There are a few scenarios possible at this point;

# Mistake
# Manipulation
# Insider trading, which will result in the price to continue its rush.

The latter scenario might be very close. I won't be surprised if someone has taken a large position into Bitcoin before it starts to explode as result of what could be an approved ETF. Insider trading is more often than not a common practice. Perhaps that the usually boring weekends will end up to be more than profitable for traders.

Wow! Seriously, I was about to shut down my notebook to head out, but now I am not going anywhere. Bitfinex went to $1336 and then directly to $1069 LOL! It's either someone that made a mistake, or this is pure manipulation, or this is the beginning of another rush.

Problem is that there isn't any decently rewarding legit investment opporitunity. The far majority of the investment sites or whatever they describe themselves to be are flat out scams. Some people say that investing in casino bank rolls can turn out to be a profitable practice, but I am not exactly aware of how it works. My questions to someone with experience in this are as follow;

# How is the reward structure set up?
# Can you liquidate your investment whenever you want? (regardless of the profits or losses you suffered)
# Do you gain any sort of interest on top of the profits that the casino makes?

I might probably miss something, but feel free to add all necessary info that you think is of importance.

Renting out apartments or whatever other properties are generally the most common ways for the average people to generate passive income. In recent years something that has been very popular here in Europe, is that people take a mortgage on a house, where they after that rent out every room to different people (mostly immigrants from Iraq and Syria nowadays). I know one person that does the same. He pays around €600 per month for a four room house, which nets him €475 per month per room. Do the calculation; 4x €475 = €1900 per month, minus the €600 he has to pay monthly, also minus the electricity costs, internet, etc, it would net him +-€1000 per month. No tax nothing, just black income.

Mining could indeed be seen as a form of earning in a passive manner. However, that is not the case when it comes to trading and signature campaigns. Passive income means that you earn money basically without any sort of effort. Trading requires effort, signature campaigns require effort. In that regard, trading and signature campaigns do not fit in the category of passive income. If you are not really sure about what passive income is, then this easy example will help you in figuring out > if something allows you to earn money whilst sleeping, then it can be considered passive income.

If you think logically, then it means that they would have to announce their approval or disapproval on a Saturday if you look at 11 March, that doesn't really make any sense. 13 March (Monday) is the only date (also logically) that we will finally end all speculations regarding this ETF.

https://news.bitcoin.com/secs-first-bitcoin-etf-deadline-is-actually-march-13-not-march-11/

I find it funny that even professional media platforms point to the betting aspect, while in reality it doesn't indicate anything since it can be manipulated, plus it's not even 0.0001% decisive. It's great public exposure for BitMex as their name is basically included in every related article on news sites. Good thing is that we are only a few days away from ending all speculations regarding this ETF.

Leverage trading is horrible. I would never advice anyone to start with that. It's basically gambling with money you don't really have, seriously, how can that be good? People only tend to look at the benefits of things, while as always, they completely ignore the even higher risks. It's utterly insane knowing that there are exchanges that allow people to trade with 100 times leverage. I wouldn't even dare to imagine how someone must feel when opening such positions.

In most cases, people here aren't really interested in spending their coins. While I do agree that purse.io gives people enough incentive to at least consider spending their coins due to the 5-15% off bonus (depending on the situation), people still prefer to have their coins converted to fiat, where from there they decide what they will do with their money. The fees are too insignificant to be much of a concern. If I convert my coins to fiat, I am subject to a fee of 0.25%. If I cash out €1000 worth of Bitcoin, it would cost me €2.50 in fees. Is it all that bad? Not in my book.

How do you know that already?


If you browse through various related threads, then you'll notice how many people are willing to make use of such a service would it ever come to life. If demand is there, and that's obviously the case, then the only logical thing to come up with is > demand will meet supply. That's how markets work. Bitcoin is definitely not an exception.


I definitely wouldn't as I will never ever allow an entity to have control over my coins, but that doesn't mean others will look exactly the same at this subject. If you give certain people enough incentive to have them store their coins within your service, then they will come. Incentive could be free transactions, interest over your coins, etc.


Perhaps that might play a certain role, but still, who cares? If they want to expose themselves to certain risks, it's their choice. It's not that you'll suffer any sort of damage from people making a mistake or a wrong choice.

The majority of the people hold amounts far lower than 0.5BTC, which is only going to be lower as the price continues to increase. How will people get rich from such an insignificant amount (insignificant in relation to the goal)? Also, most of the people won't just hold their coins endlessly as they will secure profits from time to time. There is no get rich dream anymore that you can look forward to, unless you have a massive initial capital to start working with. Realistic target for people should be to use Bitcoin as a tool that will help them to increase their wealth, and avoid being subject to all sorts of economical situations that will affect your non Bitcoin wealth.

11th of March falls on a Saturday, which is why the date has been shifted to the 13th of March, which in this case falls on a Monday.


I personally am not a fan of the SEC as they have been messing up big time with various other ETF's that resulted in investors losing millions of dollars. I am quite certain that the Winklevoss twins have explained everything in such a manner, that even at current "peak" there is soo much more room for potential growth. I don't believe it will be much of a concern for the SEC.

It's actually very simple;

Option 01 - Cash out 5-10% of your profits in case you are in the green.
Option 02 - Buy with 10-15% of your capital in case you don't have any coins.
Option 03 - In case you already have enough coins, then just keep watching how the market is bouncing up and down.
Option 04 - Use this volatility in your advantage in order to scoop up a few extra profits through trading. With the market being in a repetitive state, it's not all that difficult.

If you play it well, you can even combine all four options.

Could be, but I very much doubt that. It's normal that the market isn't exactly sure in what direction to head as one side is looking to cash out profits, and one side is looking to benefit from these dumps so they can expand their positions as they benefit from the lower prices. The demand makes sure that the price doesn't fall down that deep without recovering.


I see money as the market is once again moving in a repetitive manner. If you know how to make use of this volatility, then you won't mind the volatility to stay for a few more days/weeks.

Thanks for the link to the article. I have read the article two times, and I couldn't find any solid arguments that justifies/supports their claim. But then again, it's not really surprising since their supposed liquidity wasn't visible at all. HFT traders are a parasite that are destructing everything from within. I am glad the PBOC has taken the necessary steps to put everything to a stop. It's probably the best that happened to Bitcoin in many years.

PayPal enjoys a far greater level of adoption and usage throughout the world. Bitcoin isn't even close if you realistically look at how PayPal has been growing. Another thing, PayPal has more than 200 million active users. Bitcoin not even 3% of that. I don't understand where you get your information regarding PayPal from. Not a very reliable source obviously.


Ok, and what are these advantages according to you?


You say that, but so far you haven't said anything about why you think PayPal is better than Bitcoin.

You put it up like trading is an easy thing to do, where you can just walk in and start making profits. It doesn't work like that. You'll be surprised how many hours of trading requires you to at least settle a positive result every day. In some cases you'll be wasting an entire day for basically an insignificant profit considering how much time you have spent behind your desk analyzing the market, anticipating on all kinds of potential situations, opening/closing positions, etc.

I do agree that online wallets offer users a greater form of usability, but I personally don't see how these "benefits" outweigh the potential risks you're exposing yourself to. Especially in cases of people using online wallet services as long term storage solution. There are even people using exchanges as long term storage solution. It's complete madness. These people either don't understand what risks they are exposing themselves to, or they just don't care. I honestly don't know which of the two cases is worse.

Liquidity? Can you point me to an article of them saying that? I have been keeping a constant close eye on their order books, and at no times there was a serious amount of liquidity added to the market among all major Chinese exchanges. The only times they "added" liquidity is when they tighten the spreads, where they buy/sell into their own orders squeezing out all other traders. But as quick as they add their own orders, that quickly do they vanish too.

That's wishful thinking. You can't just assume that because of how the price has gone up in previous years, that it will happen exactly like that once again. I prefer to maintain a more realistic look at the market, where I don't discard the possibilities of a long stagnant period, or even a long bear market. Don't forget that something needs to be done about the block size, which as long as nothing has been done to come up with whatever 'solution' (which I believe to be Segwit), then it will play an important role that may even prevent Bitcoin from growing further.