Price declining after a few hours... Yep, it was a bull trap  I don't see price declining. It's going sideways for a while now but probably massive buying will return tomorrow. oh dear |
|
|
|
|
What do you predict now the volatility is back? Now the proper pumpers and dumpers rule the roost?
I still say 260, end of year
|
|
|
|
|
This weekend will see carnage.
|
|
|
|
|
You are being played by chinese traders who are cleverer than you are.
Each pump and dump transfers wealth from west to east.
Have you made money from bitcoin, or have you made China richer?
|
|
|
|
|
This is the real Bitcoin market - pumping and dumping! The Chinese understand the true value of Bitcoin - it's a great method for extracting wealth from starry eyed western idiots with too much money. You know, the ones who will buy at the peak, hodl through the down trend then sell in despair at the bottom.
|
|
|
|
|
Now that is a heroic forecast!
I'm all in, until 2 Jan.
|
|
|
|
|
When has BTC ever achieved a consistent growth rate for more than a few weeks?
I guess the one example is November 2013. But otherwise?
|
|
|
|
Jan 1st 1am we are organizing to buy out many bitcoins at the same time, causing a huge price spike that will get media attention... great way to start next year!!!
Surely that's as ill-advised as the whale that dumped 30,000 BTC in one go at $300? Unless of course you buy at 12.59pm... |
|
|
|
|
This market is volatile enough to see 400+ prices AND still be on a downward trend
|
|
|
|
As for remarks surrounding liquidity - just look at the Gold ETF. GLD is a withering shadow of it's former self - rot setting into every corner through over leverage suspected to be anywhere from 30 to 100 to 1 over the metal. A high liquidity ETF is all very well when you're prepared to print endless paper without even caring if there's anything left to back it or not. Remember, the whole concept itself is only 20 years old. The Gold ETF is less than a decade, so there's plenty room for innovation.
I actually agree with you that if the Winklevoss ETF was approved, it would be a huge thing. I just don't think it will be approved. Let's look at your example. The typical daily trading volume of gold on the London Metal Exchange (which is one of a number of exchanges) is USD 14 billion per day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_bullion_marketThe typical volume of trading of bitcoin is about USD 9 million per day. Notice any difference? |
|
|
|
|
That's why the best monetary systems regulate the price level, by targeting a certain rate of inflation, whilst ignoring everything else.
|
|
|
|
The Average Joe immediately saw utility in mobile phones
BTW as an early adopter who lived through some of those early mobile technology years I can tell you that the average person did not see the utility in mobile phones back in 1992 when I bought my first (analogue) mobile phone. They were perceived as expensive to buy, expensive to use, battery life was poor, and most people frankly couldn't see the point. In fact, most people back then saw mobile phones as the preserve of high earning bankers - and of drug dealers. That's not my recollection of 1992. Everyone saw the benefits of mobile phones, it's just that they couldn't afford them at that time. I certainly coveted my friend's mobile in 1992. Mobiles have spread around the world as their utility is so obvious. |
|
|
|
|
Think of it this way. Assume they sell 120k of coins worth of ETF for c.$36 million.
Then, for some reason, half of the ETF customers decide to sell their investment.
If Winklevoss dump 60k coins on the market to repay them, they will crash the market and get nowhere near $18 million for them.
So instead they will either have to repay investors out of their own money, or default.
In sharp contrast, all existing ETFs are based on large markets. Of course, they have some market impact, but it will be tiny in comparison. The missing amount can easily be funded by the ETF, so it doesn't have to default.
|
|
|
|
Thats a nonsensical argument, as it would apply to *any* non synthetic ETF.
ETFs are based on large liquid markets where the market impact of the ETF can be expected to be small enough to have no discernible impact on price. This ETF would have an enormous market impact. It's the same reason why ETFs are all based on large portfolios of shares (or portfolios of large shares), in order to avoid market impact. You don't get ETFs that invest in five small companies, for example, just as you wont get an ETF that invests in just BTC, imo. |
|
|
|
I would say late winter/early spring will be when the ETF is approved. They say it typically takes a year. The ETF was submitted last July but they re-submitted it in February.
Why do you think it will be approved? It all sounds very dodgy. Basically, they are going to sell the ETF (initially at least) based on their own holdings of BTC, as the market is so unregulated and illiquid. If they were to sell their BTC, it would be expected to have a massive market impact, as the BTC market is so small and illiquid. So the whole principle relies on investors buying the ETF at a price which is higher than what Winklevoss would be able sell the coins at themselves. Basically, they are asking for permission to sell something to investors at above its real price, on the basis that the investors are too stupid to realise this. I don't work for SEC, but if I did, I fear my hand would be hovering over the 'Reject' stamp. |
|
|
|
I just think there is too much money to be made off of joe public for another bubble not to be 'engineered'  I agree with yr analysis, but it explains exactly why they wont get permission for an etf which can be sold to retail investors. It would look far too much like a scam. Btc is far too illiquid |
|
|
|
Hey guy - if you aint in the Cult, you're a troll. Get with the program !
Choo choo! Choo choo! Choo choo! |
|
|
|
45 cents. |
|
|
|
|
What's different about the recent Nov 2013 bubble is that it has taken so long for the bubble to unwind. The bubble is still deflating 12 months later, whereas before full deflation occurred within 2-5 months.
This is important as it is resulting in changing attitudes. There were always those who lost a load of money, but at least they saw the market improving within a few months, and if the HODLed, then they recouped their losses. But now those who foolishly bought at the peak are still seeing further losses 12 months later, and are wondering whether they should try to save what little value they have left.
I believe this stretching out of the decline period reflects that the market is now more dominated by zombie-like HODLers, who keep their positions, and even buy small amounts more, limiting the inevitable post-bubble price declines to a snail's pace. Meanwhile, the price remains high enough to fund miners production of ever more BTC.
The problem with this, is that for the rest of the world, BTC means slow decline. No one wants to use it for payments, as now they expect to lose value whilst holding BTC. The slow decline is undermining the true value of BTC, which is in its functions as a means of transferring value between people. The slow decline is also wiping out the speculative opportunities.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
