Because people will prefer to find influencers who share x1000 projects and trading signals than knowledge sharers.
Some people might, but they'll walk away after they get burnt once or twice and realise they are the ones who are being dumped on. Good content creators have a much higher chance of long-term success, if they're consistent in putting in effort and doing proper research before publishing the content. If we ask in this thread, probably not many of us here would actually be subscribed to x1000-pump-type channels. |
|
|
|
It's not uncommon for women to beat men in trading, usually women are more thorough and patient, it's only natural that most companies are dominated by women, another factor that allows women to beat men when trading is that women don't want to lose money while men make quick decisions even though loss.
It kind of is unusual, if we're talking about active trading (or speculation if you will). As men are naturally less emotional and more analytical, they are more driven into active trading. As a result, there are way more men traders than women, and the top of traders (with the best results) would likely be men in a vast majority. But the survey discussed here covers more of a passive traders (so more of a holders than speculators), where patience and a passive approach often turns out to be an advantage. |
|
|
|
I think nothing has damaged the SEC's reputation as badly as this whole crypto-security-or-not situation. Remember that Gensler is just a face for the SEC, but it's not like he's solely responsible for the lack of clear policies. There's something deeper going on there for sure. I think they're just trying to assess the implications of deciding either way. But I won't be surprised if they throw Gensler under a bus eventually to try to regain credibility. Meanwhile, a Coinbase finally lost their patience and decided to sue SEC in hopes to get the court to force SEC to give Coinbase a clear answer to their petition (after being ignored for months). https://www.cnbc.com/2023/04/24/coinbase-sues-sec-after-months-of-silence-from-federal-regulator.html |
|
|
|
influencers have a motive in every video they make!
they have a goal and that is increased branding on their account!
there are many examples that can be seen where there are many crypto influencers who actually have goals and motives in every video they make, including broadcast time, subscribers and referral links. they are no longer honest with it and everyone who listens should be more critical and careful in believing every sentence they issue.
"Influencer" is a broad term and I wouldn't put all crypto-related content creators with high number of subscribers/followers into one bag. I'm not going to advertise any channel but there are a few out there that are pretty decent in terms of creating good-value content. Those who exist only to squeeze out the maximum profit out of their followers, usually have short-life as people tend to turn away from them. |
|
|
|
What do you think about Doge's case? It has existed from 2013 to the present, even earlier than ETH, and it is still at the top of CMC. Potential altcoins are said to have new technology and have use cases like LISK, EOS, and SOL... where are they? Did you see them? Investment is that we care about profit, if technology does not bring profit. Do you invest?
Fair point. If the biggest selling point of a coin is "new technology" that's always a risky investment, because there will always be some new coins with even better technology etc. That's why I'm fairly calm about the future of Bitcoin. Through the first-mover advantage, it established itself as the No.1 crypto, with the highest recognition and (probably) the largest number of users. So it doesn't have to be the best, it just has to be good enough. Meanwhile, coins like ETH have to compete with their utility/functionality, so if any new project emerges that is faster and cheaper, then there's no real reason to use ETH anymore. As for DOGE - that's an outlier. It wasn't doing that great until it got propped up by Elon Musk. Where is that BCI10 Index based? I can't find it on TradingView and would be interesting to look at. I can only find a "Crypto 100 Index", that I assume is the Top 100.
It's offered by Bitpanda (Austrian crypto exchange) and only available to purchase there, it's not like ETF or anything. More details: https://www.bitpanda.com/en/bci-bitpanda-crypto-indexProspectus: https://cdn.bitpanda.com/media/bci/Prospectus_Index_English.pdf |
|
|
|
Many people say and hope they will buy a large amount of bitcoin if the price they say is reached, for example when the price is $ 25k we hear that many people will buy 10 btc when the price is below $ 20k, but when the price is $ 20k they are afraid because the price will continue to fall so they delay again, this type of investor will never invest in bitcoin and only make price predictions.
That's so true. The psychology of an average armchair investor is full of flaws. We like to think of ourselves that are actions are logic-based but the reality is we're primarily driven by basic emotional instincts like fear or greed. I'd add to that that people are often just too afraid to pull a trigger and take actions and will search for excuse (i.e. waiting for the "right" price) to delay making a decision and executing it. |
|
|
|
Usually the best idea is to first check their KYC Terms of Service before even depositing that least amount a user should deposit in that site because whenever amount is being credit to the casino their story's changes, and even if you try submitting kyc they have no option to be toiling with your details rejecting it and giving you more excuse in the of trying to pass kyc.
So my advise and take on this matter is not to involved any funds first rather passing their kyc's before making deposit.
Terms of Service mean nothing. They're always written in a way that benefits the business rather then its customers and almost always you'll see a clause that those terms can be changed. In terms of KYC - terms of service would usually have some vague disclosure saying that KYC checks are or may be required but without stating any specific details. So you want get much from reading those. And that's not to mention that a lot of casinos are either unregulated or operate in exotic jurisdictions so you won't have any option to sue them even if they break their own terms. |
|
|
|
This "attack" on Bitcoin will never stop, because it does not suit the agenda of the people that are behind the "FUD" and misinformation. They can be faced with the facts, like you posted here and they will simply ignore it, because they will cherry pick the data that will further their agenda.
Nah. It will stop immediately if only there's one or more company from the crypto-industry that would pay the Guardian for advertising. FUD would stop immediately, and if the money is right, they'd change the tone 180 degrees on a whim. The only problem is that Bitcoin doesn't have a strong lobby. |
|
|
|
It's something that we really expect to some gamblers, most of the time those experienced gamblers have this mentality, they are more focus on how they can execute patterns and strategy that gives them a small edge to win against the house, most of those gamblers understand the value of self-control.
Allowing yourself to engage with the game, you think you understand well and play with a focus that you may execute your form strategy with the goal of winning.
A good catch with those experienced gamblers is that they have a good practice to accept defeats, and they understand that there's nothing they can do if luck is not around to back them up.
I don't think you have to be "experienced" to be profit-oriented. There's no reason you can't start your gambling experience with the right attitude, and only go for it if you see a chance of making a profit and not bother to gamble at all when you know the odds/edge is not in your favour. On the flip-side, we have tons of "experienced gamblers who keep losing money for years or decades without learning a lesson. mindset > experience |
|
|
|
Out of list, only one of these - Litecoin - remains in the Top 500 (#12), all the rest went to shit. Two don't seem to exist anymore, the rest are down over a 10 year period apart from Namecoin and Peercoin. The best performer here aside from Litecoin that is up substantially (but not as much as Bitcoin notably) was Namecoin, that 10 years ago was worth around $1 and this year has managed to get to around $1.50 lol.
So If you had invested say 10% in each of the Top 10 a decade ago, you'd only be up because of Bitcoin. Whereas simply buying BTC at the highs at around $100 you'd be up over 28,000% today. It really is a no brainer. Of course you could argue that the Top 10 generally stay in the Top 10 for longer than they used to, sure, but so far analysing a decade-long strategy of investing in the Top 10, it's a terrible idea.
Wow, that's pretty crazy and puts things into perspective. I knew that the top 10 (excl. BTC) from decade ago was not doing well, but didn't realise it was that bad. In terms of the BCI 10 index I was referring to - it mitigates such risk by rebalancing. But that has its own risks of selling low and buying high. So all the historical evidence shows the best bet is just to hold BTC, unless you believe the past patterns are not a good indication and expect things to change (e.g. flippening etc). [edited out]
You'd probably be better off creating a bunch of worthless meme coins and trying to hype them up to see if any of them catches on. This way you won't be risking anything other than your time. I have quite a bit of reluctancy towards encouraging forum members to start their own ponzi scheme or scam as a mechanism to "make money" (even though they might decide to engage in such conduct on their own initiative) - even though that suggestion does highlight the actual on the ground's fact that the ones who likely are making the most out of the various shitcoins out there are the ones who are creating and pumping the coin (and attempting to dump before anyone figures out that they are dumping on the ones who they had earlier evangelized to buy their crap). I'm far from encouraging that, just pointed out that that's probably more profitable and less risky. But at the same time, I wouldn't class all such "projects" as scams or ponzi. Although that's not a way of earning money that one should be proud of, I don't necessarily see anything morally wrong in creating and trying to sell a coin as long as you're not being deceitful and not making false promises/declarations. I've seen a few that were pretty honest that all they had to offer was a name, a logo and funny memes, I found them quite entertaining (e.g. "HarryPotterObamaSonic10Inu" token, RIP). |
|
|
|
I made a post about crypto influencers not that long ago talking about how people still trust them despite all the cringe and stupid stuff they post.
In the the last post, after reading your comments, I came to conclusion that most of the people who follow crypto influencers are:
1) Normies (or lazy people who don't want to do research and want to follow trend)
2) Bots
3) Bitcoin uneducated people
There's also a group of pragmatic traders who follow them i.e. to get early info on what shitcoin can pump soon, or to get a gist of what's the currently dominating mood, You might not like them, but if they have millions of views (probably not anymore though) then they do have an influence on the market and on shaping public's opinion. ps I love the paradox of the vast majority of people not considering themselves to be "normies". |
|
|
|
there is no good time to buy
Of course there is. The problem is, we don't know for sure whether the present time is a good time to buy, we can only judge that in retrospect, when it's in the past. But that doesn't mean that good time does not exist. but if we buy immediately then this gives us the opportunity to get profit.
And if we don't buy immediately, there won't be opportunities for profit? DCA has proven to be a good tactic and it doesn't require buying in immediately. |
|
|
|
Yes, I agree with what you say, but you have to find a way to play more calmly without fear and that the emotions are different, that the feeling of being ousted or bankrupt is not in the emotion, because here it is that shows many players that they can lose what they have, they have no savings and money that can be used for their benefit and that cannot be lost,when a player has money willing to lose, he plays calmly without worry and that is where the enjoyment is the maximum, if you lose you don't worry, but if you win I think the emotion is much greater.
For some reason you reminded me of this clip: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/UXpgA7XG7xcI don't have much sympathy for that guy and I can't see how can playing blackjack be profitable in the long-run, but I like his approach here. Screw emotions and fun, have a clear goal, plan to achieve it, and aim to execute it. Looking for fun in a casino is just sad. There are plenty of wholesome ways to have fun without losing your hard-earned money to people who woo you with drinks and flashy lights. |
|
|
|
The problem now will be to convince people that Bitcoin is a safe haven, because the volatility in the Bitcoin price.. has been one of the factors that kept institutional investors away from Bitcoin. It has only been a few years ago, when the Bitcoin price was $60 000+ .... now it is floating around $30 000.  Sure, but on the flip side, high volatility is something that attracts a lot of investors and most of all - traders. The greater the price swings - the greater the earning potential for those who can correctly identify trends. I don't think anything as young as Bitcoin can become a reliable store of value. It takes time. And if Bitcoin is to survive it will probably slowly evolve from a highly speculative asset into something closer to gold. It's worth noting that recently Bitcoin broke the correlation with stock markets, and if that's not just temporary, it could be a sign of changes in investors' perception. |
|
|
|
Going after with meme tokens have a very uncertain future, hence, most are just investing on this at a short-time basis.
But if in case you will invest and haven't gotten out early, you may possibly suffer losses because most new meme alts have a pump and dump scenario.
They may enter in the top 10 at some point, but I think it is not good basis to consider them in your portfolio.
If you are looking for the longevity of the project, better check what's their use case in the market. Can it sustain its presence in the market?
That's why I wouldn't call that investing. If you know that those meme coins have no future and that you'll need to pull out before the hype dies out - that's much closer to gambling than investing. Similarly to knowingly putting money into Ponzi scheme, if you time it right, you could make a decent profit, but let's not call that investing. You'd probably be better off creating a bunch of worthless meme coins and trying to hype them up to see if any of them catches on. This way you won't be risking anything other than your time. |
|
|
|
Dziś mamy ciekawy przykład dekorelacji i uwaga wspólny kierunek dla złota i bitcoina.
[...]
Powodem rosnące napięcia i ryzyko rozlania się kryzysu bankowego na więcej banków. Bitcoin cyfrowym złotem!
Nom, robi się ciekawie. Choć to może być krótkotrwałe, i jeżeli sytuacja z bankami się uspokoi, to BTC może wrócić na stare tory. |
|
|
|
Fresh off the press, a positive hit from Bloomberg on the recent Bitcoin price action. Note - to view the full article you might need to register your email, but you can use any temp email service if you don't want to share your primary one. Bitcoin Climbs as US Bank Failure Bolsters Crypto Narrativehttps://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-05-02/bitcoin-climbs-as-us-bank-failure-bolsters-crypto-narrative?leadSource=uverify%20wallBitcoin climbed Tuesday as renewed fears of stability in the US financial system bolstered the price of cryptocurrencies.
The largest digital asset by market value rose as much as 4.4% to $28,892 in New York trading hours, with Ether, the second largest token, also up 3.7%.
The gains come as US regional banks led a selloff in American equities following the collapse and sale of First Republic Bank, which has prompted calls on the Federal Reserve to pause further interest-rate hikes to shield the economy from lagging impacts.
... |
|
|
|
because from my understanding and experience in bitcoin, theirs no time you purchase bitcoin for investment is not best time, except that your motive of investing in bitcoin is for short term,
Really? Was buying at the ath of $68k the "best" time as well? I get it, we are on the Bitcoin forum and (almost) everyone is pro-bitcoin, but let's not get detached from reality. Buying in at something that looks like a potential peak is not a smart move even if you're here for the long run. There's no guarantee that ath will keep getting higher every cycle or that cycles will keep repeating themselves as they did in the past. That's impossible. |
|
|
|
Other coins might stay at the top 10 but they won't be profitable compared to other coins in lower rank, in general the coins in the top 10 changes in every bull market as new project get pumped into the top 10 so why not invest in potential top 10 projects so you make more profits when they get in the top 10.
I think you're confusing investing with gambling. For every newly created "project" that makes it to the top 10 or the top 20, you have dozens, if not hundreds, of projects that fail miserably. Everyone is a master of retrospective trading and can point out a coin that made it and say "you should've invested in it and you could make x1000" etc, but actually predicting that before the pump is a whole different game. Sure, you could play around with a couple of hundred $, but no one sane would put any significant portion of their wealth on Shiba Inu, Niggercoin, or another Doge Bonk. Even if it plays out the way you want, it's almost always a stupid move. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
