Original 2009 had lofty promises
Cheap, private, be you own bank, F*ck U to the FED-BIS-IMF....
Now 2021 IRS-Coinbase rules Bitcoin-org
Most people have sold out any promise of freedom in exchange for US-GOV control 100% of btc
Nobody talks about the fact that all mining/consensus is done in China
Now they have dropped the myth of privacy, and promise you pseudo-privacy, sort of like virtual-pregnancy
Damn sure, bitcoin was not created to make you rich, but today 99% that's the only reason they're here, get rich quick.
Post 2014 BTC has attracted the worst scammers, criminals, robbers, con-artists on earth, why not they can steal legally, as nobody who loses their money can go to the police
...
Past two weeks BTC has entered a free-fall, down -25%(-47k), now at -20% ( $53k); all the while alt-privacy coins have continued to sky-rocket,
A month ago $1k in DOGE would be $50k today, $1k in BTC would be $800 today; If they're only here for money, how long do you think the 99% will stay??
...
Lastly BIS-IMF created BTC whitepaper 1997, BTC is SHA256, and Secp256k1 two NSA algo's; BTC is NSA 100%
This is a pretty stupid post since most of this is demonstrably false and even the stuff posted in the OP is self-contradicting. OP: "US-GOV control 100% of btc" Also OP: "Nobody talks about the fact that all mining/consensus is done in China" So which is it, 100% controlled by the US government, or controlled by China? (Also, bitcoin is not controlled be either the US government or China.) More lols- "BTC has entered a free-fall". You must not know what "free fall" means. At the point it's rising, it's not in "free fall." Also, 25% down isn't even that big of a drop by bitcoin standards. Damn son, some of us here been around for far steeper "free-falls" (to use your incorrect term). And it "free fell" all the way down to $53k? The horror!In summary, you're a clown. |
|
|
|
when car manufacturers are in the expansion phase they are never profitable
every penny goes into making newer bigger facilities. if they just stored the money. declared it as profit and paid tax on it. they are wasting it
no expanding business makes profit. its how they expand.
paper losses dont equal property losses
heck even trump earned hundreds of millions and only declared a couple thousand in profit (less than a minimum wage waitress would declare)
even bezos under declares his true financial state to pretend he is not making profit
Yeah, that's not how it works. That would be securities fraud since Amazon is a public company and has strict requirements about what has to be reported. You can't "pretend" to not be making a profit. You either are or you're not, and if you are there's no pretending you're not. I think you might be confusing cash-flow and net profit. A lot of companies are cash-flow positive but still not profitable. But being cash-flow positive isn't going to magically make Tesla grow into the valuation they have. At the end of the day, profitability is all that will matter. |
|
|
|
If there was any doubt regarding the intentions of Tesla and Elon Musk, then the latter's tweet seems to have removed it. First of all, Tesla has sold only a small portion of the coins it hold (10% to be precise) and Elon's explanation is that they sold the coins to test the liquidity of Bitcoin. In the end, it turned out well for all the sides involved. The reaction from the cryptocurrency market has been overwhelmingly positive, with BTC rising by 8% against the US Dollar.
I don't suppose the 10% have been bought back yet after testing the btc liquidity, if not, it would have been mentioned in the tweet as well, perhaps they are waiting for a dip buy or it's no longer important to buy back the 10% sold! Could that be the reason why Tesla was at second position on the bitcoin treasure list I saw earlier, MicroStrategy was top of the list with a huge %, my point is if the intention was not to sell for profit buy to test liquidity they should buyback to prove. I don't think it had anything to do with "testing liquidity." Tesla saw an opportunity to lock in some gains and take some of the risk they have by holding bitcoin off the table. The company is risky enough as it is without adding speculative risk on top of that. With the new Gigafactories they're building and the fact that their batteries are still lacking the major breakthrough that's been promised, Tesla has a lot of capital requirements which will require cash. |
|
|
|
Why the hell did they even buy bitcoin if they were just going to sell it so quickly? Sure, they might have made a profit but they're not in the business of currency speculation. At least with MSTR, they're keeping their bitcoin as an alternative to cash and presumably plan to hold it long-term.
My guess is they took some profits because who would expect it to rise that quickly? At the end of the day, they're a car manufacturer with significant capital requirements. I thought it was stupid of them to lock up capital in Bitcoin in the first place if it was going to be a long term hold, but I was wrong about how much they needed at the time. Bitcoin could have just as easily dropped 50% as risen 50% after they bought it, which would have harmed their financials and wouldn't have gone over well with investors who are already shelling out insane multiples for the stock. It remains an incredibly risky move, so it makes sense to lock in some of the gains. |
|
|
|
Despite Tesla's first quarter earnings, Tesla is still an unprofitable automobile manufacturer. Digging into the numbers, Tesla reported a $438M GAAP net income, but they had $518M in regulatory credit sales and more than $100M in profit related to bitcoin sales (they sold a total of $272M worth of bitcoin in Q1), which means the primary business of manufacturing cars is still not profitable. Perhaps as they continue to scale this will change, but the valuation still looks insane at these levels, and electric vehicle competition is only going to get stiffer going forward.
I think it's too early to expect positive Operational Incomes from Tesla when it's at such a growing stage across different geographies. Tesla is still like a huge startup which has got listed. Valuations are Insane due to huge potentials in future of Electric Vehicles. I mean if any day consumption pattern of Electric Market changes. Tesla has both capability and Brand to cater that Market. It would easily be able to cater more than half of that demand while traditional automakers will take time to adapt to that change. Very interesting thing here is the bitcoin investment. If they are able to generate good profits to offset their operational loss using other incomes that's a good sign of health of the company. It would mean company has a huge bandwith to sustain despite of long losses which obviously COVID could give them. I do agree the future is electric, but the valuation is priced as if Tesla will be the only electric car maker and that's simply not the case. Further, I think the traditional manufacturers will do a better job once they are fully electric, which some have pledged to be sooner than others, but just about every major automaker pledges to have a pretty robust offering they have all pledged to be in the not-too-distant future. Plus some of the new models look sharper to me than the Tesla equivalent. I especially like the look of the Audi E-Tron. |
|
|
|
|
Despite Tesla's first quarter earnings, Tesla is still an unprofitable automobile manufacturer. Digging into the numbers, Tesla reported a $438M GAAP net income, but they had $518M in regulatory credit sales and more than $100M in profit related to bitcoin sales (they sold a total of $272M worth of bitcoin in Q1), which means the primary business of manufacturing cars is still not profitable. Perhaps as they continue to scale this will change, but the valuation still looks insane at these levels, and electric vehicle competition is only going to get stiffer going forward.
|
|
|
|
Those policies that are against bitcoin are obviously not helping it. Instead of them making easier policies for the adoption to become quicker, they're making it difficult and that's what they think to stop bitcoin's growth.
This very much so. If the US banned bitcoin and made it illegal, do you think that would help the price or tank the price? The obvious answer is it would destroy the price. A high price is predicated on it being easy to obtain and not bringing adverse legal consequences. But regardless of the rules that they create, bitcoin will always catch up the trend and no matter how hard and bad the policies that they make and it's against bitcoin, it will continue to thrive on its market.
Much less convinced about this. If the US makes it illegal, it's going to destroy the price and a lot of interest in it. It won't kill it off entirely, but it's not going to be a robust ecosystem when it has to function in entirely in the dark. |
|
|
|
It might be pretty good news. Tesla has just shown Bitcoin can be a viable cash reserve stash and can be used to make a quarterly earnings report look pretty good. There are lot of corporations with major money just laying around. If they start to put part of that into crypto, meaning Bitcoin, well that would be really something. Do remember Bitcoin pricing still reflects it is a risky asset. The more big players get in, the less risky it becomes, the lower this negative risk premium. I am not sure whether this is a good news for us. I was thinking that they are accumulating Bitcoins for the long term. But it looks as if they are indulging in speculative trading, at least with a part of the stash. They got the coins for a relatively cheap rate, so it makes sense for them to sell some of these coins. But I am curious about the tax implications. They have sold their coins just a few months after the purchase. Therefore short term capital gains tax will be applicable over the gains.
If you have to resort to gimmicks to improve your quarterly reports, then your business is troubled or outright trash. No good business needs to resort to gimmicks to juice the numbers, so if that's why it was done it's a huge red flag. I don't think necessarily in Tesla's case that's what happened, but investors are going to see through these gimmicks if it starts to happen. Trading bitcoin is not a business strategy for any company I'd invest in. |
|
|
|
There are different model based institutional firms. Some of them are doing investments as a core business but for that they are not allowing individual investors to participate DIRECTLY. They issue shares on behalf of their company and individual investors need to buy those stocks. So, if a customer needs money back they can simply sell those stocks of that company and do not need to enforce them to sell bitcoins for example.
You invest into an institution and you get back their stocks and you are free to encash or hold as per your wish. Your individual decision will not affect company's core business of what and when to buy or sell (but, when more number of people will be selling their stocks that may impact significantly).
It is more about "are they even allowed" and not "are they forced to" or "how does it work" because we know some of the companies can hold it as long as possible, look at tesla they are nothing of financial and just a car company and they bought bitcoins, which means can they sell it all when they need money? Are they allowed? Grayscale turned all of their reserve cash into bitcoin, but that was "reserve" cash which means it should stay in bitcoin until they need it again, which means they suppose to sell all of them when they are trying to make a profit. All those come down to this simple fact, if they are not allowed to sell, that is a good thing for us, but it is bad for the investor, if they are allowed to sell, that is good too because they are not selling when they can and that means they believe in it. These are the very important parts about bitcoin and institutional investors. Why wouldn't they be allowed? A company like Tesla or Microstrategy turned cash reserves into bitcoin as either a speculative investment or because they thought it would retain value better than holding cash. There's no reason they would be "unable" to reverse course and turn their bitcoin into cash. None of these companies was prohibited from buying; none of them are prohibited from selling. |
|
|
|
China saw an opportunity with bitcoin in the past, they just shrugged it off because it either is still valued lesser, or because of the news I saw 2 years ago where they are supposed to digitize the Yuan currency. Then again it just shows that with enough encouragement, a government repulsed by the idea of cryptocurrencies can be made to change mind when given the benefits and opportunities that it can bring to their country This will definitely expedite bitcoin's growth and ultimately, the global adoption we are looking for.
The digitalisation of Yuan currency is not going to make China more than what it will be today because it is also going to be centralised, it won't be decentralised like bitcoin. USD is like a decentralised currency and bitcoin standing in crypto space and Yuan as cryptocurrency won't be placed in that, it won't be in use by all. This is not true at all. The digitization of the Yuan will make China a much more potent economy on the international stage and weaken the USD as a global reserve currency by creating a major competitor that other nations will want to use to get out from under the thumb of the US, especially when it can be used to evade US sanctions. Frankly, nobody is going to care whether the currency is centralized or not. Decentralization is not going to be the major pull. If it was, you'd already see much wider bitcoin adoption. |
|
|
|
That seems to be normal? Most of the top execs and insiders would probably want to sell some shares for 'distribution' and buy them back in once the price is cheaper. With the case of Coinbase, their stock prices would definitely be tanking for quite some time since the valuation they received is somewhat inflated, as was analyzed by some traders and trading circles. This means that Armstrong would have an easier time to buy back shares, as the prices are way cheaper than he sold it before. Just casually inflating their net worth with no sweat.
That's not why, it's for diversification. If you've accumulated significant value in what was previously an illiquid asset (Coinbase stock), you cash out as soon as you can (once it becomes liquid) to diversify into other assets and reduce your risk of having so much value tied to one specific asset. |
|
|
|
Interesting observation. As the price of btc goes up and lightning network adoption increases, more and more people and services will actually start pricing in sats instead of btc or usd value.
Would be interesting to see how pricing in sats vs whole/decimal btc terms plays out on people buying and selling.
Don't think you'll see things priced in btc (sats or otherwise) for the simple reason that you don't know what the value of something when it's denominated in btc. Nobody in the world is equipped to think in btc-denominated transactions. If I try to sell you a car for .5 btc, you really have no idea if it's a good deal or a rip off unless you know how much btc is worth in USD and do the conversions. Denominating in purely btc is impossible because bitcoin doesn't hold a stable value. You would always need to know the conversion rate to USD to evaluate the price. |
|
|
|
Already in many sources they explain:
1. Power outages in the Chinese province of Xinjiang, which led to the loss of many industrial miners from the network, began on Friday, but this effect fully manifested itself later.
2. At the same time, there were still unconfirmed rumors that US regulators may start an investigation into unnamed large financial institutions for money laundering in cryptocurrencies. This led to a panic in the market and a massive liquidation of positions on the exchanges. Bitcoin was above $ 62,000 on Saturday morning, and set a local low of about $ 51,500 early on Sunday morning.
Do not forget that the higher taxes (much higher) on the rich also became a problem for the crpto people who sold and profited right away so they can pay the current tax rate on their income before the new tax rate comes. If you profit from crypto right now you pay %30 tax rate and if you do it after the new tax comes in that is 43% that is a lot of difference. Considering this works for 1+ million dollar profits, that means that many very rich people realized their profits now so that they can reenter later on with whatever they want or maybe not even reentered the market. That is a reasonable approach, if I had that much money I would have done the same but I believe I will never own 1+ million dollars in my life, unless something shocking happens it is not going to happen. This is why I think it is obvious that this played a role, not saying that was the whole thing, but it was one part of it. Since this tax plan has such an uncertain future, I have trouble believing this is the reason bitcoin fell so dramatically. Who would sell an investment they believe in because a tax plan that is, at best, unlikely to pass was proposed? Further, the stock market didn't have a sell off of a similar magnitude, so it's unlikely this is rich people trying to lock in gains at a lower rate. If so, you would have seen a similar sell off in stocks. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin will not kill the Central Banks, rather I think they will adopt bitcoin. Perhaps not so soon but in due course when they see no other way out than to join or we will continue to see it as we have done now.
Centralization has had so much power that they cannot bend to decentralization. There are also the great elites that have their great tentacles and love absolute control.
Nah, central banks won't adopt bitcoin. Central banks are literally charged with controlling the money supply. They would never adopt a currency they had no control over. The closest you'll get is a central bank-backed crypto, and even that is unlikely. It's more likely they'll just digitize fiat. |
|
|
|
Maybe they bought some coinbase stock  (or want to) . Banks are weird old structures that probably fear the use of cryptocurrencies as they may be able to push them out of the sector when fees become reasonable. Some banks are trying to adopt and use crypto and others just seem to be trying to make things more difficult to use. In reality, the only people that can stop crypto have too much control over the market that they'll be forced to split (VISA). I'm not sure how far they are from an investigation into being a monopoly but I imagine they're trying to look fairly neutral to most things. How can Visa stop crypto? I don't think they could even if they wanted to considering there's literally nothing they can do to stop people from using crypto the same as they couldn't stop them from using cash. And Visa is nowhere near a monopoly. Mastercard, Discover, and American Express have far too much market share for anyone of these companies to be a monopoly. |
|
|
|
Gold is known for its consistent return over long period of holding whereas bitcoin is slowly moving toward such a status in alternate investment category. So, I strongly believe calling bitcoin as an substrate for gold definitely will lead bitcoin into more adoption which might be ending up mainstream adoption as well.
I don't think this is really accurate. Gold is known for protecting wealth, not growing it. It is at time very volatile, and the investment returns are absolutely sub-standard compared to the stock market. In times of uncertainty, people flock to gold to protect the wealth they have because it is considered safer than holding cash or other assets, but people who "invest" in gold expecting a return are paying a high opportunity cost by not investing in the stock market, which blows gold out of the water in terms of return. |
|
|
|
The answer is simple - no, bitcoin will not kill banks!
Why? Because governments will never allow an uncontrolled entity to replace a government-controlled, formal payment mechanism. The only thing that bitcoin, as a technology, can influence, is to push banks to use part of blockchain technologies in banking technologies.
This answer pretty much sums up what I think. There's no chance governments are going to relinquish control over the monetary system. And as for bitcoin replacing it unwillingly, the economy was much choppier and less predictable on the gold standard, so it's really unlikely people will want to return to all the economic insecurity that accompanies a deflationary currency. |
|
|
|
Second, no, China is not fabricating news to negatively influence Bitcoin's price. Every time the price falls, it's not because of a conspiracy. The evidence says the opposite. Many of bitcoin's largest price drops can be traced to negative news related to china. China apologized and took a softer stance on bitcoin. They're guilty. They don't want hedge funds, banks and whales invested in bitcoin to retaliate against them for crashing the price. What "evidence"? You've posted nothing except your own conspiracy theories with no actual facts to back them up. You're asserting that China is taking actions with an intention to manipulate the bitcoin price. What has happened in reality is that China took regulatory actions and the price dropped as a result. Just because a price drop has been correlated with past actions by Chinese regulatory authorities doesn't mean those actions were taken with the intent of crashing the bitcoin price. Assuming that was the case, what was the reason? Did China accumulate a bunch of bitcoin after that? That would have to be the logical conclusion to believing something so ridiculous, and the fact that it didn't happen means you must believe they just intended to crash the bitcoin price for no reason. It makes no sense. |
|
|
|
“They are not currency per se. And so the main role we see for crypto assets going forward, the main role is investment alternative.” What is an "investment alternative"? Bitcoin is either an investment or it's not, and this choice of words has me perplexed as to what exactly they mean. And bitcoin is a currency, though IMO it's a crappy one (especially at times like this when fees are so goddamn high), so they got that wrong in addition to issuing a gobbledygook statement for a purpose that I can't quite figure out. I guess this is supposed to be some positive news, but I don't read anything substantial in it. We'll see what happens; anything is possible when you're talking about China. Investment alternatives are exactly what they sound like- investments that are alternative to traditional investments. The stock market are real estate are deemed to be two examples of traditional investments. Alternative investments are things like private equity, hedge funds, currencies, metals, art, and crypto. |
|
|
|
"Decentralized" , yeah right. China controls so much of the mining power in the world and that results with most of the hashes coming from them and being able to do something. Sure when miners want to change something that's not enough because all the transactions should be from miners and we know that it is not, there are tons of other people. Remember back in 2017 or something miners wanted us to not have Segwit and we still went with it and they created BCH to compete with Bitcoin and they failed miserably as you can see these days. Which means miners do not have that much power.
However if they want to they could play with the price, just close all the shops in china for one week and price of bitcoin will be under 40k and they can buy with all of their profits and then start back up and increase the price and it will profit them even more, that's horrible.
China doesn't control anything. Mines being located in China doesn't mean they're controlled by China. Mines still have to compete with each other, no matter where they're located, so you're assuming that all miners located in China will think the same which itself is obviously faulty logic. All the conclusions that result from an illogical premise are therefore suspect. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
