I am wondering how you can explain your approach so easily when it comes to buying and selling BTC back and forth, switching between various asset classes and how you seem to be able to identify uptrends and downtrends without any problems?  Maybe huge investment corporations or hedge funds are switching between asset classes all the time, but they have technology and algorithms and instruments in place that most people don't have at their disposal. But regarding the quote above, this is the logarithmic graph from before 2011 until now, displaying how many ounces of gold you need to buy BTC. When it goes up, BTC outperforms gold, when it goes down, gold outperforms BTC. Please keep in mind how the y-axis is structured and in a best case you visit the website and use the cursor to check out what the graph says. Seems that gold did not outperform BTC very much! I'm just presenting my own point of view. I believe that investment funds and whales have the necessary tools and financial capabilities to make these plans a reality. Looking back at the past, we can see that BTC has been fluctuating in a 4-year cycle, similar to the traditional financial market, so I think professional technical analysts can take advantage of this. In any case, it's just a look at the past, and I hope the funds will apply it more effectively in the future. Personally, I can only DCA BTC and take profits at the distribution zones of each season. I would like to say that Gold is better for the purpose of storing and protecting assets: Gold's advantage is its price stability and its tendency to increase gradually over time. Gold cannot be compared to BTC in the long term in terms of investment: the returns from Gold will not be as good as the returns from BTC. |
|
|
|
Well these reason are bullshit.
Meanwhile, can we sue them (SEC) for their breach security and release fake news by scammer while their social media or account getting hacked ? Remember with those breach, many people can investing/trade and getting a loss damage of their asset.
To be honest, no matter is bad news we always passed those. Just a remember a multiple times news (BAN-CRYPTO) are being used especially in BULL-RUN, but still we are always reached all-time high. I always hears or know these kind of news every years.
I am also anticipating lawsuits related to the consequences of the SEC's negligence regarding their hacked accounts around the time of spot BTC ETFs approval. I suspect that Gary Gensler may have been tasked with slowing down the rapid growth of the crypto market, giving traditional companies a chance to catch up, participate, and dominate the market, thereby reaping huge profits. Therefore, despite previously supporting the crypto market, since becoming SEC chairman, he has been against crypto market development. OK well, he has gone after CEXs, and now DEXs, and the crypto community will fight him to protect this market! |
|
|
|
This begs the question, what if we had only Bitcoin? Wouldn't the level of adoption outgrow what it currently is at the moment?
Do you think that altcoin is a major distraction to bitcoins adoption?
I love both BTC and altcoins, I think both are important for the development of the crypto market and blockchain technology. Thanks to altcoins, new technologies are being applied and people are more interested in blockchain, which in turn leads to them learning about crypto and BTC. Thanks to memecoins, the investment field has become more fun and approachable, which in turn has brought us millions of potential crypto investors. Thanks to altseason, the crypto market has become more vibrant and promising, which in turn has led to BTC being more considered and accepted by large companies or corporations. Altcoins are a necessary addition to the crypto market and they also help to make BTC's price rally more sustainable as money can flow multiple times between BTC and altcoins instead of creating a bubble and then quickly collapsing each season. |
|
|
|
With the Bitcoin halving just days away we all expect bullish 2024 but just wondering how much this war will affect the rest of the year?
I was investing when Russia first invaded Ukraine 2 years ago and the markets crashed then but that was at the bottom of the bear market - will the markets hold stronger being in bull run or will they tank if the war gets worse and will we see less of a bull run?
The markets have seen a mini crash since Iran attacked Israel the other day and I am just holding for now, haven't bought anything and haven't sold and just hoping we can start seeing the market go up over the next few months.
I have never seen a war start with a clear announcement of intent to attack. It seems like this is just a peacetime exercise to test both UAV strike and air defense capabilities. This event also creates a perfect excuse for market adjustments, including crypto, after strong growth over the past few months. Re-accumulation is taking place and we can expect a strong uptrend to follow. Compared to previous halvings, which are always boring periods with sideways BTC price, I think this time will be the same and we don't need to worry too much about the current market situation. The uptrend will still come, altseason will still come, and we will still see BTC reach a price of ~150K USD in 2025 as many experts have predicted! |
|
|
|
I keep reading about bank accounts in the UK, US and EU being frozen due to crypto associations. This is concerning me, and I am reluctant now to use any exchanges to purchase Bitcoin. However, I am happy to purchase crypto via P2P transactions. These can be either cash payments in a face-to-face meeting, or by bank transfer to a trusted person's personal account. Will this be the future of Bitcoin for us mere mortals, or will sanity prevail and allow us to return to using exchanges?
Now, what about crypto-to-crypto exchanges? Will government oversight and intervention restrict those. This could lead to decentralised swop services, and surely this is contrary to the wishes of the banking puppet masters?
As users are trading crypto assets worth tens of billions of USD and generating millions of USD in revenue each day for CEXs, traditional banks are not receiving any benefits. I think they cannot be satisfied with that, they want to participate to share this market share rather than destroy the crypto market. In many countries, when banks do not support crypto-related transactions, the liquidity of the crypto market in that country is seriously reduced, meaning that investors buy and sell crypto under more difficult conditions. This is not good for the development of the market. I believe that traditional banks will soon support crypto-related services to generate revenue in the form of transaction fees or management fees. The same is true for governments: they will manage to collect taxes from crypto instead of trying to destroy crypto. |
|
|
|
I don't think UNI token meets the Howey Test
It may be a borderline case, but for me it could be classified as such. Let's see how it qualifies according to the Investopedia article about Howey Test applied to cryptocurrencies: - Money is invested: Yes. There were UNI tokens given out for investments (see the table above). There were also some given out for "time and expertise" (which would not meet the criterion), but by far not all. - There is an expectation of profits: Yes, I think that cannot be denied. - There is a common enterprise: This is also a clear Yes. It's even more clear due to the governance mechanism. - Success relies on the efforts of others: This is the crucial point. Uniswap Labs may argue that their software platform only is auxiliary for the DEX, and that in reality the value comes from the users. But I think negating the influence of the software developer does not lead far. If Uniswap for example was the 1000st fork of another project (i.e. there was no development work at all) and had less features, it would not be as successful as it is now. They can also not say that the software project is independent because the team members have been allocated tokens directly. I think Uniswap could "save" their business model in some way, but they would have to cede control. For example, they could relaunch the UNI token without any premine, and then launch a second token which is a pure utility token, i.e. is bound completely to existing functions of the DEX or to services Uniswap Labs offers. They would however probably lose a lot of investors in this process. I have high expectations for DeFi summer in 2024 when new money will flow into the crypto market through DeFi projects in the LSD and LRD trend. I do not expect UniSwap and other DeFi protocols to face any problems and disrupt this uptrend. We still need an altseason and DeFi trend is an indispensable part of it!
My take on this is a bit different. I think the DeFi sector could learn from these cases and try other mechanisms than premined governance tokens which are almost guaranteed to be classified as securities, to make projects sustainable. I don't say they should all be donation based because that woud probably reduce the number of possible projects, but pure utility tokens could be a piece in the puzzle, as other models where the "investment" model and the "crypto" aspect is cleanly separated. In the Howey test, the 3rd and 4th points are often weak points that the SEC cannot use to accuse tokens of being securities. DAOs are not companies, and profits do not come solely from the efforts of UniSwap Labs. We are likely to see arguments about this in court if the SEC does use the Howey test in its lawsuit. DeFi protocols can learn and adapt, but this requires a revolution in the DeFi space. I am afraid that the majority of DeFi projects (DEXs, lending protocols, staking, restaking, stablecoins...) are not ready for this yet due to technological, governance, and financial limitations. In the event that UniSwap loses the case, I hope that it will be at the end of the uptrend 2025, we will have a legitimate reason for the crypto market to enter a crypto winter and DeFi projects will have time to update. P/s: I really admire your deep understanding. |
|
|
|
I haven't excluded gold from my investment portfolio so far, but bitcoin is the asset I most hope to accumulate. Gold has risen a few percent over the past year and I have also benefited from it, but of course gold does not provide higher returns than bitcoin despite its price volatility which is very risky.
Gold and bitcoin are great investment assets, however so far I have only really focused on bitcoin and would prefer to stop buying more gold for now. I will go back to buying gold once I convert my profits from bitcoin.
A perfect investment strategy: When investing, choose BTC because it can generate higher returns during an uptrend. When the crypto market enters a downtrend, converting assets to cash or Gold is the right decision as Gold is better suited for asset protection purposes. I believe that many investment funds are also moving towards this approach to maximize returns for their clients when they add BTC or spot BTC ETFs to their portfolios. They may also have recognized the allure of BTC's superior price performance compared to all other assets in the traditional financial market. |
|
|
|
This is the HODLing. Fed is a good Hodler. By the way, I have a good question, did Coinbase asked FED to upload KYC documents and prove the source of their funds? I think that Coinbase should seize those coins because those are coins collected on darknet, so, they should really seize it but since it's Fed and the government is involved, every kind of illegal money is okay for them to exchange and sell on people.
If anything, those coins should be burnt, not exchanged!
The FED does not hold BTC, but the US government does. They are not selling all of their BTC at once, but rather in smaller amounts to maximize the revenue for the federal budget. Coinbase is only freezing "dirty" BTC in accordance with legal requirements. When the US government wants to sell BTC, these BTC will be considered legal and their history may be "washed clean" to make buyers feel more secure when storing and moving them in the future. I do not hope that these BTC will be burned, they are beneficial to the US government and will make the US government want to support the development of the crypto market. |
|
|
|
The main reason why the exchange tokens tend to appreciate in value is because they are delfationary. Usually after a month or quarter there is a burn cycle, so they are burnt.
Is it a good investment? It has its risks.
Remember FTX? They had FTT which also was burnt from time to time depending on the amount of profit that was made from its trading fees, however since the exchange was a big scam, the token went to 0. So there is risks in investing in these. And besides BNB, the rest haven't been as profitable. So take caution with these tokens.
If given the choice, I would choose tokens supported by CEXs because they have some value to users: paying transaction fees, receiving discounts on CEXs. The BNB token has the most features in the market, as it is used as a transaction fee on the BNB chain and gives holders the opportunity to participate in many launchpools & launchpads on Binance. The OKB token has also increased in price significantly, I do not use OKX so I do not know much about its information and OKB utilities. On the other hand, TWT of TrustWallet and C98 of Coin98 do not have much value, they only play a role in the DAO or receive a few small benefits within the ecosystem of that wallet application. I use TrustWallet but I do not hold TWT tokens either, I do not think it has more potential than BNB tokens. |
|
|
|
I think it's really great that you still think of us and that we can continue to experience your support, respect
Thank derBowler for your efforts in supporting Ukraine and its people during this difficult time. I hope that the war will end soon and that Ukraine will be restored soon, that children can go back to school soon and that people can walk the streets without fear of being attacked by bombs. This war is also the first high-profile case in which everyone in the world can donate for humanitarian and reconstruction purposes in Ukraine. In 2017, there were many projects related to the humanitarian and charitable fields, but they all failed. In the end, it is BTC and ETH that are doing a very good job of this. That's what sets King and Queen apart from other projects in the crypto market. Prayers for Ukraine, glory to Ukraine and blessings to you! |
|
|
|
I don't think that would be the main reason why the Bitcoin price crashed, it might have contributed a little but not the main factor.
Not only cryptocurrency price was affected, look at the stock market, it was also the same on the crypto market.
But instead, think about it when there's an opportunity to buy during deep rather than thinking negatively.
The escalation of the war could have a negative impact on the stock and crypto markets as investors are unsure of what will happen, while the gold price continues to rise as it remains the preferred reserve asset for thousands of years. I believe that war is one of the reasons for the drop in BTC price. In addition to external factors, the internal cause of this price drop is the continuous price increase of BTC since the beginning of 2023. I believe that BTC price really needs to be re-accumulated and shift money to altcoins, otherwise we will soon have a new ATH and this cycle will end right in 2024 instead of lasting until 2025. A new ATH before the halving is something that investors are not ready for but it has happened, so the current slowdown and decline is really necessary for us to have a sustainable and strong uptrend in 2025. |
|
|
|
Ypu have no idea when bitcoin will "boom" just speculating. Usually it lags well behind the halvening so I don't expect anything to happen soon. Amd with the world events unfolding like they are I think we are in for a huge drop until it all settles down. A slow pace back up to these levels and then we might see alt season commence.
I am also anticipating a correction in the BTC price following the Halving, and for capital flow to gradually shift towards altcoins. Subsequently, as BTC establishes a new peak and consolidates around 100K USD, we will witness an impressive surge in various altcoins across the market, encompassing all trends such as DeFi, GameFi, NFT, MoveFi, Metaverse, and memecoins. At that time, altcoin/BTC pairs will experience rapid growth, and altcoins will generate better returns than BTC. I expect Altseason to unfold during Q4 2024-Q2 2025. At this time, when BTC is down 10%, many altcoins are down 25-30%. We are in Bitseason, so I don't dare to expect that Altseason will come soon. Altcoins need more time to recover, create new ATHs, and attract capital from BTC. |
|
|
|
I like Mexc exchange for liquidity and trading even it still doesn't required kyc verification for deposit and withdrawing fund. But mexc becoming shit exchange as it continuesly listing fake altcoins/scam altcoins daily for some money. I suggest, not to take part in these games. Cause i found most of the people lost their money who risk their fund in these games for become rich. And after a certain time, they delete their telegram Twitter and others social midea account and then again create new shitcoin for this games cause scammers knows, people will never stop investing on shitcoin for rich
I'm not sure if this is a bug or a feature in MEXC's business plan. Many tokens are listed easily, then they are also delisted quickly, they bring profits to some people and losses to many more. I don't use MEXC or small CEXs, I don't trust them and because there are many more reputable CEXs in the market for me to choose from. Many people like to invest in new coins with a market cap of less than 1M USD and hope that they will increase in price quickly in the short term. This is a normal desire, but we should only participate with a few dozen USD and be prepared to lose them if the market moves in a negative direction. Psychological preparation will not create discomfort when losing money due to shitcoins. |
|
|
|
Yes, I know. It's not unusual, but that's exactly the point: a large part of the DeFi and altcoin world consists of projects which are essentially centralized (I often have called these projects CeDeFi ). In the case of the UNI token it's however worse than the case of Ethereum, because the token seems to have also a governance function, so the decision making process has also a centralized component. For example, if someone wanted to fork the platform due to a disagreement over a policy or rule, even if the non-team members vote mayorily for this fork, the team could probably block it. Basically, this avoids a healthy open source ecosystem forming around the project, and instead favours that the founder team will be leading it forever, or at least as long as it's profitable for them. And even in the case of Ethereum there has been debate in the SEC if it should not be regarded as a security, and the debate seems to be still ongoing. This is also a possible reason that the Ethereum ETF projects could be rejected in May. Those in the US argumenting that Ethereum is not a security have mentioned that the distribution was already a long time ago so the current token distribution could be more decentralized. An interesting case to compare Uniswap is also Dash, which has a voting token too, and was classified as a security last year, even if it didn't have an explicit premine. In the European Union's " Markets in Crypto-Assets" (MiCa) ruling which will fully come into effect in late 2024, Ethereum would be classified as a crypto asset with identifiable issuer. This category has the obligation to present a whitepaper with the tokenomics and identify a responsible entity or person. Basically a financial business. Uniswap would also fall under this rule. Real "decentralized finance" platforms for me are those structured like UnstoppableSwaps, where you have a protocol completely independent from any "governance" tokens or structures, and you don't have a platform which takes a part of the transaction fees away. Such protocols would not be affected at all by the lawsuit. I think we will need to wait for the official lawsuit from the SEC and to know their point of view and arguments. I believe that many experts in the crypto community are ready to stand by UniSwap and we will know their views as soon as the lawsuit is underway. The governance and revenue-sharing features of the protocol could also lead to the token being accused of being a security, but I don't think UNI token meets the Howey Test, so it shouldn't be classified as a security. I have high expectations for DeFi summer in 2024 when new money will flow into the crypto market through DeFi projects in the LSD and LRD trend. I do not expect UniSwap and other DeFi protocols to face any problems and disrupt this uptrend. We still need an altseason and DeFi trend is an indispensable part of it! |
|
|
|
The reason why the SEC could win this lawsuit is actually very simple: Uniswap is not really decentralized.The UNI tokens were premined. So if they now talk about their platform being a "public good" this is nothing than window dressing. 60% have been allocated to the Uniswap community members.
15% of the community tokens allocated from the UNI token supply was claimed in the airdrop by liquidity providers and users.
21.266% have been allocated for team members and future employees, which would unlock over the course of next four years.
18.044% of the total UNI tokens have been entrusted to investors, with a 4-year unlocking schedule.
0.69% of the UNI token supply has been allocated to advisors with a 4-year vesting period.
The 15% which went to airdrops and liquidity providers are part of the 60%, so 45% are still not distributed (see here). I don't think it's unusual to allocate a portion of UNI tokens to Labs. This is done in most projects to sustain the project's development. After all, the Dev team can't just rely on community contributions like the BitCore team. For example, in the case of Ethereum: ETH has not been accused of being a security even though 16.68% of ETH was also allocated to the Dev team. The initial distribution of Ethereum (ETH) is as follows:
83.33% is allocated to Ethereum Crowdsale
16.68% is allocated to Ethereum Foundation, Early Contributors & OthersTherefore, I don't think UniSwap will be in trouble with the SEC if the SEC uses this reasoning. I still hold hope for the victory of UniSwap and the entire DeFi ecosystem.
|
|
|
|
The bitcoin white paper only contains the basic knowledge of bitcoin and the problem it solves. It never talked about bitcoin circle, because bitcoin was still new and nobody will be able to know what will happen to bitcoin in future. It is as time passes by that people started studying bitcoin movement, also with miners, that they came to realize that the miners reward is always divided into two in particular period of time. So as time passes by, the value of bitcoin increases and people will want to know why is it like that.
Satoshi never also mentioned anything about the bear market and the bull market. Bitcoin is very complex to understand it in just 2 years. So I don't see why you sound this way, when nobody knows what will happen tomorrow. It is people that studied bitcoin, together with miners that noticed the halving and saw the bitcoin price movement repeats history due to past records. I don't see anything like scam.
CW also used the Whitepaper to assert that Bitcoin has now lost its value, so he created Bitcoin Satoshi Vision (BSV). However, everything was cleared up after the emails between Satoshi and Sirius were released: Satoshi believed that BTC could be used in many different ways: a means of payment, message storage (inscription) ..., completely without any specific or limited vision for the potential of BTC. Halving and many other BTC issues are similar: just because they are not mentioned in the Whitepaper does not mean that they do not have the right to exist or are not part of Bitcoin's development roadmap. We should accept everything openly! Anyway, this topic is quite interesting to refer to and discuss  |
|
|
|
Yes altcoins can give you high profits than Bitcoin when they do very well and don't scam but the problem is that alot of altcoins are scamming their investors therefore it becomes difficult to identify which altcoins is real and not a scam. The altcoin that are very popular and listed on big exchange for their IEO won't give you a big profit unless you have large amounts of investment money to put in buying the coins from the day they launched but alot of investors don't have that kind of amount.
Therefore they buy unpopular coins with little money and they hope for them to become popular and give them profit but alot of them fail and others scam therefore investing in altcoins to make money become difficult for many but regardless of all this, altcoins are every important in the market as they help in doing things Bitcoin can't do. They help to give us bigger profit that it'll be hard to get from investing in Bitcoin.
High profitability is just one aspect of the value of Altcoins. I believe Altcoins are truly important in the crypto market because they come with technologies with (high speed, low cost, smart contracts) to meet user needs or promote on social media (memecoins). Most importantly, Altcoins help make the crypto market more vibrant, give investors more choices, and allow money to flow between BTC and Altcoins to create stronger growth and longer uptrends. After the advent of Altcoins, the market has seen many narratives such as Layer 1-2-3, DeFi, GameFi, SocialFi, NFT, Metaverse, RWA, DePIN... these are things that BTC cannot create on its own. Crypto is just one side of the coin, the other side is blockchain technology, and I believe that new potential projects that are launched will actually be widely adopted in the future to bring more value to society. |
|
|
|
There was also the fact that bitcoin didn't have a price back then and was purely experimental.
It's fascinating to look back in time and realize what we missed out on. In 2009, many of us were probably aware of BTC's existence but would rather use our PCs to play games than mine a few worthless BTC at the time. Back in 2009, those who believed in BTC's future might have only included Satoshi and a few devs with a very clear vision for the post-crisis economy. I hope that the story of a miner who mined BTC in 2009 and became a millionaire in 2025 when 1BTC = 150K USD will soon be shared and adapted into a movie. It would be a must-watch movie as BTC sets its ATH for the season. |
|
|
|
Certainly, what you have summarized about the impressive performance of Solana and its growing popularity during the last six months is completely true, however I think that Solana has a long way to go before it can challenge Ethereum's established position. Ethereum is an extensive ecosystem and its status as a leading cryptocurrency, second only to Bitcoin with billions of dollars invested, present a formidable challenge to any competitor. Only time will tell how Solana continues to evolve and whether it reaches new heights in future.
I do not expect Solana to be able to compete with or replace Ethereum in the cryptocurrency market in terms of community or market capitalization, that is impossible at this time. I am only waiting for an announcement from the Solana team about improving the quality and stability of Solana so that users are no longer bothered by Outages, SOL investors no longer worry about technical problems with POH on Solana. I really dare not put too much expectation on the future of a blockchain that often stops working. |
|
|
|
The SEC, known for its cautious approach to crypto, is aiming to increase regulations within the crypto market. They've previously targeted centralized entities like Coinbase, Binance, Kraken, and Ripple with lawsuits. Now, their sights seem set on Uniswap, the leading DEX [1]. A lawsuit against Uniswap seems imminent, and the chance of a successful negotiation appears slim. Uniswap Labs, the developers behind the protocol, have already declared their intent to fight the SEC in court. The SEC's lawsuit against Uniswap Labs faces hurdles due to Uniswap's decentralized nature. Uniswap Labs developed the Uniswap protocol, but it operates without a central authority. This makes it difficult for the SEC to pinpoint a specific entity to hold accountable in court. Uniswap functions primarily as a platform that facilitates trades between liquidity providers and users. It doesn't hold user assets or offer investment contracts, which are areas typically targeted by securities regulations. Since its launch in late 2018, Uniswap has operated without facing legal issues. However, a recent tokenomics update proposing to share Uniswap's revenue with UNI stakers [2] raises concerns about the SEC potentially classifying UNI as a security under the Howey Test [3]. While the legal outcome is uncertain, this update introduces a potential regulatory hurdle. The SEC's lawsuit against Uniswap, the leading DEX, has major implications for the entire DeFi ecosystem. Because many DeFi protocols share similar features with Uniswap, a win for the SEC could set a precedent for them to regulate the entire DeFi space. This outcome would significantly impact the future of the crypto market, as DeFi plays a central role in its growth. On the other hand, a win for Uniswap could limit the SEC's reach in the crypto industry. This could pave the way for the continued development of DeFi and other innovative crypto projects. While I believe Uniswap has a strong case against the SEC, their financial resources are a concern. Ripple's ongoing legal battle highlights the potential cost – hundreds of millions over several years. Uniswap Labs' estimated annual revenue of 17.2M USD [4] raises questions about their ability to sustain a similar fight. In a worst-case scenario, it would be crucial for Uniswap to receive financial backing from the Ethereum Foundation, major crypto players, and the community. I would like to know your opinion on this issue: - Is UNI token a security after the tokenomics update?
- Can UniSwap Labs win this lawsuit?
- Will the outcome of the lawsuit have a positive or negative impact on DeFi and the crypto market?
References:[1] The SEC’s Suit Against Uniswap Is an Opening Attack Against DeFi[2] Uniswap's UNI Gains 20% as Token Reward Proposal Inches Closer to Approval[3] Does Crypto Pass the Howey Test?[4] 2023’s top 5 DeFi protocols by revenue |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
