It is like the "who is going to get in the water first" and then all of a sudden once one person (or bank in this case) gets in and doesn't get eaten by piranhas, so a few more get in, and then when those couple aren't eaten by alligators, then 100s of people get in.  It is just a matter of time for more entities in more countries to get in.  Particularly if inflation continues like it was announced in the US yesterday.  People will come to the conclusion that they need to protect themselves and their companies and the banks will see that it is a market that is profitable.

What pooya87 said, plus there are technical solutions in the works to improve privacy and tracking, hence limiting the ability of centralized services to track specific inputs and outputs.  It can't come soon enough.

People have been saying that since it was below dollar parity.  What it illustrates is a lack of understanding of the benefits of bitcoin (and some other cryptos). In short, it is JPM's analysts who are too boxed in to realize the full potential, it is more a statement about them than it is about bitcoin or crypto.

Who is to say this is leverage?  Why not consider it is usage or just unlevered demand?  There is plenty of bitcoin that is off the market at anything near the current fiat prices, why not consider that more is being added like that? 😀

Sure, if bitcoin was solely a trading vehicle with unlimited supply, but it isn't.

Correct.  It is just people betting between each other.  A true "physical bitcoin" ETF will be a game changer.  This is just a weak imitation.  I think it is arguable it is better than nothing, but time will tell.

If anyone could reliably, continuously market time they'd be a billionaire.  The reverse is also true, if you picked the lowest price of anything one year and sold the highest the following year, you'd be rich.

The point of the chart seems to be: if you bought (or mined) and held for any reasonable period of time you'd have done well. If you try and trade, all bets are off.

This is a futures ETF, so while it is a positive, it isn't a true ETF holding bitcoin.  Barring something crazy, it should start trading tomorrow, but a futures based ETF is more expensive and less positive than a true one.  This has been going on for 8 years - since 2013 - so it took them long enough to even get to this point.

So much for a free country.  In the US today, it is more regulated and taxed than many authoritarian's wildest dreams.

Yes, it is risky.  You don't own the coins then and are subject to the potential theft of your coins by the person paying the interest, the confiscation of the coins by a government where they are based, or any number of other risks.

I've never heard of the ones you mentioned.  For a few percent, the risk isn't worth it. 

Now if any of them offered an insured product with a policy from a well known insurer (e.g. Lloyd's) then it might change the calculation.

One topic that I always thought was an interesting one was this one:
 I am pretty confident we are the new wealthy elite, gentlemen.   https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=12156.0


I had been reading on here since fall 2010 (had read about bitcoin from the first slashdot post back in July) but didn't register until the following year when I finally had a question.  Anyway I think Astro Hacker's post that Atlas linked to was something a lot of people read and took to heart.  Likewise, the "Vladimir Club" (e.g. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=98239.0 ) encouraged a lot of people to think about what bitcoin could become.  Hopefully these people are still enjoying the ride.


By the way, the original site linked to above for astrohackers post isn't there, but it is here:
https://themonetaryfuture.blogspot.com/2011/06/bitcoin-is-economic-singularity.html

Whatever you do, do not send any money to funds-recovery.com or anyone else.  They are attempting to scam you further.

And Corporate Creations is a legit company so it seems unlikely that they are related to the scammers.

Or let people pay for what they use instead of making other people pay for it at market rates.  Why should person X have to pay for person's Y's usage?

They probably will be very progressive when it comes to crypto - at least "progressive" as it is embodied in the US.  And in the US "progressive" really means "regressive" where they want power and control.  They regress back to the old Democrat position that your life is not your own and that it belongs to someone else, as in the old south, today though the Democrat party is a bit more subtle about it and uses flowery language like "equity" and "fairness" without ever defining those terms.  At root they go back to their old position that they can take what they want by force and you have to claim to like it.  BOHICA.

"Extreme fear"?

I don't know any *investors* who are fearful, let along "extreme fear".  Maybe some short term traders who are leveraged might be, but any investor knows the deal with bitcoin if they have followed it for any length of time:  buy and hold for any reasonable length of time and you will have come out way ahead so far.

If these people really knew anything that involves short term direction, they would be quite well off.  Instead they are hungry for clicks. 

This makes sense if you are parking somewhere that has "free" charging for your vehicle.  You are essentially shifting the cost to someone else, probably the type of people who really think that there is such a thing as a "free" way to charge a vehicle.  Maybe it is "free to you" but someone else is bearing the cost.

You hit the nail on the head. "Protect consumers", "for the children", and "for the common good" (etc) are all phrases that mean politicians want power and the money that comes with it while trying to hide it.

When you hear those, watch your wallet and your liberties.

I saw an article last week talking about how several years ago a lot of the trading in bitcoin occurred during what would be nighttime in the US whereas now a large majority occurs during the day in the US.  To me it shows how the bitcoin economic power is leaving China.

I don't know what anyone would expect though:  authoritarians, statists and totalitarians don't like people to be free to protect themselves from inflation and their governmental power, so the Communist Chinese Party couldn't abide by having bitcoin legal.

Wherever you see governments cracking down on bitcoin, know that liberty is then being curtailed there and prepare accordingly.

One certainly hope we have a merry Christmas! :-)

As the amount of fiat increases that goes into bitcoin, it will help reduce volatility because as the market increases, the amount of bitcoin or fiat that is required to move the market will increase also. 

The SEC always claims to be about protecting investors, but in reality they are more of a CYA entity.  How else could they miss Bernie Madoff for decades?  How else could they miss Stanford Financial?  They talk a good game, but are really more reactive than proactive.  I hope they approve one, but if the last ~8 years is any guide, it will be only when they are dragged kicking and screaming to do it.

Everyone has had a fair chance to get involved.  It has been open from the beginning.

However, instead of blaming someone else, one should take a look at the reasons that "poor nations" are poor.  It is about the choices of (some of) the people. 

When you elect a group that doesn't believe in freedom, the rule of law, stability, or property rights you end up with a country that can't compete.  When you elect a group that believes that envy, division and hate are the means to get and maintain power (e.g. the current administration in Washington DC), you end up driving people to somewhere that believes in equality, liberty, and the rule of law.  In short, what you end with is countries that can't compete (the US eventually if it drives business from it with high corporate taxes) or destroy themselves (Venezuela for example). 

As I said, it is about choices, and the reason there is inequality is because of the choices that have been made and the consequences of those choices.

And it as been said, but bitcoin was never about "reduc[ing] wealth inequalities."  It has been about protecting people from the kind of people - socialists, communists, fascists, authoritarians and totalitarians - who cause wealth inequality and the destruction of people and countries the world over. 

Personal, buying (or mining) bitcoin and holding has been a good strategy as long as you can keep from panicking and your timeframe isn't just a few days or weeks.

If any of the platforms was insured or could be trusted to have full collateral for the assets, that might change the calculations, but for 2% or 4% the risk/reward is not there.

You aren't stretching it too far at all.  This is the issue.  The US government and corporate toadies are already choking off payments to people who they disagree with and I am sure it is going on everywhere and will continue to spread.  Bitcoin as peer to peer helps to get around this.  Governments around the world are teaming up with private companies to shut down speech, a perfect setup that fascists would love and yet look at Twitter, Facebook etc and the US Government.

Eventually one hopes one can remain completely in crypto so you don't need to deal with the totalitarian/authoritarians around the world.  

The honest people are the ones who pay the price, the dishonest find a way around it causing them to demand more control.  Bitcoin is one of the escape valves that will keep the people of the world free.