people wouldn't stop trading. they would just hedge using regular fiat on exchanges instead. that's what everyone did before. they just used exchanges like mt gox, bitstamp, and btc-e instead of all the tether-backed exchanges (like binance) that exploded in popularity years later.

the genie is out of the bottle. if tether goes down, stablecoins aren't going away.

looks like we're probably headed to $6k (at least) first......


the market doesn't believe that at all. look at the stock markets---they keep making new highs. the SPX and NASDAQ literally both just made a new ATH today. the market is exuberant, which is a very different context than when bear stearns was acquired. at that time, the market had already topped, made a lower high, and sold off.

everybody is chomping at the bit trying to predict the next recession and financial crisis. too soon IMO.

i assume they are addressing income tax fraud in other ways. if they improved income tax reporting and deterred cash payments of wages, then mandatory electronic payments would address VAT/sales tax fraud on the consumer side. it looks like that's what they are targeting with this measure. studies estimate that 3.5% of greek GDP is lost to VAT fraud. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_in_Greece#Extent_of_Greek_tax_evasion_and_corruption

apparently cash is still the primary means of payment for greek consumers. part of the reason for that is that wages are still heavily paid in cash. so a 30% requirement is pretty messed up.

for the last few years, the greek government has been incentivizing electronic payments by offering income tax deductions. those aged 70+ don't need to use electronic payments to get the deduction so presumably there is a similar exemption here.

increasing block size doesn't improve scalability. it just linearly increases transaction throughput while also linearly increasing bandwidth, latency, and storage costs.

like the lightning network, sidechains/drivechains intend to scale the bitcoin network by sending transactions off-chain onto separate protocols which interact with bitcoin.

physical bearer instruments are another possible solution for scalability. "bitcoin sticks" can be passed around like cash, removing the need for on-chain transactions at all.

no, it doesn't really matter. mobile apps and custodial wallets are both high risk. it's always prudent to limit risk exposure either way. tbh i just avoid both. brick-and-mortar spending usually calls for buying gift cards, so i just buy those at home and keep all my private keys offline.

earlier this year, outstanding tethers were only 74% backed by fiat equivalents. that's because bitfinex had a shitload of money seized by law enforcement and tether issued them a loan from customer deposits.

that's what the LEO token sale was all about---making tether solvent again.

USDT fluctuates both above and below $1 for multiple reasons. for example, when there is high demand from chinese traders, it trades at a premium. when there is high supply from tether FUD, it trades at a discount. but since it always returns to $1 we can assume arbitrage is in effect. if no one can get bank wires out of tether like in early 2017, arbitrage is impossible. during those times, USDT should trade at a significant discount.

there are 790 seats in the indian parliament. having one MP on board is great, but let's keep this all in perspective.

it was only a month ago that a draft bill imposing a full crypto ban (with 10 year prison sentences!) was dropped from the legislative session. https://cointelegraph.com/news/indian-parliament-will-not-consider-total-crypto-ban-in-winter-session

lowering the national debt was one of donald trump's campaign promises. politicians....



how would it fix the national debt? the article doesn't really say. the author just hypes up bitcoin's scarcity and suggests the price will rise. are we talking about scrapping the USD for bitcoin? backing the USD with bitcoin? the treasury holding bitcoin reserves as a hedge?

lol, i doubt anyone is interested in speculating on rewards points. i doubt they are even transferable to other people. not to mention that kmart is closing stores left and right, so of all stores, it won't be them.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2019/11/07/kmart-sears-store-closings-96-stores-set-shutter-february-2020/2521653001/

i'll stick to cryptocurrency speculation myself. that's where the biggest returns are.

they didn't get sued by the government. the CFTC launched a probe investigating possible misconduct. they haven't officially done anything (like issuing enforcement actions, etc)

this is what bloomberg said about it:


https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-07-19/u-s-regulator-probing-crypto-exchange-bitmex-over-client-trades

not just bitcoin, but anything outside the formal euro banking system. stablecoins would work too. the key is to use a private/informal system that doesn't entail tax reporting.

i think that's why governments are so up in arms about stablecoins. not only are they an easy way to avoid cash controls, but since they are pegged to cash value, they are the most obvious replacement for cash itself.

the issue isn't savings and loans. it's remittance:

stablecoins are increasingly being used for cross-border remittance and avoidance of capital controls:


using stablecoins to transfer funds across borders means there is no need for bank wires or third party remittance services. it cuts banks out of the process entirely. cash and blockchains; no banks.

in the future, if this stablecoin liquidity continues to grow and grow, they could also experience adoption as a medium of exchange because of their wide acceptance, rather than just a remittance vehicle.

that makes stablecoins doubly a threat for retail banks. visa and mastercard are not the only ones profiting from debit/credit card transactions. every time a consumer swipes their visa card, their bank is charging interchange fees to the merchant. this is extremely lucrative for banks.

if you combined kraken's USD and EUR markets, they would be competitive with coinbase in terms of volume and liquidity. the USD market is pretty thin on its own. bitstamp's fees are the same as coinbase pro so that's out the window, and gemini's liquidity is super thin.

so if you need deeper liquidity but can't reach coinbase pro's higher volume fee tiers, i would use a VPN and trade on bitmex, binance (BTC/USDT), or bitfinex.

the one good thing about AMLD5 and FINCEN's may guidance is they will deter people from using hosted (custodial) wallets. hosted wallets will either shut down (like bottle pay is) or their customer bases will disappear as people realize KYC isn't required for software/hardware wallets.

the bad thing is that mixers are now in the crosshairs of EU and USA regulators.

two birds with one stone.

the ultimate rationale behind a completely digital and cashless system is control. easy surveillance, reining in tax evasion by forcing payments onto the books, preventing capital flight...... it's a dream come true for governments. the fact that cashless payments are so convenient just plays into their hands.


we'll see if it actually works. greeks may just find other ways to dodge their tax burdens. at some point, they'll just start avoiding the euro/banking system entirely if cash restrictions become too harsh.

facebook saw the writing on the wall, that stablecoins have great untapped value for cross-border remittance. they did their research; the demand for libra is there. the explosion in tether usage in hong kong, mainland china, and russia ties into this too.

it seems like this stablecoin demand is forcing the ECB to discuss a "digital euro" system. this could (as lagarde points out) reduce consumer costs, "cut out the middleman", achieve financial inclusivity at low cost, and so on. this would in turn allow a digital euro to compete with private stablecoins in the remittance market---and eventually in all markets, because stablecoins might become common as mediums of exchange.

i wonder how the retail banks feel about all this. they are the middlemen being cut out in this scenario.

there are 2 scenarios.

1. there's regulatory actions, bank account freezes/seizures, insolvency---but tether and bitfinex remain operational and able to meet day-to-day liquidity requirements

2. the FBI and USAO come after tether and bitfinex---domains and servers seized, personnel arrested, banks continuing to work with them become criminal accessories, etc

scenario #1 is what we've already seen for years. it's the classic "tether FUD". people panic buy bitcoin/altcoins to get out of tether, which drives market prices upwards.

we've never seen scenario #2. i reckon if that happened, all USDT markets would quickly fall to $0 and it would have severely negative effects on the entire crypto market. not only would bitfinex and tether customers be crushed, but so would USDT holders at binance, bittrex, poloniex, okex, and other major exchanges, OTC traders......it would be ugly. a lot of capital would go up in smoke. it would be a much bigger, uglier version of the mt gox collapse.

i guess this is what i get for speaking so highly of egifter......

for the first time, they screwed up delivering a gift card tonight. the payment confirmed on the blockchain, the order shows as completed, but the gift card didn't show up in my wallet. let's see how many days it takes them to fix this. this shit always seems to happen to me on friday nights.

come to think of it, bitpay payments have become slightly wonky on egifter lately. it used to be like clockwork---one confirmation and the gift card would appear in my wallet. for the past month or so, there's usually been an unpredictable delay. after block confirmation, sometimes it comes after 1 minute, sometimes after 8 minutes, etc. but it was never much bother before. this is the first time a gift card never showed up at all.

maintaining a physical presence in california seems like such a liability. i just don't understand why bitmex does it. not only are they operating from the USA (re the CFTC, FINCEN, etc) but apparently they are opening themselves up to personal jurisdiction in california state courts.

i still reckon they might fight it on jurisdictional grounds. there may be a distinction between bitmex's "established place of business" and whatever satellite office they have in california.


that's what it is---a fishing expedition. there's no way in hell he's walking away with $300 million, but the bigger the stated damages, the bigger the payout he'll get when the case settles. that's the rationale, anyway.