ETF investors are not interested in crypto, only in profits.
If they think the time to profit is over for Bitcoin and crypto, they will sell Bitcoin and invest in something else.
Maybe. I suspect some are interested in inflation hedges etc, similar to the people invested in gold ETFs. Yes, it isn't as direct as holding your own keys, but I think there is some interest. I don't know what the percentage divisions are, but you are right, there are plenty who are interested in profits above anything else. |
|
|
|
“The $1.5bn outflow from the Grayscale’s GBTC fund in particular has acted as a drag. It looks like GBTC investors who over the past year had been buying the GBTC fund at a significant discount to NAV to position for its eventual ETF conversion, have been taking full profit post ETF conversion by exiting the bitcoin space entirely rather than shifting to cheaper spot bitcoin ETFs,” Panigirtzoglou detailed.
Although I do not understand most of what was written, the part that seem very confusing to me is this particular quoted paragraph. If I am correct is the paragraph saying that the GBTC investors are withdrawing their funds and profits and are not intending to invest them in either bitcoin of the spot bitcoin ETFs? I would like some clarification from anyone who understands it. While on the other hand, my resolve is to stay focused on my investment and accumulating bitcoin. Whatever happens in the spot bitcoin ETF space is less of my concern. Buy the real thing. People were buying GBTC because it was selling at a discount. E.g. you could buy $100 worth of bitcoin for $80. Now that it converted to an ETF, the discount to NAV (net asset value) vanished so they can sell the $100 worth of bitcoin for $100. They made their profits and got out. Many of these people were in there just to capture the difference between the cost and the NAV in anticipation of the ETF conversion, not because they wanted to be in bitcoin. There are certainly a large number of investors who bought GBTC because they wanted bitcoin, there was some percentage over the last few months who bought it merely to capture the profit if it converted. Does that make sense? This is obviously a short term thing: once it converted, the people trying to capture the spread, they sold. Most people in GBTC weren't there for that reason. So this will abate eventually once the short term speculators are out. The halving will be a catalyst going forward as new supply drops by half, with the easy availability of ETFs any move up will only attract more money now that you can do it easily without the need for opening an account somewhere, wiring money in etc. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin's regulation is in the code. The rest is just a circus to attempt to give statists control over more of bitcoin and consequently over people. They aren't fans of freedom and are incompetent - as yesterday showed - yet view themselves as able to rule over everyone else. It is disgusting.
You should be a bit less arrogant about Bitcoin IMO, because if one day US authorities decide to ban Bitcoin, you will see that neither regulation, nor price are in its code actually. BTC price is high currently precisely because the incompetent people from the circus as you say are accepting to see Bitcoin ETFs traded at Wall Street. Money doesn't come from nowhere. As far as the "cautious trader" - how about not trading, and just buying some and letting it ride? Short term, the fiat price has certainly been volatile, long term the trend has been obvious.
A trend precisely showing it's harder and harder to make profits by just "hodling". I'd disagree. Like investing in securities, market timing is always a bad idea and while it may work in the short term for some people, long term most people lose. And obviously price isn't in the code, I don't think anyone thinks that. The code is what controls and regulates bitcoin. None of that is arrogant, it is factual. I'll add that if the US decides to "ban bitcoin" there will be much bigger issues than the fiat price of bitcoin. It will indicate a fascist, socialist, communist, totalitarian and/or authoritarian etc takeover of the country and the complete destruction of the US constitution. The constitution was (since the Commerce Clause decisions time frame it is less so) a document of enumerated powers, not enumerated liberties. That has been reversed in many respects over the last 100-130 years, but holds in some cases. A complete ban would indicate that pretty much all constitutional protections are gone. In which case owning bitcoin would be a good start to being able to flee to a freedom friendly jurisdiction. Bitcoin's fiat price is high because more and more people see the utility of it. There are many places and cases where you can actually use bitcoin not merely as a speculative asset. Of course speculation is one use case, but protection of assets is another important one. Others are inflation protection for places such as Argentina, censorship resistance (for places like the US where a billionaire can be shut out of payment processors), bypassing controls (e.g. like one would see in Cyprus in 2013 or Venezuela or North Korea). For many of those it is often best to control the private keys of course. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin ETFs Enable the ‘Mass Marketing’ of a Worthless Asset to Main Street Americans, Says Better Markets
An independent nonprofit organization ...
also claimed that BTC proponents will likely portray the approval as some kind of government endorsement of cryptocurrencies. ...
So a group that doesn't exist in the real world and survives by begging for money, not earning it, in order to get someone else to regulate everyone else while claiming something is "likely" to be an "endorsement." What they really are: far left extremist statist authoritarians who don't believe that people are smart enough to make decisions for themselves and that they should be empowered to protect the peons. It also helps that if they shut down bitcoin, it helps the world-wide masters who want to be able to control everyone to have no censorship resistant money and one fewer way to escape from the horrors of inflation that the same group doesn't think is a problem. see e.g. MMT, espoused by similar groups. |
|
|
|
Does anybody leave a percentage of their BTC on the exchanges, or do you guys store all your BTC in your wallets, etc?
0% at exchanges. If you look at the history of exchanges, they are not safe for long term storage. And if anyone - like Celsius, FTX etc - is offering something that appears too good to be true or wants to have custody of your coins, it probably is and they are probably scammers. If you don't have the private keys, you are merely a creditor as many have found out to their regret. Only put coins on exchanges briefly to sell (or after you buy). I think Coinbase is legit of course, they seem quite competent, but many others are just scammers. |
|
|
|
Yep! This time it looks for real!
It's strange that the market reacted more dramatically to the fake news yesterday than it did today. Traders appear to be more cautious now. That was likely the intention of yesterday's "hack" of SEC's twitter account.
Trading will be open only tomorrow and perhaps then the market will react fully. During this day, anything can happen and the securities commission will change its mind at the last moment or make changes. Yes, you are right, yesterday’s tweet ruined the mood of many and the market reacted instantly to that that the news turned out to be fake. -------- While I was writing this message, the market had already reacted and everything was already green. I think that yesterday flushed out a bunch of people, first with the spike up, then with the drop. In hindsight may have been a positive, although the incompetence at the SEC is astounding for people who think they are "protecting" people when they can't do something very basic. |
|
|
|
The approval.
sec.gov/files/rules/sro/nysearca/2024/fg-89shlq.pdf
Link is down, but here is an screenshot: This link is working, for those who want the SEC site: https://www.sec.gov/files/rules/sro/nysearca/2024/34-99306.pdfI suspect the original was a temporary link and it was renamed. But who knows, it could've just been incompetence on the SEC's part. |
|
|
|
Peter Schiff Expects Spot Bitcoin ETFs to Bring Speculator Sell-Off, Minimal Institutional Demand
The crypto skeptic explained that there is “really no need for a bitcoin ETF, as you can buy and store bitcoin yourself for free.”
he is not wrong about this. but because crypto needs a clear regulation still. and despite the approval that even Shciff is also expecting, crypto regulation is still too murky. all i guess the market needs is just an ETF at least investors can see it's been approved by a branch of government. but the regulation like the official laws for it is still unclear. and because the SEC announced a FOMO warning, then there is a chance of ET rejection still. only Gary knows. Bitcoin's regulation is in the code. The rest is just a circus to attempt to give statists control over more of bitcoin and consequently over people. They aren't fans of freedom and are incompetent - as yesterday showed - yet view themselves as able to rule over everyone else. It is disgusting. |
|
|
|
This is good and bad news.
The good is that we will see an inflow of Trillion dollars into the cryptocurrency market which will lead to the parabolic of the major crypto, especially Bitcoin.
The bad news is that the global investment companies that filed for the spot ETF will treat BTC as a fungible token, they will want to be the market's major player and they will go to extra lengths to do that which includes high restrictions and KYC for crypto and there's going to be a lot of market manipulation unless the SEC provide a law that prevents companies from do it
Perhaps, yes. Eventually bitcoin will hit a price and stability where there is no need to get out of it and you can just remain in crypto. Then the statist authoritarians will have to display their true colors even more than now. |
|
|
|
|
And the price dropped immediately. Although it seems to be recovering. Seems like a stupid move to sell when there are potentially a huge amount of new demand. But then again many of these traders aren't the sharpest.
The details are super sparse.
|
|
|
|
It just was approved....per CNBC https://www.cnbc.com/2024/01/09/-sec-approves-bitcoin-etfs-for-trading.html"The Securities and Exchange Commission has approved rule change applications to allow the first bitcoin ETFs in the United States, paving the way for the long-awaited funds to begin trading as soon as this week.
The decision will likely lead to the conversion of the Grayscale Bitcoin Trust, which holds about $29 billion of the cryptocurrency, into an ETF, as well as the launch of competing funds from mainstream issuers like BlackRock’s iShares.
The approval could prove to be a landmark event in the adoption of cryptocurrency by mainstream finance, as the ETF structure gives institutions and financial advisors a familiar and regulated way to buy exposure to bitcoin."
... Update: Now the SEC says this: "SEC Twitter 'Compromised,' Chair Gensler Says After Account Said Bitcoin ETFs Approved" https://www.coindesk.com/policy/2024/01/09/sec-twitter-compromised-chair-gensler-says-after-account-said-bitcoin-etfs-approved/ |
|
|
|
|
PS likes hard money like gold. He hasn't (yet) gotten the fact that bitcoin is even harder than gold. Eventually he may get it. Or not. That's fine, he is very set in his ways and has been right about some things in the past, and wrong about some things like most people. His opinion on BTC has been meaningless except to the people who listened and didn't take advantage of the benefits of bitcoin in the past.
As far as the "cautious trader" - how about not trading, and just buying some and letting it ride? Short term, the fiat price has certainly been volatile, long term the trend has been obvious.
|
|
|
|
|
People have had 15 years to get involved in bitcoin. There is a difference between FOMO and "there is still time to get in before" <whatever event is coming> - ETF, halving etc
:-)
|
|
|
|
|
I've been running a node since summer 2010 and bitcoin already has spam measures and it is called fees. Often I agree with Luke, but in this case it seems like he is off base.
|
|
|
|
|
Cramer is right.
But Munger was right about it being rat poison and it outed a bunch of statist authoritarian rats like himself, Dimon etc. Rats don't like poison and they sure complain about bitcoin.
|
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin has always had a spam filter, fees. As he says, as the fees go higher it prices out junk. Whatever "junk" is to people.
|
|
|
|
|
I think one deadline is January 10 so maybe we'll hear this week, but they seem to wait until the last second to approve. Or perhaps after the market closes on a Friday?
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
