. | | Tether does not claim to be a fractional-reserve bank. | They claim that 100% of the assets are backed by US | dollar cash deposits. It's their entire raison d'etre. | Except no one is enforcing it. It's not even remotely the | same thing as a fractional-reserve bank. | jpmattia wrote: | > _They claim that 100% of the assets are backed by US | dollar cash deposits._ | | Still? (ie link?) | | All I see is: "All Tether tokens are pegged at 1-to-1 | with a matching fiat currency and are backed 100% by | Tether's reserves." (link here: | https://tether.to/en/transparency/) | albroland wrote: | Yeah, they continuously try to rewrite history. The | original whitepaper directly stated "Each tether issued | into circulation will be backed in a one to one ratio | with the equivalent amount of corresponding fiat currency | held in reserves by Hong Kong based Tether Limited." | | For further reading, see the CFTC settlement | Quinner wrote: | In the US, the required reserve ratio has been 0% since | March 2020. I personally wouldn't view the traditional | financial system as about as trustworthy as things get. | gruez wrote: | AFAIK reserve requirements (ie. cash on hand) was dropped | to 0%, but capital requirements (ie. assets on hand) are | still there. | namdnay wrote: | When was the last time anyone lost the money in their | checking account due to a bank failing in the US? | jcranmer wrote: | The ratio you're talking about is the amount that needs | to be in the bank's account with the Federal Reserve as a | fraction of its total liabilities. _Only_ the money in | that bank account qualifies for that reserve ratio; | holding on to a literal stack of dollar bills in a bank | vault somewhere does not. | | That ratio is 0% because it's been judged that there are | better ways to require solvency than doing that (chiefly, | requiring capital buffers). | lavezzi wrote: | Where is the evidence it is supported with real world assets? | NelsonMinar wrote: | Tether itself also had a dry run of the Tether collapse. It | seems to mostly be holding steadyish in the past few days, but | the dip down to $0.95 is a giant screaming alarm. It's still | only at $0.9990; before the crisis last week it was pretty much | always at $0.9998 or above. | id wrote: | Similar or worse drops happened in 2016, 2017, 2018, and | 2020. In other words, business as usual for Tether. | georgeecollins wrote: | Yes, and like $50b-$100b worth of trades each day are in | USDT, with a market cap of $73b. That's according to | coinbase, I can't verify it. When I look at people talking | about trading crypto currency on reddit they just don't | seem that sophisticated. I am not bashing on crypto, but | this seems like a systemic risk people are oblivious to. It | won't wipe everything out, but it can't be good for the | price. | realusername wrote: | I'm also waiting for the USDT collapse. It was very close this | time but I guess I'll have to wait more. | calbruin wrote: | Tether has never been audited. The market is about to audit | them. Watch the tether market cap... | wing-_-nuts wrote: | If and when that happens (and let's be honest, it probably | will) a whole lot of people are about to see that bitcoin has | no clothes. | dstroot wrote: | Does anyone have insight to what legal exposure (if any) creator | Do Kwon has? In an regulated market does he just walk away? | vmception wrote: | in a regulated market all you would simply have are some | codified fiduciary duties and standardized disclosures | | Terra Luna and TerraUSD's algorithmic operations were all | disclosed publicly and scrutinized in the open sphere | | Do Kwon stated publicly why he was buying the bitcoin - to | repurchase Terra Luna and TerraUSD because its shitty broken | product that might need to be rebought to temporarily help | restore its peg - and Do Kwon has stated publicly now why the | bitcoin sold - to repurchase Terra Luna and TerraUSD because | its shitty broken product that might need to be rebought to | temporarily help restore its peg | | I think in a regulated market he just walks away just like all | investment banks and bankers do | | There are plenty of Exchange Traded Notes (ETNs) that obtusely | say "this is dogshit and its going to fall to zero during a | period of volatility" and then fall to zero during a period of | volatility | | Thats exactly what Terra Luna and TerraUSD did | | all regulation would do is standardize the way the disclosure | is done, really the most likely thing that comes from this is a | regulator mandated additional sentence in a brokerage firm's 40 | page disclaimer that you surely will read after consulting your | financial advisor. | | Its up to the consumer/investor, it always is. | _fat_santa wrote: | As of writing, CoinMarketCap values TerraUST (the stablecoin) at | $0.09. Needless to say, that 3B didn't do a damn thing. No amount | of cash infusions are going to save Terra, because the problem is | trust. | koolba wrote: | > Needless to say, that 3B didn't do a damn thing. | | If it propped it up long enough for insiders to dump their | positions it did it's served it's purpose. | bushbaba wrote: | Or the problem is a bank run. They threw 3B to fix an issue | with a bank having 40B+ in assets and seeing more than 3B of | withdraws. | NovemberWhiskey wrote: | A bank run is exactly a trust issue. | Animats wrote: | This is puzzling. What did they do with the money? Buy back UST? | Something else? | | Vast numbers of LUNA were minted during the collapse. There are | now 6 trillion LUNA outstanding, currently valued at $0.0002246 | each. Apparently the algorithm trying to support UST did so by | minting LUNA. | | Does someone have a timeline of the collapse? All the data should | be available on blockchains. | thedangler wrote: | Whales be Whaling. | loeg wrote: | UST is down another 35% today, to 11 cents on the dollar. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-05-16 23:00 UTC)