Volatility can play both good and bad roles but it depends on us that how move according to it like if there is increase and decrease so we have to take decision of buying and selling according to it but if decrease in price persists for longer time then it can be unhealthy for investors.
Maybe that's the problem. People think they have to react to every change in price, by either buying or selling. This obviously only escalates volatility even further. The problem with Bitcoin is it doesn't have a fundamental or intrinsic value. In other words, it's impossible to say whether Bitcoin is over or underpriced at its current price, which makes it way more prone to wild swings than any traditional asset. |
|
|
|
Giving 3 days to claim it are too short but F2Pool opens to cooperate with the sender.
Yeah, it seems short, but considering they didn't have to do that at all, it's still a nice gesture on their part. The short period could be due to the fact that, if that BTC20 is unclaimed, they'd have to divide it among participating miners according to their share at that time. And as miners' come and go and could change their pay-out addresses, redistribution of earnings after a longer period of time could be difficult. I wonder if F2Pool stated how exactly is the unlucky sender supposed to make a claim. I wouldn't be surprised if they got flooded with spam messages from either jokers or scammers pretending to be the sender, so it might take some time to weed out the fake ones and verify the real one. |
|
|
|
Nope, Adesanya had no say on who he'll fight next. That's not how it works in the UFC. It's the UFC that proposes an opponent and it's up to the fighter if chooses to sign the contract or not. DDP was the first guy who got the offer to fight Adesanya but DDP refused because as he said, he wouldn't have had enough time to prepare as he just fought Whittaker at the time. So on they went to give Strickland the offer which he immediately accepted.
As a champion he probably had some say, i.e. if he refused to fight someone, UFC would find him someone else, maybe on a different date. UFC had quite a few fussy fighters, who were picky about who and when they wanted to fight (e.g. Jon Jones or GSP). Obviously, since Volkanovski couldn't fight in Sydney this time, they needed some other Australian-enough star to headline the main event - Adesanya. And Strickland, who prides himself in accepting any fight, was the 2nd best opponent for Izzy, after DDP. Strickland, on paper, was a very convenient rival for Izzy (proved by bookies' odds), so I'm sure he was very happy to sign the contract. |
|
|
|
And Pereira will finally get his rematch with Izzy. It's an unfinished business which is more exciting to fans, fans really need to find out who gets 2:1
I don't know, somehow I'm not super excited for another episode of Adesanya Vs Pereira. It would be a good fight, sure, but each of them has potentially better fights. After Izzy got manhandled by Stricland, I don't think moving to light heavyweight would be a good move. He did try that already and failed. And it's 3:1 for Pereira  . Izzy needs another 2 wins just to get even. |
|
|
|
This is no surprise, because we all know that the US are now a police state, like any other first world nation. Things have changed a lot since 11 September (today's date) .... and it will never be the same again.
In all fairness, it's not just the US, you could say the same about literally any country in the World, maybe with few exceptions. Things will keep getting worse because of the masses being passive and docile and allowing everything without any resistance. If banks are already sharing information about their customers internationally, then doing the same for cryptos is just a matter of time. Governments will not allow any financial loopholes. |
|
|
|
It's a bit dramatic and a strong push and pull of course. Well, even though many people are waiting for this, if it's delayed again, I think the authorities in this case will issue final and no longer confusing directions because ETF products are currently probably very popular for Novice investors and Anyone will be interested in buying Bitcoin because they charge low fees and usually have low volatility.
SEC cannot delay their decision forever, they're bounded by set timeframes after all. I think you're a bit too optimistic by expecting them to finally come up with clear guidance. They've proven repeatedly that they don't care about producing coherent rules when it comes to crypto. But even SEC's Gary Gensler admitted multiple times that Bitcoin does not fall under the definition of security, so I don't think they'll have any solid grounds to decline ETF applications. They could come up with some petty reasons and make applicants jump through extra hoops, but will have to approve them eventually. |
|
|
|
Gold obviously has less risk than Bitcoin for the money invested in it due to the level of its volatility which is a lot lower than Bitcoin's volatility. And gold barely loses value over time but it just keeps getting more and more expensive as we move into the future, whereas Bitcoin is volatile and moves in both directions equally. In a total Bitcoin cycle, it has a bull market and a bear market, and we get to see both a very low price and then a very high price every cycle.
Gold being a safe investment (or store of value) is a bit of a myth. People confuse the actual value with the nominal value (aka fiat price). When adjusted for inflation, things are not looking so rosy. Depending on methodology, some charts like the below are looking pretty grim:  source: https://goldprice.org/inflation-adjusted-gold-price.html |
|
|
|
I find it very interesting that Sean Strickland won the game at defensive and boxing distance. Izzy could have disrupted his distance with her kicks, she remained calm in most places and did not hit. In the first rounds of the match, while Sean Strickland had 20 head punch at one point, Izyy only had one and he was kicking, which seemed a little pointless to me. It could have turned out like this because he underestimated his opponent. Izzy did not have such an enthusiastic match. First, he arranges a rematch with Strickland and Dana White, and then the Perreria trilogy begins.
Izzy Vs Sean was like a duel between an artist and a craftsman. Artists would perform better but only when they are in 'the zone', craftsmen would never be spectacular, but will deliver a solid performance even on their bad day. It just wasn't a good day for Izzy, he either missed something in his mental preparation, or that blow in the 1st round had much greater effect that we might realise. He looked like he was solely focussed on surviving. Voices on the internet are mostly against an immediate rematch. Sure, Izzy deserves it simply because of all his past achievements, but that's not necessarily fair to all the other guys in the middleweight, who want their shot at the title as well. Sportwise, Du Plessis is more deserving to fight Strickland next. |
|
|
|
This fight was definitely a bit of a let down for Izzy fans. Adding insult to injury Strickland is out here today saying that he felt like he was fighting an amateur based on the punches that Izzy was throwing. I don’t know if this was lack of preparation, a dive for gambling profits, or if Izzy just wasn’t feeling it, but he’s got something to prove again…
On top of that, Strickland managed to get a big portion of the audience to cheer for him, which is a very rare sight. There's no way that loss did not cause some mental damage to Izzy. You could tell just by looking at him refusing to participate in the post-fight conference. Probably it would be easier for him to recover if he was KO'ed in the 1st, as he could just blame it on Strickland being lucky etc. |
|
|
|
Assuming its a legit mistake only a major pool would fix this. A small pool would likely keep it.
If it was a pool, returning the fee could bring in some legal issues, as all fees/block rewards should be split between pool participants, and I can't imagine all of them would be happy to give up an unexpected extra income. |
|
|
|
Thanks, the one from 2016, although much greater in BTC terms, was around 4 times lower in USD terms than today's one. The 2016 transaction was widely reported as a sender's error, so not sure why would you dismiss the possibility of someone making a similar mistake today. I can't imagine anyone willing to send a "donation" to a random mining pool this way. Just sounds way less probable than a human error. And if my memory serves me well, I think in 2016 the pool agreed to return the fee (but I may be thinking about yet another situation). |
|
|
|
Nothing to see here, just a call for more strict regulations and more KYC requirements. BTW, the $15 trillion referred to below relates to a speculation on the size of the crypto-market after ETFs get approved ( Link). Joe Biden, China And G20 Leaders Back ‘Swift’ Game-Changing Crypto Price Rules For $1 Trillion Bitcoin, Ethereum, BNB And XRP Markethttps://www.forbes.com/sites/digital-assets/2023/09/10/joe-biden-and-g20-nations-endorse-game-changing-radical-global-crypto-price-rules-for-1-trillion-bitcoin-ethereum-bnb-xrp-and-crypto-market/?sh=23df2535368cBitcoin, ethereum and other major cryptocurrencies have been struggling under the weight of regulatory uncertainty—with the Federal Reserve warning it's "deeply concerned."
The bitcoin price, after rocketing to almost $70,000 per bitcoin in late 2021, has crashed back, dragging down the wider $1 trillion crypto market—including ethereum, BNBand XRP (even as payments giant Visa dropped a crypto bombshell).
Now, as the bitcoin and crypto market braces for a $15 trillion earthquake, U.S. president Joe Biden and leaders of other G20 member nations have endorsed the radical, game-changing crypto regulation recommendations of the global Financial Stability Board (FSB).
(...)
The new rules would require bitcoin and crypto exchanges and companies to share information on crypto transactions between countries beginning in 2027.
(...) |
|
|
|
lol. Just lol. Such an unexpected outcome in main event. Is this the begging of the end of Izzy era? 4 fight, 2 losses, 2 wins. Zebra record. Plus boring fights previously and lack of early finishes lately. Dont thing that we gonna get a rematch this time.
The crazy thing was that Sean was pretty open on what his tactic will be - keep pressing forward and looking for a brawl. Yet, Izzy seemed completely unprepared. Although it might be that he suffered some damage in the first round and never recovered. But I think there will be a re-match, simply because it would be the most entertaining (and therefore most profitable) match-up. Although setting up Strickland Vs Du Plessis and Adesnaya Vs Cimaev (if he defeats Costa) would also make some sense. UFC may be a bit tired of automatically granting re-matches to former champions though, it almost seems like it's becoming a rule. There are 2 good reasons for denying Adesanya an immediate rematch: 1 - he got one recently against Pereira, 2 - this wasn't a close or controversial fight, nor did he lose by a lucky punch. He was dominated in almost every round and showed no real fighting spirit (i.e. he didn't push hard in the last round and wasn't looking for a knock-out, even knowing that was his only chance of winning). Anyhow, congrats to Sean, I hope he manages to stay on the top for a while. |
|
|
|
... People who invest in BlackRock, I have no idea if and what entry levels BlackRock has for his clients, likely don't have too urgent reasons to pull out their money as long as BlackRock's generated revenue of people's investments meets or satisfies their expectations. If you have enough money, you usually diversify and let your money/investments "work". Above some levels you probably don't try to hunt for every percent or per mille (can't speak with own experience here, I'm not at such levels). BlackRock doesn't really generate any revenue for their clients, if anything, they charge them fees. Profits are generated by the performance of underlying assets. BlackRock is just a middleman. My (slightly off-topic) digression was that BlackRock is not as powerful as many think it is. On-topic question: if BlackRock doesn't really invest their own capital (only clients' funds), why would they even care about the price of Bitcoin? |
|
|
|
There have been rumours in the market recently that black rock wants to accumulate more bitcoins, but at more reduced rates and for this they will make the market crash more. I don't know if this news is really true or if it is just a rumour.
Daft question, but does BlackRock actually invest in anything on its own, or are they only a fiduciary to their clients, meaning they only invest on their behalf? People often freak out over how much BlackRock or Vanguard own, but the truth is, they're just middlemen and all their power is gone if people start pulling out their money. |
|
|
|
The mortgage market in Canada is nothing like the USA. We don’t have fixed 30 year rates. We got basically variable or fixed up to 5 years. Generally most go for 3-5 year fixed.
So pretty much the same as UK, although here, 2-year option was the most popular, but when the rate-hikes started, things got a bit weird and the 5-year fixed had actually lower rates than the 2-year. Those that are in pain are those that chose 5 year variable because their payments might of doubled.
That's what happened in my native Poland where most mortgages are at variable rates. Things were really ugly. And those that were smart are still in fear because when they renew they won’t get their 1.5% rate anymore but instead will get a 6% rate.
Not much anyone can do about that, other than re-pay as much as possible at lower rates, which is not necessarily good advice though if have savings/bonds options available that could pay above the 6%. And the high rates are not all that scary if wages increase at the same (or higher) rates. The real problem is the insanely high house prices. |
|
|
|
When you enter the cryptocurrency market, either as an investor or as a trader, volatility is basically what you look for. An investor is someone who just buys and holds specific assets or cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin, while a trader is someone who buys and sells cryptocurrencies for a very short period of time to get very small percentages of profit out of each trade, however, both of these need volatility to help them achieve their goals and earn some money.
An investment from an investor would make no sense if the market doesn't move from where they've bought because they will only earn money if the market moves up, and when it moves up, it can move down as well. Similarly, a trader cannot make any trades if the market is completely stagnant.
Yes, volatility is trader's best friend, but it's not necessarily welcome by (long-term) investors. Low volatility doesn't mean the market does not move at all, it means there are no sharp and sudden movements, and instead of jumping up and down, price can go up slow but steady. Example: gold is still considered a low-volatility market, but it's still popular among investors. There's nothing stopping Bitcoin behaving more like gold in the future, when block-rewards are lower and halvings have less impact on the supply. |
|
|
|
Most investors who often do DCA will not do Hodling in the long term, because some of them are also looking for short-term profits, although on the one hand they also don't forget about long-term profits.
DCA is by definition a long-term strategy and it's a bit pointless if you're aiming at short-term gains. So, unless you're using terms "long" and "short" very loosely, we should expect all DCAers to hold for over a year or more, unless the bull-run comes early and they decide it's a right time to cash out. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
