I only need one reason: I do not want Elon Musk deciding on his own volition the value of my investment. Exactly the same goes for McAfee and other "pseudo influencers" that seem to tweet irrelevant messages just using their twitter dominance to create classic pump and dumps. If you are serious about any coin, you want its value to grow healthily based on adoption, good news, large investors, inflation-deflation,... not based on how bad was someone else´s weekend.

I recently read a post on the Economy section about the legal status of the tokens and alt-coins in the USA. As many of you know or should know, there are strict regulations for the commercialisation of securities in the USA and the SEC is know to reach overseas as they deem fit if any US resident buys or sells or somewhat participates in these transactions.

Thus, my question: Do you Howey your investments in tokens? Are you aware of the consequences for a project if they are not compliant?

Yep, anyone can basically run a howey test and for most tokens the result will be at minimum, quite close to a yes. If you promise any right or have any contract attached to the sale of tokens or coins, the chairman is right.

It is a fact that most crypto project have been in denial of this rule, since it makes much more expensive to launch a token or a coin and requires a level of regulation that would not be achievable for may of the smaller initiatives that are relatively poorly funded.

Well, the Guardian will usually put the accent on the most pessimistic of the options when a Conservative is leading the country. Anyway, there is a price to pay for breaking up with the EU and then having a COVID crisis.

Do not get me wrong, I am not saying that Brexit is bad in the long term, but I am saying that there is a price to pay in the short term and that the advantages, if any for the general public, are yet to be proven. The UK has taken a risk that could eventually end up with a loss like the one described in your post.

Quite the opposite. While not a great excitements, it would be great for me to be able to deposit directly into a CB account and skip the banks. Even if it doe snot pay interest at least I do not have to trust a banks, pay commissions for the privilege of doing so and depend on them for my personal data. Also, people who do not have access to a regular bank account could at least hold some form of a wallet and maybe even have access to some short of centralised financing.

So, yes, there are some reasons to get moderately excited for most, and very excited for others.. who probably are not even aware that this is coming BTW.

It is sad, but bad news for the world sometimes means good news for bitcoin. The whole purpose of having an asset that is not printed as the politicians please is to profit or at least not being damaged by situations such as this. The COVID forced US, EU, China, UK, and many other governments to go over what could be considered reasonable and now inflation is going to be difficult to control.

The good takeaway is that companies that are living of cheap money may find themselves having to deal with real life out there when rates are adjusted.

There is also a worldwide problem with the raw materials and other items that are usually produced overseas. The insufficient production during COVID is creating shortages.

Probably not many on this forum would use an ETF to invest in crypto since it is easy and not expensive to build your own portfolio of crypto and also because there is a third party risk involved, even some counterpart risks if using derivatives. That risk is not present when you buy and is even less if you hold your keys and keep your own safety.

However, it is good that another ETF comes to live, as it will allow institutional investors and large capitals to become part of the crypto ecosystem, thus adding network value to the whole community.

You do not need to be a genius to make that forecast. Most of the Federal Reserve state representatives are already saying that there is a very clear risk of it. Warren is probably happy about it, as he has quite a bit share in banks and they typically profit from higher rates that may come from fighting inflation.

The problem is that there are a million companies that are being kept alive with "breathers", that is, cheap loans and plenty of printed money. The impact on the economy of a rise in interests is difficult to evaluate but it must be huge and the Central Banks can only delay it for so long, it may even be here before a real recovery. I think wallstreet is starting to price this in.

Everything that leads to crypto as a mean of anonymous payment does not make a favour to bitcoin nor alts. The effect on the regulators is quite strong, as they will have to answer to the public opinion firstly for letting the hack happen and then for not being able to identify the parties involved. It will be very easy for everyone to blame cryptos and anonymous coins for the disaster and due to the general lack of knowledge the public opinion may require them to further regulate crypto, which is not good at all for the hodlers.

There are a million ways, but at the endo of the day is up to you predicting how the price is goind to move and that is something that very few people can do and possibly no-one can do for a sustained period of time.  If you want to try, you should be considering the technical indicators such as mobile averages, 52 week averages, etc.. or simply say "I will buy only 15% under the ATM and sell if I make at least 20%". Be aware that this would only work while the general trend is up.

I could not care less. I simply try to ignore Elon and other celebrities insofar as their crypto recommendations. They do not know more than the average  user and they are simply missusing their influence for the wrong purposes. Would you follow investing advice from a football player or a singer? Well, I know some people do, but only the dumb ones.

You would normally seek advice from someone that first you trust a lot and second is an expert on the field. If Tesla accepts Dodge is just to immediately change in fiat and play with all of us.

Honestly I think most people are just ilke that. Playing only small amounts to make the games a bit more fun and  feel somehow recognised for knowing how to predict better. I am asking more about those who are queite the opposite, and might have some difficulties controlling.

Personally, if I bet is mostly socially, so there is little risk of overreaching. Also, I play only with friends so we do not let it go too far on regards of keeping our social peace if you know what I mean.

this is like working from home, people get used to it and it may be difficult to return to the old ways, not that there´s that many people who really want to do so anyway. Some people will be more at risk when playing at home and some others will actually become less addicted. Playing at home is easy and accessible and sometime better, however you do have distractions and you are likely to be interrupted, unless you live alone and play at night. The real life playing places are designed to avoid interrupting the players, so they can become a player trap.

I am the only one surprised to see Atlhetico up there? It is not a high budget team, it is not outstanding in any particular area of the field and it does not have anything that other teams have. It is the perfect example of how you can thrive on others misfortunes. Not to mention that is not having a great performance outside Spain. Is the typical case in which I would have lost my bet.

It has been said that Sumo, the Japanese fighting sport is not as clean as it should be. Apparently, in the maximum cathegory - short of a premier league - there is tendency to let win those who need to win in order to remain in that cathegory. This was studied and mentioned later on a book called Freakconomics.

An article here-

Do you feel that knowing that a sport may be rigged you could actually turn it in your favour?

This is betting 101. It is not only people recommending martigale out there, it is also that they tend to mix it with other betting systems that are probably as useless - to put it softly - as this one. Doubling the bet does not work in math, does not work in practice and anyone who still holds a doubt about it should play some simulations with monopoly money. As said in the post, not even without betting limits is there any merit on it.

The issue is that is seems kind of intuitive to double the betting and that is why someone might be convinced.

Where did you NOT study history? Gambling places and casinos are as old as humanity. And I even more surprising news from you, human life started way before Islam existed. Amazing isn´t it?

The old Romans even had an specific goddess for luck - "Fortuna".



Islam is no more strict than any other religion, it is about how people have decided to follow it. The rules of Christianism (not to mention Judaism), are as strict and in fact were implemented strongly a few hundred years ago. It is just that people decided that there was no point on it, that is simply better to follow the principles because religion was used simply as an element of state power. Does that sound familiar?

Any market manipulation and limit setting is bound to create flawed and inefficient markets. These are usually destroyed by the competition of fair and effective markets with adequate price discovery mechanisms. I do not see why anyone would like to participate in a market such as the one you are describing, since it does not allow them to choose the price to pay or the price at which they are wishing to exchange.

There have been quite a few experiments like that, including rent controls and the like.. it tends not to work in the long term.

I think that it may be quite different actually. Commercial banks are there to make profit and they will avoid anyone that looks more of a problem than a profitable customer. However central banks may have political objectives in mind that could potentially help the unbanked since they do not intend to make a profit, or at least a profit in the way we may understand when thinking of a traditional bank.

There may be some gate-keeping, but it may not be like the ones we currently know. For example, there were no micro-credits until someone decided to start giving them - eg. in India - and they worked wonderfully.

Una de las grandezas del bitcoin es que tiende a poner las cosas más difíciles a todo el q intenta poner fronteras al intercambio y a la creatividad humana. Por supuesto, el gobierno en Cuba cae dentro de esta clasificación desde hace muchas décadas. Efectivamente, por muchos motivos, los cubanos que aun siguen en Cuba pueden beneficiarse enormemente del bitcoin.

Quiero q esto q digo no se interprete como una crítica particularmente dirigida al PCC, creo q en toda centroamérica existen regímenes q realmente no funcionan para los ciudadanos.