I see that many of you actually liked the concept of 20 % method wherein you allot 20% of your earnings to be saved as emergency fund.
So I was thinking, if that 20% allotted will be invested in a time deposit kind of account, will it still be possible to earn as much or invest it in cryptocurrency? Or maybe just let the money sleep until such time you will need it?
What will be a wise kove to do with the noney you have saved up?
In my opinion, Emergency Funds do not have to be deposited in a time deposit account. A time deposit account has a special time before you can withdraw it and you never know when you need it. It is also unwise to invest an emergency fund because you are doing away with the primary purpose of the savings. You should keep it in the bank for emergency needs. Time deposit accounts don't prevent you from withdrawing you funds, they just penalize you for doing so early by forfeiting the interest you would have earned over a certain period of time. If you have a 24 month CD and withdraw early, the penalty may be 6 months interest. Because a CD likely offers high interest rates than a normal savings account, you're probably better off with the time deposit account even if you withdraw early because you're likely to make more interest in 18 months of a CD than 24 months of a savings account. And the likelihood of having to withdraw early is probably low, so there's far more upside than downside to choosing a time deposit account. |
|
|
|
Perhaps the news of the hacking of the exchange, played a role in the fall of bitcoin on June 11. Perhaps just speculators specifically omit the price of bitcoin. But it seems to me that the price will now play its potential, without a doubt bitcoin will grow in price, and in a place with it Ethereum. And in General all altcoins, always reach for bitcoin.
Hard to argue it would have helped, but more likely the market as a whole is losing interest on a wide scale which is why the price has been steadily falling for 6 months now. There was no way to make money anymore when the price reached $19,000 because the price was unsustainable and the risk-to-reward prospect of buying Bitcoin at $19,000 was too high. It would have had to continue exponentially growing and nothing can sustain that. Once the pool of buyers dried up, the only people buying on the way down are suckers who think it's bound to rebound at every new price drop. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. |
|
|
|
Three basic features of money:
Value scale: the price of bitcoin fluctuates greatly and is not appropriate
Payment: too few businesses accept bitcoin
Store value means: the broad masses do not have enough recognition
Therefore, at this stage, bitcoin is not suitable for use as money.
Recognition is not what store of value means. It has to do with stability of price and being able to have the confidence that it will be the same or very roughly the same years from now as it was when you bought it. Without the stable store of value, it's useless as a currency because it allows for no economic confidence in savings and no ability to plan long term because you don't know what the value of your wealth is going to be. Constantly appreciating value is as much of an economic problem as a constantly depreciating value because it discourages economic activity (spending) which results in lower overall economic activity and a poorer overall economy. |
|
|
|
This will benefit us, i think. Price manipulation is evident in the price of bitcoin. If whales sell their coins (which owns a huge part of the total bitcoin population), then certainly it will impact the price of bitcoin. If the US government will find out about price manipulation, i just hope it will stop. So that bitcoin will not stop from growing.
Just because a whale sells a large amount of bitcoins and the market price is materially impacted doesn't mean that there is manipulation at play. Price is a function of both supply and demand, and when a large amount of coins are listed for sale, it increases the amount of supply and decreases the amount of demand as those orders are filled. This naturally moves the price down as you would expect and there's nothing manipulative about it. The type of manipulation being discussed and investigated is that in which large traders engage some artifice like spoofing to trick the market into thinking something is happening when it is not, such as pretending to list a large amount of bitcoins for sale in order to make supply look larger than it is but removing the order before any sales take place, thereby affecting the price without actually selling anything. These types of orders are fraudulent under the securities laws, and this is what the government is looking into with crypto now. |
|
|
|
I am kinda worried about one factor - rate of Bitcoin adoption. It seems like adoption slowed down significantly during last year, and sometimes even reverted (Steam is no longer accepting BTC)
Metcalfe's law states that the value of a network increases as the number of users on said network increases. So the number of users we have, affect directly the price BTC
Adoption is somewhat stagnant - no major company is talking about accepting bitcoin as a payment method - because they know that people are not willing to spend their coins anyway.
I am worried that "hodling' mentality of Bitcoin users, in the end, will be a very big problem and the reason for low BTC adoption.
If you're a long term holder or have a high cost basis, you should be worried about this. What's more worrying still is that the "users" that spiked the price last year were nothing more than speculators looking to get rich. Compared to the number of people buying bitcoin, the number of people actually using it is only a small fraction of that. Metcalfe's Law contemplates value related to legitimate utility, which speculators don't play much of a role in, if any. The spike we saw in 2017 was not sustainable and not legitimate use of the bitcoin as a currency or medium of exchange, which is where any value under Metcalfe's Law would come into play. And you can see presently why you want actual use over speculative use, because actual use represents more permanent value creation and speculative use represents unreliable and unpredictable value creation. The price crash we've been experiencing for 6 months is attributable to the loss of speculators from the market. Without that buying demand, price cannot be sustained. |
|
|
|
I think the wisest tthing to do with your savings is to invest them in order not to lose them due to inflation. And I think the best investement is cryptocurrency speciallt bitcoin because it is relatively stable and it is going up.
I'd put a lot more weight into the first part of your sentiment than the second. Investment does help temper the effects of loss of value due to inflation, but not without taking on more risk than inflation alone offers. However, cryptocurrency in general and Bitcoin specifically are very risky investments, and on top of that, have been pretty poor for a lot of people, especially recently. Bitcoin is not going up, in fact it's been consistently falling for 6 months now, which is eons in the Bitcoin age. The only thing more staggering than the length of time it has been falling is the magnitude it has fallen, losing about 65% of its value since December. Those are staggering losses if you were unfortunate enough to buy at or near the all time high in December 2017. |
|
|
|
|
People aren't buying Bitcoin, at least compared to the amount of people selling. The people who are buying are the deluded fools who think it should be worth more and are buying more bitcoin as sellers leave the market. This is a longer term trend that has been consistent since reaching the insane price of $19,000 last December. Now we're below $7,000 and showing no signs of stopping. That's because new people aren't coming in to prop up the price. The only people buying now are those who already own it and are sitting on losses and buying to lower their cost basis under the delusion that because it reached $19,000 once, it has to again. People keep talking about Bitcoin going to the moon without realizing it already reached the moon and is now on it's way back to Earth.
|
|
|
|
There are some limitation which stop bitcoins from being used as a currency. For instance, the transactions are not instant and it is a big limitation in my opinion.
I don't deny that there are some limitations that bitcoin is facing at the moment but from my point of view, I don't suppose that transactions speed is one of them. Maybe it's not that immediate but it's still faster and easier to make transaction with bitcoin than the traditional ways. I think that what prevents bitcoin from being entirely a currency is that many countries are still having misleading thoughts about bitcoin and some even ban it. I hope that one day the governments would change their minds and bitcoin would eventually become an international currency. The main thing preventing Bitcoin from being a currency is that nobody wants it to be a currency. All the people buying it are doing so in hopes of it making them rich, not maintaining a stable value which is the most important element a currency needs to possess to have any utility at all. People can't transact in Bitcoin easily without taking on a lot of risk of the value of the instrument rapidly depreciating. If you're a business, your profit margin can be entirely eaten away by the wild price swings, which would make it impossible to continue operating your business. Bitcoin is a very poor option as far as currencies go for this reason. |
|
|
|
Establishment commentators tend to blame every financial crisis on the "bad luck" of a whole host of factors coming together to create a "perfect storm." What they "forget" is that the incentives of the modern system always drive the elites themselves to destabilize their own system. Not sometimes. Not most of the time. Always.
They will say that the 2007-8 crisis was a combination of the US banking deregulation of the 90s, the US political agenda of moving poor people into home ownership, the poor financial oversight by the George W. Bush administration, the 'global savings glut,' the existence of a shadow banking system in the US, the loose monetary policy in the aftermath of the dot com bust, etc. etc. All true. What they forget to mention is that, if it were not these factors, there would be others (stock buybacks anyone?) If it hadn't happened in 2007-8, it would have been later.
Only looking at the top of the world system, ie Britain in the 19th century and the US later, we can see that:
- There was a financial crisis in Britain roughly every 10 years from 1810 to the 1860s.
- The British Empire bought itself a couple decades by making gold the only money, and not silver. (Thereby making itself rich at the expense of silver countries -- not unlike what the US might be doing with crypto-currencies today.) But in 1890 a financial crisis in London made it necessary for the Bank of England to be bailed out by gold from other central banks, the first time in history.
- Soon after world-leader status was moved to the US, in 1929-31, the Great Depression started with a series of financial crises.
- Though the bloodshed of World War II bought a few decades of stability under the US, it was forced to renounce its promise to allow foreign governments to redeem every $35 for an ounce of gold, in 1971.
- The 1970s global crisis of confidence in the dollar forced the US to pay 20% interest on 30-year Treasuries by about 1980.
- The US stock market crashed in 2000. By 2002, the NASDAQ had lost 78% of its value at the peak.
- The entire world system teetered on the brink of collapse in 2008.
Remember that, we're only talking about the top of the world system, which is the most stable, by design. (Paper pound sterling in the 19th century and dollars in the 20th were the world's top reserve currencies of their day. Every effort is made to make other countries fail first -- e.g. the emerging markets crisis of today helps protect the value of US money and debt.) Further down the ladder, there were many more crises, plus conflicts and wars.
So the long view reveals the truth. And the truth is that you can't escape the perverse incentives that make individual members of the elites want to profit or prop up the system today by storing up even more trouble for future elites. These incentives come directly from the system's core nature of theft and deception.
If we listen to mainstream economists, the reason for recurring crises is that, for some reason, people just want to keep losing money. They keep chasing risky assets whose high values have nothing to do with being propped up by state-bank-elites. Right.
This system also punishes prudent people who put the most trust in its promises and its official narratives. But we have a long-term defense: buy gold, silver, and Bitcoin!
It seems a far more likely explanation is that people expect value to be able to hold perfectly forever and it doesn't. Money is a representation of the goods/services created and people take excess value and "save" it. The problem is that you cannot effectively save value because value erodes over time as a natural consequence of consumption and age. If you grow a bushel of apples and sell it for $50, and spend $40 and save $10 for the future, you're counting on $10 of value to be there in the future. The problem is that all the product that created that value is gone within a couple months at most. The apples are either consumed or spoiled. Now there's $10 of excess value in the world that has no corresponding real world equivalent. The loss of fiat value over time is a natural consequence of the fact that value cannot be stored indefinitely in this universe. You see this same type of loss of value when debt is created and counted as both an asset in the future and consumed in the present. If you borrow money to start a business and your business is profitable, the value you created in the business is used to pay back the loan and the lender is richer and the economy is richer for having created new value. If the debtor defaults, the "value" of the future asset disappears for the lender and money disappears from the system as a logical consequence of the failure. In this same way, financial crises are like pressure valves that zap value out of existence when the amount of expected value gets grossly out of line with the amount of consumable value in the present. You cannot store more value than what can be consumed immediately in the present. It's a physical impossibility. Gold doesn't solve this and Bitcoin doesn't solve this. All they do is behave slightly differently because there's a mass consensus that they should, which is nothing more than a shared delusion. But as both gold and the dollar are nothing more than a confidence game, it works. |
|
|
|
Some major events as seen by China. More.... It turns out that there is also “advertising” for gold and silver in China, too. The big difference here is that it is China's government which is advertising the “opportunities” in gold and silver and it is urging the Chinese people to buy gold and silver. An article from mining web-site, Mineweb quotes a program which appears on China's largest (state-owned) television company, promoting bullion-buying in general, but stressing that silver is currently the best value for investors (no surprise to regular readers): https://seekingalpha.com/articleChinese government told/encourages its citizens to buy gold and silver in 2012. Dude, you cited an article that was published 9 years ago. Could you find a more outdated and irrelevant article to base a post on? Since this article was published so long ago, we have a decent amount of hindsight with which to judge the ideas presented in it. Like this: Whether the official urging by the Chinese government for its citizens to buy precious metals is merely prudent, “fatherly” advise to its citizens, or part of a somewhat more sinister campaign the result will be the same: soaring precious metals prices indefinitely into the future.
Let's check in on this little gem. Price of gold end of 2009: $1,087.50 Current price of gold 2018: $1,300.00 Return: 19.54%S&P 500 end of 2009: $1,123.58 S&P 500 currently: $2,778.53 Return: 147.29%Result: FAILURE.Gold has been a horrible investment since that article was published. Less than 20% return over 9 years is garbage, you probably could have gotten that buying treasury bills. |
|
|
|
Blockchain was imagined as an approach to guarantee the dependability of the digital currency Bitcoin. It is a genuinely basic idea, an advanced record that record all exchanges that happen inside its framework, much like any firm or individual monitors their funds. The distinction is that the record is freely accessible to all individuals in the framework, making it difficult to adjust records without being recognized. This implies individuals can assume that money related records are totally exact without relying on a reliable outsider like a bank, a legislature or an application to affirm it.
This has expansive ramifications crosswise over numerous businesses. Not exclusively will it cut expenses and enhance proficiency by evacuating outsiders, it additionally considers far more noteworthy adaptability by giving exchanges which are an unchangeable reality, which can encourage the sharing of accounts. For instance, blockchain can enable companions to share protection, or neighbors to have a similar vitality contract and guarantee that everybody pays for precisely what they utilize.
These "benefits" are marginal at best over the current system and far overshadowed by the fact that Bitcoin is an unreliable store of value, and represents no safety for long term value storage. Nobody is going to use a system that cannot reliably store value because it has low to no utility. The "benefits" you describe disappear entirely in a system that offers no ability to store value. As a currency, Bitcoin has extremely limited utility centered around niche applications that may be time sensitive and little else. If you transact any significant amount in Bitcoin, you need to convert to a stable currency like the USD immediately to prevent undue risk of value loss from holding a volatile currency like BTC. |
|
|
|
Will bitcoin prices rise beyond 20k in the future, and whether bitcoin will only stabilize at a price of 8k - 10k and it will be difficult to exceed that price.
I think expected bitcoins price would be $20k before this year ends.Last year we experienced the hype of its investors where bitcoin really had skyrocketed and i think it would happen again in the next bull run. The difference between this year and last year is now we've already had a giant bubble and people have learned that those extremes are not sustainable. The only way to get to that price again is to have a large wave of new people coming into Bitcoin and buying into the mania and the lambo dreams and bidding the price up to insane levels. I don't expect that to happen again, people are learning the easy money is gone and there are already far too many bag holders who came in at high prices last year and sitting on losses or sold out to losses. They are less likely to jump on that bandwagon again after already being burned once. The bubble last year is less likely to repeat as time passes. |
|
|
|
A bubble cannot survive for this long. Bubble is based on no real value but blockchain and crypto solve real problems as they are being used as a payment medium.
The number of people using it as a payment medium is a very small subset of people who own Bitcoin, which is a very small percentage of the overall population. This is commonly overstated. Bitcoin in reality isn't solving any real world problems right now. It's a niche product for a niche market. Also, bubbles do last this long. The real estate bubble inflated for more than a decade before popping. The duration of a bubble doesn't disprove it's a bubble. The determining factor is if people suddenly decide (realize) that the underlying asset is overvalued and stop buying it at those prices. That's what happened to Bitcoin which is why it fell from $19,000 to under $8,000. That was a mini bubble pop. There's no reason the rest of it can't pop. |
|
|
|
Usually they recommend you to diversify your investment, so you avoid losses.
But as a real approach, having $1.5k, would you invest in how many cryptocurrencies ?
What if I invest little by little, only in Bitcoin, would that work as well ?
With so little money being invested in crypto, there's no point in diversifying. Everything more or less trades in sync with Bitcoin, but alts have additional risk that it's a bad coin or otherwise going to fail. There's less risk of Bitcoin doing that, so by diversifying away from Bitcoin and into other alts, you're taking on more risk than if you just held it all in Bitcoin. The alts are going to mostly trade the same way Bitcoin does, so if it's all in Bitcoin you're going to mostly see the same upside as if you tried to diversify. But you're not getting the downside of the risk of an alt failing or being abandoned by the market. |
|
|
|
Why is the world economy is sliding down, a bit reminder to 2008 when the world economy is in freefall, The shock waves from the collapse of Lehman Brothers maybe on of the main factors.. The economic indicators - trade, industrial production, unemployment - are comparable to the early stages of the Great Depression in the early 1930s.
My point is, how bitcoin could take place to helps the Economics rise again or it would be an additional threat to economy stabilty ??
The world economy is decent right now outside of economies that cause their own problems. For example, the US economy is humming with low unemployment, strong job growth and a robust stock market. Venezuela is in tatters because of their authoritarian government and failing socialist policies. These mistakes are avoidable and the damage is entirely self-inflicted. European countries that have responsible governments (France, Germany, Britain) are mostly in good shape. Countries with fiscally irresponsible governments (Spain, Italy, Greece) are doing poorly. Bitcoin doesn't help in any way, it's entirely dependent on the economic policies implemented by the governments. |
|
|
|
Trader/analyst Gregory Mannarino predicts, “We are going to face a moment when bonds are going to sell off rapidly, and no action by world central banks is going to be able to stop the bleeding. That means yields will spike very, very rapidly.
You get a sell-off in the bond market. You get a sell-off in the stock market, and as you know, money will not go to money heaven. It will go somewhere, and it will go into suppressed assets, things they have been rigging now for a decade.
How can world debt explode the way it is doing and certain assets, and I am referring to gold and silver here, not also be exploding to the upside? This is all being done to prop up the markets, and there is going to be an awful price to pay for this.”Click here to watch this video and to read more:
https://goldsilverliberty.blogspot.com/2018/06/gregory-mannarino-going-to-be-awful.html People like this guy have been saying this since the beginning of the last global recession. I guess eventually he'll be right; not because he's insightful but because a broken clock is eventually and momentarily right too. The economy is cyclical. It expands and contracts, but mostly it expands over the long term. If you're betting against that by buying defensive assets like gold and silver, you're on the wrong side of history. Gold and silver are historically decent hedges against inflation, but they generally don't make excellent investments over the long term compared to stocks. That's because stocks represent wealth creation in an expanding economy but gold and silver represent wealth maintenance with little growth because they're not productive assets. Wealth comes from production. Gold and silver produce nothing, they only represent the value of what was previously produced. |
|
|
|
In the beginning, BTC could be used to exchange of low value of virtual items, such as buying web sites or game points, virtual items, etc., afterwards, some people in order to get these virtual items, items may be in online auction own reality for BTC, others want to buy the real goods, but no BTC at hand, and then use real money to exchange BTC, as a result, BTC begin to flow, and have a "value".
In other words, bitcoin is inherently valuable as a means of payment; If it loses its function as a means of payment, it becomes worthless.
The value of money: it exists because of payment.
Bitcoin becomes a currency when people treat it like a currency. People treat it like a currency when it loses the volatility and maintains a stable value. The problem is nobody wants it to be a currency. They want it to be a speculative vehicle that could make them rich. That's not what a currency does. A currency has a stable value and functions as an exchange of value, it doesn't itself create value. But everyone chasing lambo dreams are expecting it to create value. That's why it will never be anything more than a speculative tool until people change their expectations of what Bitcoin is for. At this point, I have my doubts it's even possible. People don't want stability. They want it to make them rich. |
|
|
|
File this one under collateral damage. Just another data point supporting the notion that tariffs don't happen in a vacuum. There are negative consequences for other sectors of the economy for trying to enforce protectionist policies. In this case, US companies are shelving expansion plans and new solar projects that would have created US jobs because of the import tariffs being slapped on foreign panel manufacturers. Target foreign firms and you shoot yourself in the foot anyway. https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/billions-in-solar-projects-shelved-after-trump-panel-tariff/ar-AAyl35hPresident Donald Trump’s tariff on imported solar panels has led U.S. renewable energy companies to cancel or freeze investments of more than $2.5 billion in large installation projects, along with thousands of jobs, the developers told Reuters.
...
The tariff’s bifurcated impact on the solar industry underscores how protectionist trade measures almost invariably hurt one or more domestic industries for every one they shield from foreign competition. Trump’s steel and aluminum tariffs, for instance, have hurt manufacturers of U.S. farm equipment made with steel, such as tractors and grain bins, along with the farmers buying them at higher prices.
White House officials did not respond to a request for comment.
You know why they don't comment on these issues? Because they're only concerned with looking like they're winning. They have no idea how to actually win. Distorting the market and causing US job losses? Not winning. The rest of the article details thousands of job losses related to the shelving of these projects. |
|
|
|
But the US govt can't control every exchange, especially the ones out of The US which have nothing to do with the SEC or CFTC
I think they are just wasting their time trying to control every exchange. Instead of probing into the so-called "illicit tactics" of crypto traders, why not they track down "scam ICO's" first? Why focus on "ilicit tactics" when they can easily formulate a more strict regulation or implement regulations on crypto to fiat transactions that will help them limit the capabilities of what they refer to as "Illicit traders"? Because it's a waste of time. Everyone can buy a domain, hosting anonymously, set up a website and create his own ICO. Even if they try to fight the ICOs market they can do it only in The US. If I am a European citizen why shall I follow an American law? On the top of that ICO is also the new way to raise funds for startups The point is if there's laws against it, you won't be setting up the domain from the United States or taking American investors. If you do either, you're bound by the American laws surrounding such activity. If not, you're right that you probably wouldn't care about the American laws since no part of your operation touches America so there is no jurisdiction. However, Kim "Dotcom" tried to hide overseas while he ripped off the intellectual property of thousands of American companies, and look how well that turned out for him. Being an EU citizen won't protect you from violating American laws, especially considering so many EU countries have extradition treaties with the US. You think you're anonymous and untouchable? So did Ross Ulbricht. |
|
|
|
Of a truth as a trader i have never think of bitcoin fall to this value we are now as at November and December 2017 but bitcoin is currently below $8,000. I foreseeing that what has been started is truth and in reality bitcoin should not be expected to be below $10,000 by next year and above. I expect bitcoin should be above $50,000 by 2019 and this year 2018 it should be above $20,000 before December.
You're just pulling numbers out of thin air. There's no reason to have these expectations, and having them are the reason Bitcoin will never be anything more than a speculative tool that people gamble with and not anything of any real value utility-wise. What Satoshi probably never contemplated was the possibility of Bitcoin achieving some level of renown but only as a gambling tool and not as a currency that changes the world for the better. The more attention Bitcoin has gotten, the more people have flocked to it not to abandon a bad and manipulative banking system (like Satoshi envisioned) but just to recklessly speculate on a vehicle they have no real interest in other than trying to get lambo-rich from it. Bitcoin is the antithesis of what Satoshi envisioned, and in that I suppose there's a rich irony in Bitcoin becoming a tool of the same type of recklessness he hoped to solve. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
