Let's say gox goes belly up.
Does it really make sense that when the adjudicators are dividing up what little, and I mean little, spoils are left over after the years of litigation, that they'll say that these guys over here will get their dollars back but those guys over there with BTC won't?
No, they'll be legally bound to return whatever form of property you had on gox. It would be way better to come out of that with 90% discounted coins.
 Assets would be liquidated. Why do you assume BTC would not be? I highly doubt that BTC could be exempted from liquidation for any reason, but I am not well versed in bankruptcy law (in Japan, no less). After liquidation, creditors are repaid, ordered by priority, then pro rata based on what is left. What is this idea that "they'll be legally bound to return whatever form of property you had" based on? I suspect that the law deems fiat adequate for repayment of such debts..... |
|
|
|
The drop from the $800s started on the 5th, days before the Gox bs. It's entirely possible this was coming regardless.
My position was that this was coming regardless -- but no one could have foreseen the extent of this Gox meltdown. The Gox situation is becoming extremely disturbing at this point. |
|
|
|
|
Closed short at $546, can I get a bounce please? Or is Gox just going to run this straight into the ground?
|
|
|
|
Because they have turned the corner and become scammers.
90% drop and no trade halt? That tells you something about Mark's mindset. |
|
|
|
I wont be surprised if the gox trading engine of fail allows negative numbers.
I won't be surprised if the 32 million BTC in bids between 0-$2.50 get filled... |
|
|
|
And while you and all your buddies are sweating all day hunched over your computers to try and make $15 on the highs and lows
LOL |
|
|
|
|
I did not realize how difficult it would be to sell on LocalBitcoins right now... no bites in 2 weeks... I love crashes but no one wants to give me cash anymore....
|
|
|
|
So your thesis is that MtGox is not only insolvent, they have less than 64.8% of their deposits?
In the case of shutdown by regulators and bankruptcy, where are trading account holders in the line of creditors? Legit question -- I do not know. This is assuming that customer funds are not held in trust -- obviously if Gox is insolvent, this is the case. If Gox did have 64.8% of deposits in such a situation, do you think trading account holders would receive 64.8% of their money? I don't. And how many years later would they receive compensation? This is not a matter of straight probability. One more issue here for those holding MTGox obligations denominated in BTC is that BTC could easily sky-rocket with respect to JPY while MTGox is in bankruptcy. So the BTC MTGox obligation holder may just get a few millibits on the BTC. That implies MTGox doesn't have any BTC holdings, which I don't think anyone believes. Their assets are frozen when they enter bankruptcy proceedings. it means the receiver liquidates the BTC for JPY during the bankruptcy Why is this any more likely to happen than the receiver immediately acting to mitigate risk of BTC/JPY rate fluctuations for all BTC obligations (via options etc)? I'm not a bankruptcy expert but that seems like something a receiver would do immediately upon assuming control of a multinational with obligations in multiple currencies. That would seem unorthodox. Logically, all assets would be liquidated to JPY in bankruptcy. I see no reason why this would differ for BTC assets. So my thinking is that Goxcoin holders in this situation risk being compensated years later for their Goxcoin holdings, denominated in JPY at the original liquidation price. What will regulators do -- pour all the BTC into Mpex?  |
|
|
|
So your thesis is that MtGox is not only insolvent, they have less than 64.8% of their deposits?
In the case of shutdown by regulators and bankruptcy, where are trading account holders in the line of creditors? Legit question -- I do not know. This is assuming that customer funds are not held in trust -- obviously if Gox is insolvent, this is the case. If Gox did have 64.8% of deposits in such a situation, do you think trading account holders would receive 64.8% of their money? I don't. And how many years later would they receive compensation? This is not a matter of straight probability. |
|
|
|
Always assuming the source is reliable, of course (I know nothing about upi.com).
roy
UPI is reputable. Here is the original article: http://stream.wsj.com/story/markets/SS-2-5/SS-2-456759/ (google if paywalled) In the email interview with The Wall Street Journal, the French executive repeatedly responded to questions about the company’s solvency by saying that the matter is confidential. He did say, though, that the company had discussed its business model with Japanese authorities “to ensure that we are operating within the law here.” I found this to be very bizarre -- more so than unnerving. I can understand why people view Karpeles as malicious. At best, he is so mind-bogglingly stupid that he doesn't understand the effect of refusing to deny accusations of insolvency. At worst, he is intentionally manipulating the market. |
|
|
|
Withdrawals will be allowed by friday.
People receive BTC's/USD, people see that it's been received, people start buying cheap ass coins, people sell the cheap coins 4 hours later for $695,- on gox.
And we continue our lovely journey of the crypto's.
I think everyone agrees gox will go nuts if withdrawals are confirmed. The question is whether or not that will happen. It will happen. I'd like to know the cap, though, and I think it's extremely relevant. Given an adequate reconciliation process prior to hot wallet reloads, there is no rational excuse for restricting withdrawals based on amount. I suspect that Gox's past reconciliation controls were quite poor, especially given that the failed transaction bug appears to stretch back into the last few months of 2013. |
|
|
|
Ill have to admit the one good about gox is its still a brick and mortar business with real people and mark comes to work every day in the morning apparently. unlike btce and bitfinex which are run off of the moon.
Are you trading on Bitfinex still? I am aching for another Short Trade at this point, but I pulled my funds from bitfinex as I decided I didn't trust it/place was/is heaving with thieves. Did you have any bets, limit orders, stop losses placed during the Bitcoin to $10'000 or the Bitcoin to $100 'hack'? If so, what happened? I have read that a lot of people lost money on Bitifnex and are still waiting for support to make it good to them. NEVER, EVER, EVER use stops on Bitfinex. A typical loss of access to Bitstamp liquidity (which happens extremely regularly) and you may find your position closed ± $100 where you thought you closed it. That's right. Leverage trading without stops.......  Complain and Giancarlo will attempt to publicly humiliate you. |
|
|
|
The fact that Mark said Gox has been in touch with authorities and they have been told they are operating within the law means that I am betting they are not insolvent. Mark is in Japan, not Ecuador. Not so easy to hide.
"Karpeles repeatedly said the company's solvency was confidential but that it had discussed its business model with Japanese authorities 'to ensure that we are operating within the law here'" -- is this what you are referring to? It says nothing about the present circumstance, or present dealings with regulators. If Gox is insolvent, that wouldn't mean its "business model" was illegal. |
|
|
|
|
I'll say this. As much as the Coindesk article regarding possible Gox insolvency stunk of unsubstantiated accusations, the situation does feel a lot to me like Full Tilt in 2011. I'm still waiting on a FTP payout far larger than my wallets and trading accounts combined -- royally fucked up my life for a really long time. Bitar and those fucking pigs.
Considering their massive visibility and position as the #2 room in the world, none of us regs ever would have thought that the April 2011 seizures would have made even a dent in FTP's capital reserves. Oh, how wrong we were.
Will never make that mistake again. The fact is, we can speculate forever about how much revenue Gox took in, its overhead (including legal costs and seizures -- I have no faith in the operational cost numbers floating around), how much was squandered through mismanagement, and how much was stolen. At the end of the day, we have no idea. The situation is entirely opaque.
Whatever the case, Karpeles answering "that's confidential" when questioned about Gox's solvency is about as pathetic as it gets. It really does seem that he wants to manipulate the market downwards.
|
|
|
|
|
Ahhh, Wisdom is back. Had to play that very conservatively, felt like I was trading blind. Bitcoinity is awful.
|
|
|
|
Bitstamp is back to the niveau before the Gox news  A lot of pigs got slaughtered. I'm just wondering if the one who sold 8.5k BTC with a market order on BTC-E taking the price down to $102 is a mentally challenged trader who went full retard or just a poor guy who got his account hacked. He lost MILLIONS to the lucky bastards that had bids down to $100 on BTC-E. Somebody six-folded his money in a couple of seconds. Pretty sure this was a cascade of forced liquidations, not one actor. Well, 8.5k coins were sold in the same minute. That was either: a) one single trader going full retard b) one huge account got hacked c) multiple accounts were hacked and were liquidated simultaneously The fact remains that some bastards got HUNDREDS of coins at $102. I guess the risk of having fiat on BTC-E paid off big time. EDIT: THOUSANDS of coins in the $100-$200 range The seller/s lost MILLIONS to those who had the low bids. I am talking about leveraged longs. BTC-E is a leverage trading platform via Meta Trader. Pretty sure this was a string of forced liquidations. |
|
|
|
Bitstamp is back to the niveau before the Gox news A lot of pigs got slaughtered. I'm just wondering if the one who sold 8.5k BTC with a market order on BTC-E taking the price down to $102 is a mentally challenged trader who went full retard or just a poor guy who got his account hacked. He lost MILLIONS to the lucky bastards that had bids down to $100 on BTC-E. Somebody six-folded his money in a couple of seconds. Pretty sure this was a cascade of forced liquidations, not one actor. |
|
|
|
Guys, Even if there was enough BTC on our Bitstamp account, trading would have been halted. Why? Because we would also have "wiped out" Bitstamp orderbook with the cascade of liquidations that were just about to happened. So it's not a matter of having enough funds where or whatever, it's a matter of an illiquid market that became very volatile, and millions of dollars of leveraged positions that would either evaporate or be preserved by calming things down. If you think you have undue losses because of the halting of trading, please write to support@bitfinex.com and your case will be examined within a few DAYS. Thank you for your comprehension, Raphael Bitfinex team So, without any stated policy, you simply halt trading and/or refuse to execute trades that will cause a string of forced liquidations? You guys need to state a policy and stick to it. You can't just play God. |
|
|
|
The bitfinex website is a very complex piece of art, and I just wanted to show my support for you guys running this site. Keeping everybody happy is very difficult to do, especially when there are teenagers very angry that they missed a $10 trade that should not have happened in the first place.
You guys handled this well, Thanks!
Bitfinex is not the NYSE. When it halts the market, bitcoin trading does not halt. Holding short positions open while the market rallies 25% is not a laughing matter. We are not talking about the rise from $100 - $660, but $530 - $660. Traders watched for an hour as the their shorts stood open and the market rallied 25% -- that is completely unacceptable. A "trade that should not have happened" has nothing to do with it -- we need to be able to CLOSE OUR FUCKING POSITIONS. You obviously have little respect for traders. Please understand that your money, as a liquidity provider, is not more important than ours. I do have respect for traders, but when the BTC funds at bitstamp ran out, we chewed through bitfinex's orderbook like butter, then all margin calls hit, and we were heading to 0. Do you think that is an acceptable risk for a lender? The bolded is unacceptable on the part of Bitfinex. This is a recurrent problem and should not be happening. What I took exception with is your attitude complaining of "teenagers very angry that they missed a $10 trade that should not have happened in the first place" -- that is some inconsiderate bullshit that speaks nothing to the magnitude of value on the table. It's uncalled for and, as stated, by and large irrelevant to the legitimate complaints of traders who held short positions during this fiasco and were unable to close them. We are not responsible for Bitfinex's cash flow, but we may lose tens of thousands of $ in profit and/or incur losses because of it. |
|
|
|
now that the weak hands are flushed.
Kind of tough to call it that when you compare volume on any of the exchanges to the 12-17 capitulation. I don't trust a bottom tested for only 2 minutes..... not in this context. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
