 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 »
|
What does the message say on the banned account? If it has a time that means it is only a temp ban, otherwise I believe it's a permanent ban.
The message is like Sorry xxxxxxx, you are banned from posting or sending personal messages on this forum. Too many topics with same content (5 days) Does this mean that the account will only be banned for 5 days? |
|
|
|
|
Anybody can answer my question? Also my activity shows 14. How does activity grows?
|
|
|
|
To me, that does not lead to the conclusion directly.  |
|
|
|
I could be completely wrong but from observation, it seemed as though BTC/USD increased to $1,000 each last year because most of the speculators (particularly the newest speculators) hoped that people would develop more and greater services which would be centred around bitcoin. Which has happened but not quick enough then most had hoped and this is completely due to Government intervention, particularly China who is trying to eliminate it completely and the US Government would love to do the same thing but instead they will keep crippling the unregulated financial services offered in bitcoin. Now, I might be wrong but I believe that the fact that these asset exchanges and lack of banking services is a major contributor to why the price isn't higher than it is now. If everyone believed they could get huge returns quite easily using bitcoin then of course the price would be back to where it was beforehand. If people were so scared about the volatility then they would just hedge.
The increase in price last year was due to market manipulation by bots.  The bots were purchasing on behalf of speculators with a lot of money. It is not a conspiracy. Zoznoz is likely correct to say that speculators were trying to profit from quick and massive bitcoin adoption but the chinese government was able to stem this in their country. I would anticipate them easing off these bans/regulations over the long term as they become more of a free market economy Is there any evidence on the use of bots? |
|
|
|
Is your site for gambling? I saw many other sites like BTCLevels, satoshioptions. Although they all claim that they are binary options trading sites, they are actually gambling sites? Is yours something similar?
No, we are an exchange in which people trade real options. But you can also gamble there if you like. It's like you can gamble in the stock market as well although stocks are not for you to gamble. |
|
|
|
|
They are European binary options. What you mean is vanilla options. We will have European vanilla options soon.
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks, our binary options contain both call and put options. If you believe the price will go up, you buy call options. Otherwise, you buy put options. Since it's an exchange, you can also sell options to other buyers. This is different from the binary options offered by existing gambling site, where you can only be a buyer and cannot choose strike price, and the expiration time is usually extremely short, and most importantly, you do not trade.
|
|
|
|
It is hard for a new business to gain users' trust. This becomes even harder when big exchanges such as mtgox failed. We believe transparency is the key to this problem. So we ( https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=813287.0) adopted the proof of reserve audit approach described in this article https://iwilcox.me.uk/2014/proving-bitcoin-reserves, which generates verifiable audit results and has been adopted by a few big name exchanges such as Bitstamp and Bitfinex. We move this idea one step further. Instead of relying on a third party to verify that we have more bitcoins than users' total balance, we directly show how much bitcoin reserves we have and how much the total user balance is, and we do this weekly instead of yearly. This removes the necessity of the third party, which users may not trust, and also provide much better transparency to the users. Disclosure of information has been adopted by many regulated financial companies, and thus its effectiveness and necessity have already been proven. We think the bitcoin community needs the same level of transparency, and this weekly audit may meet the needs well.  |
|
|
|
It is hard for a new business to gain users' trust. This becomes even harder when big exchanges such as mtgox failed. We believe transparency is the key to this problem. So we ( https://coinut.com) adopted the proof of reserve audit approach described in this article https://iwilcox.me.uk/2014/proving-bitcoin-reserves, which generates verifiable audit results and has been adopted by a few big name exchanges such as Bitstamp and Bitfinex. We move this idea one step further. Instead of relying on a third party to verify that we have more bitcoins than users' total balance, we directly show how much bitcoin reserves we have and how much the total user balance is, and we do this weekly instead of yearly. This removes the necessity of the third party, which users may not trust, and also provide much better transparency to the users. Disclosure of information has been adopted by many regulated financial companies, and thus its effectiveness and necessity have already been proven. We think the bitcoin community needs the same level of transparency, and this weekly audit may meet the needs well. |
|
|
|
Interesting concept. There is definitely a need for options in the Bitcoin world. I read over your FAQS and you mentioned offline balances. Can you provide some evidence (perhaps by signing the address) to assure customers that their money is safe?
Thanks for your comments. I added the answer to the first post. |
|
|
|
I don't think option trading not on full, liquid exchange can work well.
Selling options is shorting volatility (a bet that implied vol will be higher than realized vol), which needs to be hedged. On exchanges, hedging automatically provides collateral, ie. sold atm call option for 1 btc is perfectly hedged by a ~0.5btc long, so even at impractical 100% collateral, you only need 0.5 btc more. The total is always 1btc.
On a purely options exchange with 100% collateral, you need 1 btc + enough collateral to go long 0.5 btc on another exchange, and in the worst case, enough to go long 1 btc. That's two times more expensive and requires additional hassle.
You do not necessarily need to hedge your exposure to volatility when selling an option. This is only true for entities that trade options professionally to make money off of the changes in pricing of options. There are plenty of "non professional" reasons to trade options (for example to speculate, or to generate additional income). In order for an options exchange to work properly, it will need to have some kind of central clearing house that guarantees each trade, and the clearing house will need to demand that the other side of the trade put up sufficient collateral (bitcoin/fiat to cover a short position being exercised). Our platform requires the sellers to have enough margin (collateral) so that they will be able to pay the buyers at expiration. I don't think this would be necessary to have 100% collateral for shorter term option sales. The reason for this is because even though 1 BTC is to be delivered upon expiration the net value of an option may only be .5 BTC if the price of bitcoin is twice that of the strike price. The result would be that the buyer of the option would deliver the cash to the seller's account and the cash would be used to purchase the amount of bitcoin the account is short In Coinut, we currently provide binary options, and the payoff is 0.01 BTC. The seller does not need 100% collateral (0.01 BTC) because he will get some premium from the buyer, which can then be used as the collateral. For vanilla options, the situation is a bit different as the payoff depends on the spot price at expiration, and thus it is not determined beforehand. Again, we don't need 100% collateral (as we don't know how much it is). We liquidate the seller's positions when he is short for collateral (this is essentially a margin call). |
|
|
|
|
Right. We currently provide binary options only. The seller needs to reserve the maximum possible payoff as the margin. We are still working on vanilla options. As you said, we will probably require much more margin than normal vanilla options.
|
|
|
|
Can't say few months back it was 800$ than it became 700$ , then 600$ ,500$........ last week it was 366$ and now it has come down to 275$ I'll not get surprised if it goes below 250$ or maybe further..!
I totally agree with you. Bitcoin's price is the craziest thing that I have ever seen. I traded in the FX market for many years, and I also watched 08's craziness, but that's just small stuff compared with bitcoin. |
|
|
|
I don't think option trading not on full, liquid exchange can work well.
Selling options is shorting volatility (a bet that implied vol will be higher than realized vol), which needs to be hedged. On exchanges, hedging automatically provides collateral, ie. sold atm call option for 1 btc is perfectly hedged by a ~0.5btc long, so even at impractical 100% collateral, you only need 0.5 btc more. The total is always 1btc.
On a purely options exchange with 100% collateral, you need 1 btc + enough collateral to go long 0.5 btc on another exchange, and in the worst case, enough to go long 1 btc. That's two times more expensive and requires additional hassle.
You do not necessarily need to hedge your exposure to volatility when selling an option. This is only true for entities that trade options professionally to make money off of the changes in pricing of options. There are plenty of "non professional" reasons to trade options (for example to speculate, or to generate additional income). In order for an options exchange to work properly, it will need to have some kind of central clearing house that guarantees each trade, and the clearing house will need to demand that the other side of the trade put up sufficient collateral (bitcoin/fiat to cover a short position being exercised). Our platform requires the sellers to have enough margin (collateral) so that they will be able to pay the buyers at expiration. |
|
|
|
|
Guys, I need a market maker to provide liquidity. I cannot do that by myself because it violates our rules.
|
|
|
|
|
