It has been about a year since the COVID-19 pandemic is still running, and there is no sign that this pandemic is coming to an end. Already many
people are frustrated and stressed by the current conditions, because it must be admitted that it is very difficult to find a job in a situation like now.
Even in some countries the number of poor people continues to increase, this is truly catastrophic. Therefore, it is very fortunate for people who
are familiar with Bitcoin, because Bitcoin can be an alternative source of income in a situation like now.
Bitcoin isn't an income source. It doesn't generate cashflow and it's not a business. You can't "make" money with bitcoin except by spending money on it and hoping it goes up in value. That's no different from literally every other asset on the planet. People act like bitcoin is magic and it's not. |
|
|
|
London has long been the stock-trading center of Europe, but post-Brexit losses continue to siege traditionally strong British industries. From the Financial Times: Amsterdam surpassed London as Europe’s largest share trading centre last month as the Netherlands scooped up business lost by the UK since Brexit.
An average €9.2bn shares a day were traded on Euronext Amsterdam and the Dutch arms of CBOE Europe and Turquoise in January, a more than fourfold increase from December. The surge came as volumes in London fell sharply to €8.6bn, dislodging the UK from its historic position as the main hub for the European market, according to data from CBOE Europe.
The shift was prompted by a ban on EU-based financial institutions trading in London because Brussels has not recognised UK exchanges and trading venues as having the same supervisory status as its own.
Without this so-called equivalence to ease cross-border dealing, there was an immediate shift of €6.5bn of deals to the EU when the Brexit transition period concluded at the end of last year. It was about half of the amount of business that London banks and brokers would normally handle.
This happened only 1 month after Brexit went into effect. Other industries have seen even worse consequences: GDP was down 2.9% in January as the supply chains have been thrown into havoc and business disruptions have been described as "endemic," and it turns out the government didn't do an economic assessment on the trade deal despite it being the most consequential trade agreement in memory. It's one thing to have the economy torpedoed by global macro economic conditions, it's an entirely different one to steer the ship headlong into the iceberg as Britain has done. Fishery sports are nothing to UK's economy, the impact on the City is going to be severe short term but my take is that UK will de-regulate, which was the Brexit plan anyway. That should bring enough business back to recover. Regarding exports, there is a short term impact on business due to new red-tape but that should be shorted with a little bit of time. The problem has not been as much brexit as the double punch with COVID. Just think of it, if you could choose, you would have brexited better any other year. Those figures and the supply chains issues are basically related to COVID, not brexit. Considering Covid has been present for a year and the drop happened not this whole time but specifically after Brexit went into effect, this is not convincing. These drops are specifically Brexit-related, not Covid-related. Perhaps fishing isn't overall a large part of the UK economy, but any industry that drops 83% is going to decimate the businesses in it. In 2019, UK exported 2 billion pounds worth of fish. An 83% drop in exports will prove devastating if it doesn't recover throughout the rest of the year. |
|
|
|
the pic looks blurry so i open it in new tab but it was still unclear . i dont know what kind of art was that and why it was sold that high but i think that was normal for an nft because even others sells more weird things that arent consider to be an art anymore .
i notice that most nft that are sold are expensive , this nft is not for us poor but thats okay because poor dont like to collect stuffs hehe
It is every single art he has ever made all combined to one picture. You could see squares and many of them, each of them is one art that he has made so far, that is why it worths so much because you basically own an NFT that would be all of his works together and if he doesn't end up selling all of it again and again, that means you own the only NFT there is that combines all of his works together in one, kind of like you own all of his work. The owner could easily end up making it bigger and printing it to put it on his wall as well but that is not what NFT is for, he just owns it somewhere and stored it, when this guy gets more and more famous, and when he dies, suddenly his things will worth more. Obviously it should never worth 69 million dollars, nft is a craze right now, this craze will die down and the price of this will go down as well, but its history made anyway. It was never about "owning" the art in the physical world. All NFT does is record in a blockchain that you "own" the art, and for some reason that's worth 69 million dollars. I think you're right about this being attributable to a craze, like everything else crypto right now. |
|
|
|
It is weird to watch the republicans and right wingers try to make Biden look leftist, it is kind of funny. I am a true progressive, the ones that you call communist (no, I am not a communist, I am a progressive, there is a HUGE difference, I hate communist countries) and Biden is closer to you guys then to me, it is weird to see just because he is a democrat you guys think he is a leftist.
Of course taxes will be increased for people who do not work and just make tens of billions of dollars a year, not only that is a good thing, but many republicans wants that as well, taxes higher for them should mean taxes lower for you, that's the point of it, and I think Biden may increase taxes for everyone, rich or poor alike, and that is not something any progressive would want, why would I want a country where even the poor would pay high taxes? What is so socialist about that? I want a nation that taxes people who make 1+ billion dollars at a very very high rate, and people who make under 100k nearly nothing, that is what progressives want.
This is the eternal excuse that the democrats make. No one in the United States make "tens of billions of dollars" a year and if they do, then they will be intelligent enough to move their earnings to offshore tax havens. The details of Biden tax plan are already out and according to it there will be an increase in income tax for everyone who earns more than $400,000 per year. Now there is a huge difference between earning "tens of billions" a year, and earning $400,000 per year. Actually it's 400,000$ per family. If two individuals living together earn 200,000$ yearly each, there will be already a tax hike over them. During the campaign Biden told he wasn't going to increase taxes on people who earned less than 400,000$ yearly. But it looks like he and his team have already found a smart way to overcome this issue to include more people on their calculations, consequently increasing the revenue. It's like those pigs from *Animal Farm* Orwell's book. Always changing the past speechs and rules to adapt to the present personal needs. Those numbers are always talking about as household income, if you thought otherwise that's on you for not understanding since that's the common way taxes are always talked about. Biden always said households making more than $400,000. |
|
|
|
Following on my previous post on the auction of a NFT, Dorsey has decided to donate all the money for income support across a number of cities. Twitter boss Jack Dorsey has donated $15m (£11.2m) to fund universal basic income programmes in the US. The donation, his second in support of the initiative, will help cities send cheques to more than 1,500 families.
While I am not surprised (why would Dorsey try to make money in such a way for himself?), and I am sure it will help many families, I find contradictory that the managers of companies that scrap the las bit of the tax law and setup complex structures in fiscal heavens, then decide to "give back" in such a publicly notorious way. It is just and exercise of PR and it is lame. This is a strawman argument. There's no evidence Twitter does this so you're just making up something that doesn't happen to argue against it. Further, Twitter and Dorsey aren't the same entity. Dorsey is very progressive with his charitable giving and this shouldn't be surprising in the least. It's completely consistent with his past charitable giving both inside and outside Twitter. Even inside Twitter, Dorsey has donated a bunch of his own stock holdings in the company to set up a pool to compensate Twitter employees. This is not PR, this is just who Dorsey is. I don't follow much his story but if you think you read a lot about him well that's good since by showing this act most provably there are influential people might provably follow this for another good acts, But lets just hope that there's no politics hidden on this acts since if there's something plan like that maybe It will be shaded bad by the other people. But I think I need to read more information about him to know the his personality. As the CEO of Twitter and Square, two multi-billion dollar companies, the guy is rich. He doesn't need the money. It's why he's so charitable. I don't ascribe any ulterior motive to it other than he's doing good and supporting the things he believes in. He's a crypto supporter, it's not a stretch to support crypto and charity at the same time with this. |
|
|
|
Following on my previous post on the auction of a NFT, Dorsey has decided to donate all the money for income support across a number of cities. Twitter boss Jack Dorsey has donated $15m (£11.2m) to fund universal basic income programmes in the US. The donation, his second in support of the initiative, will help cities send cheques to more than 1,500 families.
While I am not surprised (why would Dorsey try to make money in such a way for himself?), and I am sure it will help many families, I find contradictory that the managers of companies that scrap the las bit of the tax law and setup complex structures in fiscal heavens, then decide to "give back" in such a publicly notorious way. It is just and exercise of PR and it is lame. This is a strawman argument. There's no evidence Twitter does this so you're just making up something that doesn't happen to argue against it. Further, Twitter and Dorsey aren't the same entity. Dorsey is very progressive with his charitable giving and this shouldn't be surprising in the least. It's completely consistent with his past charitable giving both inside and outside Twitter. Even inside Twitter, Dorsey has donated a bunch of his own stock holdings in the company to set up a pool to compensate Twitter employees. This is not PR, this is just who Dorsey is. |
|
|
|
As we all know people did vote twice in a row for trump and if also was for a reason : He did cut the tax of everyone on the first day , now that means even the richest didn't have to pay much. At the same time he did give out huge relief funds. Now Biden did roll out a COVID relied fund for the people but at the same time he did see that there are much needed *Job creation* which does mean that the government needs *money* but from where ? Most of it has been used already and given to people and the US itself is in major debt. So Biden plans on increasing the tax , which would be the first major increase since 1993 , which is extremely weird. The wealthiest Americans and the biggest cooperations now would have to pay more tax!! I do think this is long overdue and should be done but people of the middle class should be exempted from this , , more specifically people without a job. What do you think ? Is this a right move ? Ofcourse it would surge the unrest amongst people and they might be on the streets anyways how should the Government handle this ? Should the major tax hike be done in small steps? https://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/biden-reportedly-planning-first-major-tax-hike-in-next-economic-packageConsidering the wealthy didn't need and the country couldn't afford to cut taxes when trump pushed for tax cuts for the wealthy, this is long over due. Instead of getting the deficit under control and starting to pay down the debt during one of the best economic expansions in history, one which trump constantly tried to take credit for as the greatest economy ever, republicans instead looted the treasury and passed tax cuts the country couldn't afford, exploding the deficit back to over a trillion dollars a year during a booming economy and before Covid even hit. |
|
|
|
Thank you CFTC for telling us something we already knew  All exchanges are doing wash trading including Coinbase and it is interesting that this comes just after Coinbase announced they should get listed in stock market. I am reading that this was related with their trading in period from 2015 to 2018, and imagine what the situation is now with much bigger volume than before. Interesting to read this short CTFC report and some former employee of GDAX was doing this: https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/8369-21No doubt Coinbase needed to get this matter wrapped up as part of their IPO preparation. You can't go to market with an unresolved regulatory matter against you. This is further reason that crypto exchanges need to be regulated though. It's too easy to game the system if their actions aren't monitored. |
|
|
|
Its funny. Recently I've seen few people talking about that a lot. Few youtube videos. Even whole youtube chanel focused on similar strategy - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vffTJV0IzHMWhy its funny? Because we are currently during "bubble of everything". Not only bitcoin is mooning. Everything is. And now, when people like Michael Burry (Big short movie was based on his prediction of 2008 crash) is screaming to watch out - 'Big Short' investor Michael Burry says the stock market is 'dancing on a knife's edge' - and fears he's being ignored again YouTubers appeared out of nowhere, now, with approach that - market is super easy - just buy whatever and hodl. Why not 10 years ago? We have a record number of retail investors on the markets. Even high schools students have robinhood installed and gamble their savings. Mostly on popular stocks, mostly sp500. Every experienced investor should see a red light here. Its not good time for investing in the most overvalued stocks (SP500) For each case, you get the final amount on money you get depending on the average yield that your investment gives you (this not mathematically accurate, but is good enough. For example, the SP500 index in the past usually yields 6% and is considered a quite safe investment. I have calculated for 6%, 12% and 18%. I call this, the boring 6%, the "nice 12%" and the "the gods love me much 18%" average yield a year.
No. Sp500 is not "a quite safe investment". It is 'dancing on a knife's edge'. Remember "past performance is no guarantee of future results" Even when you factor in huge corrections that the market invariably suffers quit frequently, the stock market returns an average of 10% per year. The longer you're in the market, the better off you are statistically because the effect of corrections is smoothed out of recognition over long periods of time. |
|
|
|
We're going through a similar phase, some response measures were eased in late December/January, which included the full reopening of all retail shops and even the allowance of churches during Christmas. Along with the overcrowded classrooms of schools, it led to a backfire of the pandemic in the country.
All of this happened because the government was pursuing to cut down on Covid-19 benefits for employees/shops etc and have now resulted in a third wave of the epidemic, with the country being in the worst position it has ever been.
I don't understand the point in reopening churches and schools when the services can be conducted online. I am in favor of reopening the essential services such as retail shops, but there is no need to permit churches to reopen. But I can understand the situation in developing nations, where churches make most of the policy decisions and retain a disproportionate influence on the government. Religion doesn't exactly inspire people to be logical about things, in fact it's entirely built on suspending rationale thought and just believing in things whether or not they're true. It's the perfect example of how not to behave when lives are on the line. But I will say it's perfectly on brand for religious folks to get angry or even violently upset over someone else not believing what they believe. |
|
|
|
Despite the criticism of Tesla for buying $ 1.5 Billion of Bitcoin, I think the main reason for the decline in Tesla's stock price is not because Tesla
bought Bitcoin. Especially after Tesla bought Bitcoin in February, Bitcoin price continues to rise until now. Tesla investors should have known that
Tesla's steps were not wrong. In my opinion, Tesla's stock price has decreased because from the start it was overvalued, we can see that in
the past year, the increase in Tesla's stock price has increased significantly. So I don't agree that what Tesla did by buying Bitcoin had a negative
effect on their stock price.
Agree, Bitcoin is not negative reasons that affect Tesla's stock value because the budget for investing in bitcoin is not small and a large company will inevitably require voting on such decisions, making the investment proves that shareholders accept and support, Covid had a significant influence on Tesla, and the decision to make money online was not wrong. Even now, this plan is still worthy as it may have reduced some of the pressure on stock prices to drop, plague, the change in president and economic war are probably the leading causes of stock devaluation The bitcoin investment just isn't a needle mover for Tesla due to how small it is compared to the overall market cap of the company. Bitcoin could triple and it would mean next to nothing for the company's overall value and it could go to 0 and have the same relative non-effect. It's not like Microstrategy, the marketcap of which is predominately bitcoin-related at this point. |
|
|
|
This takes too many things for granted to be accurate. First of all, being on the gold standard just means the currency is backed by gold. If we "went back to the gold standard" that wouldn't mean you need gold to operate in the system since your currency would be redeemable for gold. Further, people without gold wouldn't simply die for a lot of different reasons.
I didn't want to mean that you die, literally. You'll die financially. If gold becomes the main thing again, gold will shoot up and everything else will be worthless compared to it. You'll want that gold backed currency but how are you gonna get it if your whole assets collapsed against gold and you have no gold? I guess I would say that gold was never the main thing. Even when fiat was back by gold, nobody transacted in gold, they transacted in fiat. The fiat was redeemable for gold, but that was rarely ever used compared to the number of transactions in fiat overall. |
|
|
|
The problem for governments is that such a goal is impossible to accomplish, I think we all understand that one of the first and probably the most important duty of a government is to guarantee the security of their citizens, but with that excuse they are taking so many measures that go against our freedoms that sooner or later people would have reacted against it and once that happens any attempt to try to control their citizens will fail completely and bitcoin is a perfect example of this.
So it's a double sword standard that we are currently live it. Initially we thought that Internet is censorship resistant and it was developed to really connect us in a way without any interference from government. However, it has drastically change when it become centralized because of the monopoly of companies such as Google. Bitcoin will like to change all of that, or at least crypto for that matter. But for me the pattern continues, they want total regulations, they want everything under their control. Right now we are experimenting an invisible battle which many people do no appreciate but that it is there, and it is the battle of centralization vs decentralization, governments want to centralize everything, it is on their very nature and unfortunately technological advancements have allowed them to reach a level of power that was impossible to imagine just 30 years ago, but there is hope, technologies like bitcoin and cryptography allow us to bypass some of that centralization and I think for the first time in a long time people are reacting negatively to all the power governments and private companies like Google and Facebook have over them. Facebook and Google don't have any power that people don't give to them. You opt into that by using google services or opening a facebook account and posting information about yourself. If you don't like what facebook or google do or the power they have over you, stop using their services. It's an entirely solvable problem. |
|
|
|
~
But what exactly do you own? So I get that the buyer owns a token with a unique digital signature, say the public key is: 4985POSDIEFUA8OW3FJUWOI8FJWAOWAO398FJ8OIKL But what does that have to do with Beeple's 5000-image artwork? Is the file which is hundreds of megabytes ALSO stored in the blockchain? What is the relationship between the unique digital token and the artwork? Why do you ask these question in the first place? Do you plan to buy the artwork and negotiate it at lower prices by reasoning that you don't own anything physically. The answer to your question is simple, owning the NFT is like basically owning a website, you know that you can't hold it physically but you know that you are the owner of it, and you mentioned that there is a token as proof, isn't that enough proof that they own something? If you don't have property rights you don't own it. If you own a website, you can stop people from visiting the website, you can change the content, etc. The "owner" of this digital artwork can't stop people from viewing the work, or even stop them from digitally owning a copy of it. There are no property rights associated with this "ownership" so the concept of owning it is completely fictitious. The NFT owner doesn't own the artwork, he owns a hash in a blockchain that he hopes others will recognize means he owns it but in reality actually has zero real-world ownership properties. |
|
|
|
Actually, by buying the NFT the owner is not buying any enforceable property right. He is just buying a blockchain registered proof that he purchased a digitally autographed tweet.
It is a very doubtful investment isn't it?
This is my main issue with it. It's an entirely arbitrary ownership over a digital form of something. The only thing that that gives it value is people agreeing that 1) NFT ownership connotes actual ownership over something that only digitally exists, and 2) this is valueable. But then again, that's cryptocurrency in a nutshell, so it's quite ironic that people think bitcoin has value but NFT "goods" don't. That is exactly what it is. What gives bitcoin value? Why did it reached 60k? I mean we all know that it doesn't have an actual "value" considering that if we all sold our coins all together that would make it worth zero, even a stock has a value because company makes a profit, but this makes no value at all. Which is why I really think that it is quite obvious people are valuing NFT just like they value crypto. Only weird part is, we have seen as much as 69 million dollars for one NFT so far, where can this lead to? I mean bitcoin is at least a currency but these are art stuff and one person giving it a worth doesn't mean that others agree with that, in crypto we agree together on a price and that becomes the price but me paying 1 million dollars for an NFT doesn't mean that anyone else would, hence suddenly it becomes something a bit difficult to value in that case. What you're describing is the art market at large though. Some rich guy sees a panting of squiggly lines or a bunch of paint splotches and pays millions for it with the knowledge that other ultra rich people will also consider it worth millions, so it has a value of millions. I look at a jumbled mess and say I wouldn't pay to own that. Are either of us right or wrong? Things have value between any two parties that agree they do. The difference with bitcoin is there are a lot more people who think it has a certain value, so the more consensus there is the easier it is to find someone to sell to, which confirms the value. 10 years ago, bitcoin was a lot more like art. Maybe you could find someone who would buy it (like the millionaires who find another millionaire to buy the painting), but there weren't very many of them as a whole so the market was very illiquid. |
|
|
|
the worse is yet to come because the newer variants are more potent and can spread faster. there are possibilities that the ones who are vaccinated already can still be infected by the newer variants to which vaccines today are going to be useless. now the labs are going to have to create another study and trials again. the more we suffer from these lockdowns the more will just kill selves out of depression. the unemployment and families evicted from homes are just making all these worse. The higher the number of infected people, higher will be the probability of new mutations. Already there are resistant strains being reported from countries such as UK, South Africa and Brazil. The Brazilian strain seems to be very dangerous, as large number of people have died in that country during the last few days. It is still too early to say whether the vaccines will work against these strains or not. That sort of data takes many months of research to get finalized. Brazil is a good example of a country reaping the consequences of having stupid leaders. All these ultra conservative politicians follow the same playbook- deny the virus is dangerous, deny the science about transmission, deny the growing pandemic is a problem, deny that statistics on deaths and hospitalizations, and then when it's too big to deny anymore blame it on something else instead of your own failed leadership. Doesn't matter the country, the conservatives in each one have done this. |
|
|
|
His twitter is rather interesting however, am no fan of it, but got to say mans got steel balls to invest like this.
I'm not buying it. No one who postures as hard as this guy is doing on his website is as rich as they claim. And if he's really this rich and successful, why is he selling a bunch of garbage tutorials about how you can be like him? This guy's a scam artist, his only business is selling people on how successful he is, and anyone buying it is a fool. |
|
|
|
I think everybody should own some Gold whether they like it or not. It is like an insurance. Bitcoin is seen as an insurance too but there is still a possibility that bitcoin can fail but gold has proven its worth over 5000 years as the ultimate store of value.
Diversification is the key. Get some gold, get some crypto, get some FIAT, get some stocks, some real estate... Sell the one that has mooned and buy the one that is still cheap.
Imo Gold is now very cheap.
Asset diversification is indeed a mainstay of large investors because by implementing a good portfolio strategy you can increase the wealth you have invested. Not only nowadays, but people have always used gold as one of their safe assets so that they can mitigate if the volatility of other assets is bad enough. However, the proportions given are quite difficult choices. Because the higher the return, the higher the risk. Gold is an asset that is quite low in risk compared to other assets and that is why the price of gold is not very attractive to invest in in the short term. If the whole systems goes down and people go back to the gold standard, then you'll have 2 options: 1- You have some gold and survive. 2- You don't have any gold and die. This takes too many things for granted to be accurate. First of all, being on the gold standard just means the currency is backed by gold. If we "went back to the gold standard" that wouldn't mean you need gold to operate in the system since your currency would be redeemable for gold. Further, people without gold wouldn't simply die for a lot of different reasons. |
|
|
|
The fact is that to date, quite large capitals have already entered Bitcoin, and institutional capital has migrated to the cryptocurrency market in a significant part. I believe that this trend will continue, as I am confident that before investing in bitcoin, the owners of large investment portfolios have done a global research and are confident in the prospects for Bitcoin in the future.
There is no way that it wouldn't continue. Look at all the companies that got into crypto, it is something to marvel at because those who invested billions of dollars made some billions of dollars in just few more months, that is unheard of anywhere in the trading world or finance world, nobody puts in few billion dollars and double it in less than half a year, but these people did it. Grayscale and microstrategy started buying all the way from 10-15k range, and tesla bought in 40k or so range, and it is crazy to think that they have billions thanks to their investments. There is zero chance that other companies who see this increase in bitcoin and the profit making possibility of bitcoin and not go in, all those huge wall street companies, british ones, european ones, and any other nation, all those companies will get in with their billions of dollars, then we will have bitcoin at 500k+ for sure. Please stop putting Grayscale in the same bucket as companies that buy bitcoin as part of their treasury. These are two different things and Grayscale buying bitcoin has absolutely nothing to do with bitcoin treasury purchases. And yes, there is significant possibility that other companies see bitcoin rise and still don't purchase it. Because it happens every day. Far more often than what you're claiming happens. The level of hype here doesn't look any different from speculators in the 2000s saying "anyone who doesn't flip houses is an idiot, there's no way more people aren't going to continue to get into the market and push prices up." There are no guarantees in investing. Not with housing in 2000s, not with crypto now. |
|
|
|
They are massive losses just in one month, in all fairness though
did the british think it was going to be different, that there would
not be any consequences for leaving the EU?
At least they have control of their own borders, sadly the recklessness
of the leave campaign and its winning vote has created serious
consequences for certain industries.
Do the government have any economic gameplan to counter the falling
exports?
Well yeah, the Brexit people basically campaigned on the premise that everything would be better without being part of the EU. I'm not sure that control of the borders is such a huge accomplishment in the face of the staggering economic losses. Seems like a minor problem was traded for a much larger one. Just add it to the list of bad trades in this whole ordeal. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
