Aha, now I see. Lender makes a btc transaction to the borrower. So, no longer the lender's keys. This checks out. If the btc are not back by the given time, the collateral is released (to the lender, I suppose). So the risk would be an insolvent borrower AND the collateral not covering the "new" value of btc at loan expiry. This also checks out. What does not check out is the following. Imagine being the borrower. Imagine being asked for, say, 200% collateral. Maybe in USDC/USDT? OK. So at expiry, if the btc you borrowed is worth more than the collateral, why give the loan back? Let the lender just have the collateral. On the contrary, if the btc you borrowed is worth less than half the collateral, give it back of course, and keep your relatively precious collateral. In other words: a shorter's paradise. (EDIT - No: it's more like an arbitrage, since it's impossible to lose if this is all there is to it.) Am I missing something? It's obvious I am, but I don't know exactly what - or I wouldn't be missing it  Another thing that escapes me: if you can post, say, 100k usd collateral, why would you borrow a bitcoin rather than buying one - or two? For simplicity, I'm assuming 1btc = 50k$. Biodom, have you been able to figure this one out? Just sounds like market forces then. Gotta predict what's going to happen and hope for the best. Either side could win or lose. Yeah, market forces - but would you lend your btc in such a scenario? I sure wouldn't. Or I would ask for maybe 500% collateral, so I'm covered if she makes less than a 5x. No borrower in their right mind would put up that much collateral if they have it in a blockchainable form, that is, in some crypto token as opposed to, say, real estate. Imagine that on top of this, there's interest to be paid(borrower)/gained(lender) too - which means even more incentive (statistically) for the borrower to stay insolvent and let you have the collateral if number go up enough. That's why I think I've missed something. Possible, it is difficult to say before the proposal is fleshed out, but you are probably right: if the value of loaned btc exceeds the collateral (they are talking 200% of current value), then it could be beneficial to the borrower to never return the loaned bitcoin. However, this could be remedied by simply buying a call option at 200% current price. then, it is just a matter of whether that call option has a larger premium than what you get from a loan. If yes-no deal, if no-deal is possible. All and all-not for the faint-hearted, but but there could be some takers, especially if btc slows down from 200% a year. Thanks for confirming it looks as it looks. Agreed - market forces, as P_Shep said. Lending would make much more sense in a bear market. |
|
|
|
Aha, now I see. Lender makes a btc transaction to the borrower. So, no longer the lender's keys. This checks out. If the btc are not back by the given time, the collateral is released (to the lender, I suppose). So the risk would be an insolvent borrower AND the collateral not covering the "new" value of btc at loan expiry. This also checks out. What does not check out is the following. Imagine being the borrower. Imagine being asked for, say, 200% collateral. Maybe in USDC/USDT? OK. So at expiry, if the btc you borrowed is worth more than the collateral, why give the loan back? Let the lender just have the collateral. On the contrary, if the btc you borrowed is worth less than half the collateral, give it back of course, and keep your relatively precious collateral. In other words: a shorter's paradise. (EDIT - No: it's more like an arbitrage, since it's impossible to lose if this is all there is to it.) Am I missing something? It's obvious I am, but I don't know exactly what - or I wouldn't be missing it Another thing that escapes me: if you can post, say, 100k usd collateral, why would you borrow a bitcoin rather than buying one - or two? For simplicity, I'm assuming 1btc = 50k$. Biodom, have you been able to figure this one out? Just sounds like market forces then. Gotta predict what's going to happen and hope for the best. Either side could win or lose. Yeah, market forces - but would you lend your btc in such a scenario? I sure wouldn't. Or I would ask for maybe 500% collateral, so I'm covered if she makes less than a 5x. No borrower in their right mind would put up that much collateral if they have it in a blockchainable form, that is, in some crypto token as opposed to, say, real estate. Imagine that on top of this, there's interest to be paid(borrower)/gained(lender) too - which means even more incentive (statistically) for the borrower to stay insolvent and let you have the collateral if number go up enough. That's why I think I've missed something. |
|
|
|
Magnet link for the facebook flat files. 15G
magnet:?xt=urn:btih:0595273ab674e05131a757f69f494a4285b429aa&dn=Facebook%20Leak%20%5b2019%5d%5b533M%20Records%5d%5b106%20Countries%5d
Torrent looks dead here. |
|
|
|
|
It works also when NGD though. It's just the color of the dildo that changes.
|
|
|
|
|
Long fight at 59k. Coil baby coil.
|
|
|
|
[...]
Main theme: You still have keys to your btc, but able to lend it out.
Sorry, Biodom, but the above highlighted statement doesn't make any sense. Either you misread it, or they're lying to you. Believe me, I am skeptical myself and so far never lend out any, but you can call me curios since there is no tax event, no wrapping and no cough-eth-cough involved. Here is what that head honcho says (scroll down to especially 6-9 in the thread)...and don't shoot the messenger: https://twitter.com/muneebmy guess would be that most risk would be that btc price growth might exceed the posted collateral. If so, this might be a weakness. Is that head honcho trustworthy himself? Remains to be seen, but they were associated with George Gilder afaik. Aha, now I see. Lender makes a btc transaction to the borrower. So, no longer the lender's keys. This checks out. If the btc are not back by the given time, the collateral is released (to the lender, I suppose). So the risk would be an insolvent borrower AND the collateral not covering the "new" value of btc at loan expiry. This also checks out. What does not check out is the following. Imagine being the borrower. Imagine being asked for, say, 200% collateral. Maybe in USDC/USDT? OK. So at expiry, if the btc you borrowed is worth more than the collateral, why give the loan back? Let the lender just have the collateral. On the contrary, if the btc you borrowed is worth less than half the collateral, give it back of course, and keep your relatively precious collateral. In other words: a shorter's paradise. (EDIT - No: it's more like an arbitrage, since it's impossible to lose if this is all there is to it.) Am I missing something? It's obvious I am, but I don't know exactly what - or I wouldn't be missing it Another thing that escapes me: if you can post, say, 100k usd collateral, why would you borrow a bitcoin rather than buying one - or two? For simplicity, I'm assuming 1btc = 50k$. Biodom, have you been able to figure this one out? |
|
|
|
Here is an interesting question to ponder: If a 'shitcoin' only wants to work with bitcoin and simply wants to build smart contract functionality on bitcoin, then is it a 'shitcoin' or maybe a Robin to btc's Batman?
We already have Liquid, Microsoft ID and now another one (check yourself which one it is), which you can stack using bitcoin blockchain.
Incidentally, it is up a lot today, probably mostly because it's head honcho declared that they will have btc borrowing capability with NO asset exchange or wrapping (pure btc lending with NO third party, all on btc blockchain).
Sounds unbelievable, basically a decentralized Blockfi.
I am quite curious about it. Main theme: You still have keys to your btc, but able to lend it out.
Not sure about specifics, which are important, of course.
How can you actually lend bitcoin and keep valid keys? This is unclear. The devil is in the details, of course. If it sounds too good to be true, it probably isn't, not your keys not your coins etc. But now that's it's "temporarily not your coins", does it imply "temporarily not your keys"? IOW: This sounds really sweet, but we do need more details about Robin, even if it should cause a few Batman slaps  |
|
|
|
What's the big deal with the 60K number? There is nothing special about it, in my opinion.
Not sure why all these up-down moves around that particular value.
Probably whales accumulating in the $57,000 - $59,000 range. Extremely low volume atm so it’s easy scalping. It works well........until it doesn’t. We’ll leave $60,000 in the rear view mirror like all other resistances before it. Yeah, Saylor just bought another healthy chunk over 59k... 60k can't resist much longer if you ask me. EDIT why don't they start with lowering their FAT fees to 0.5% or less (from 2.5%)
2.5% fees are ridiculous for 38bil in btc.
Barry got too complacent and got hit with a negative premium.
They'll have to. Once the floodgates of ETFs are open, it will be competition to the penny on premiums. In such a context, I reckon 0.5% would be still a bit on the expensive side. |
|
|
|
Someone's selling bitcoin.com for $100 million.  Must be the CEO. |
|
|
|
I just have 1 question ?? ??  Can't be. Last two characters are the same, so it must be something like GONG CHOO CHOO. |
|
|
|
HODL - you're doing it wrong  |
|
|
|
r0ach was kind of fun, I actually liked him. The persistence and negativity was always a fun thing to read. Made me feel somewhat normal.
I have a bad feeling about r0ach. Would like to hear from him again, but I'm afraid we never will. |
|
|
|
As we can see, the wall of bitcoin wanting to be converted to USD is ever growing and further proving that no new ATH can come. Soon the wall of sell orders will wash over and through the "wall" of buy orders. It is mathematically certain that we will see $10k again this year. I know nobody really doubts this.
10k is quite a gentle, conservative estimate. Staying in 5 digits territory for the whole of 2020 is unlikely. Math and science, math and science. |
|
|
|
Imho
Final 56-57ish short dump before April pump month continues
57-59 tree shake, wondering if we will wake up with 61+  crossing fingers I'm with El duderino on this. I'd even push my max shake estimate down to ~55k: that was the level of semi-hard support during the last pushes down... until it wasn't, and she fell in the low 50s. I doubt the low 50s are doable today, even with max bear effort, but this is a specially long "weekend"! Fiat movements are seriously impaired, so they might try some extra fuckery late on Sunday too. Let them have their fun, we're ready to fill our hodler bags right? This is not math and science. This is SOMA!! |
|
|
|
|
Not here. It has been frowned upon since the #nohomo revolution.
|
|
|
|
|
Just add #nohomo and you're good.
|
|
|
|
|
Dude inspired me a pre-Easter haiku!
Doom and blight is all
she's going down to zero
Proudhon and Gandalf.
#haiku
|
|
|
|
Fuck. We poor again.
It's going to zero.
Proudhon says so, cause of math and science... ...and don't forget, there's Gandalf too! |
|
|
|
She seems reluctant to go down seriously. Come on, make a move! My body is ready for both up and down. Up and down. Up. And. Down. Ohhh yeah baby. Up and down... ahhh...  |
|
|
|
Thank you. That concludes it. Vapourminer shows us what happens to catz who don't know enuff math & science. Dont be that cat. When we finally break through, watch out. If you are buying 600mm worth OTC what's 1% to keep the price "oracle" in line?
Indeed. I've been trying to remind people about this for years but there are still some who act as if online exchange prices are strictly the result of supply and demand with "whales" being equal participants. Where do people think the "bear whales" keep coming up with the coins to crash (correct) the price down periodically? Not at online exchanges. Says the uber-fox. +1 WOsMerits |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
