After the blockchain-based Crypto Petro Dollar, the Venezuelan government probably has a new idea to get foreign currency into the country. It wants to set up and build up a central bank for cryptocurrencies. Another crazy idea or does the idea have potential? For more details read this article on CCN. Is it any different to the group (whatever the group name is called, I don't know) that is currently controlling the Petro at the moment? According the the article, it just seems like that this central bank is simply going to be another version of the organization currently managing the country's national cryptocurrency, as the proposed central bank's main focus is obviously to try to market and regulate Petro. This really has no "potential" to speak of. It's not a decentralized cryptocurrency, nor is it global, nor is it supported by any other government around the world. I honestly don't see anything remotely intriguing here, other than the fact that it's designed to help the Venezuelan government bypass sanctions and promote capital inflow. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin since touched $5800-6000 area has not really clear to many if we are in bull market or it just a mere run to make noobs or newbies FOMO, and looking at it TA which shows it has not been on same lane even with FA but many says it's manipulation and crossing $5800 area below has been a major support but many think it should break it, so am wondering if we are getting close to bull market or we are just in swing market for now.
First of all, a bull run and bull trap isn't really mutually exclusive. Usually, a bull trap is opposed to a legitimate recovery, leading to a bull market. If we go by these definitions, then I definitely don't see this rally going beyond $8-9k, because of the resistance that was seen through the last few attempts at breaking out. Referring back to the 2014 bear market, we can also see that it took the market around one and a half years before it was actually nearing recovery, a timeframe which I think is going to be approximately the same for the recovery this time as well. The bearishness within the market is very unlikely to be reversed just by this small pump with no real apparent reason behind it. IMHO, we'll see further dips and corrections throughout the rest of the year, before we see any major recovery within the markets. |
|
|
|
I'm not sure about that team member. It's most likely a match but we can't say for certain, as they are not identical photographs. However, what I found was that in the team, there is a person named "Boris Gorohov". He has a linkedin account which links to a completely unrelated person, whose name is Mikhail Bondarenko: https://www.linkedin.com/in/mikhail-bondarenko-2b987790/Again, not completely solid, or rather, failproof evidence that they are a scam, but these two shady instances warrant a good warning before anyone invests in them. The site just looks very unprofessional overall, and resemblent of previously exposed ICOs. |
|
|
|
|
I doubt that cryptocurrencies themselves are able to actually "eliminate" fossil fuels themselves.
I don't really see how cryptocurrencies are able to decentralize the production of power by themselves, at least at this stage? Perhaps I just don't understand your argument fully, but it is definitely hard to see how state owned electricity generation would be able to be replaced by local, crypto issuing entities in a short period of time at least.
Please explain further what you mean, if possible. Perhaps bitcoin mining in the long run could incentivize the use of cheaper, hydro generated energy to facilitate that, but even that seems unlikely at this moment.
|
|
|
|
We knows that the crypto currency investment can give us lot of profits even in short time but this is very new there are lot of invesments like real estate,gold,mutual funds silent partner in businesses and lot more but what you think which has highest ROI in short term other than crypto invesments.
My opinion is that real estate can be that one,since my grandfather used to be like buying and selling the lands and made tons of money in his life time but I didn't do that such kind of traditional invetment.
Real estate is extremely dangerous in my opinion to invest in at the moment, especially if you're living in a country that has inflated house prices at the moment with super low interest rates that keep the rise going. It's definitely way too risky for my liking, at least. It's no good just looking at the ROI, because you should also look at the risk put into it as well. For example, even though taking out loans to finance real estate investments or even crypto investments could end up working extremely well in your favor, or it could go terribly wrong. But if you're looking for opinions on investments which are best from a purely potential returns perspective, then I'd say that 1) Cryptocurrencies, especially in this bear market, 2) Startups and stocks and 3) real estate. Again, not taking into account risk. |
|
|
|
As some of you may already know about it, that SEC finally rejected the ETF that was proposed by Proshare Capital Management LLC. The rejected came in today and SEC released the official document confirming the same. SEC document Link: https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro/nysearca/2018/34-83904.pdfNow my point is that, it is actually good for the market. The market was living on a false hope and SEC finally pulled the plug out. No more false hope will certainly help to recover the market. Newbies were excited about the news of ETF without knowing the fact. Let me point out a few for noobs. 1. The proposed ETF was meant for institiutional investors and not for common people like us. 2. The underlying asset for the proposed ETF was CME future contracts. No physical bitcoins were proposed to be purchased resulting zero impact. 3. SEC used your excitement to control the market price of bitcoin to some extent. With every delay announcement, market took a dip because you guys thought this ETF will be a great addition to the market. Wrong! Now the ETF has been rejected by SEC, please don't let your emotion to ruin the market. The less numbers of regulated products around crypto, the better! The decision will help the market survive without intervention of SEC. So rejoice and cheer! I wouldn't say that it's "great news". But it's certainly not as bad as some people think. If the SEC approves the ETF, great. But it's not going to benefit any of the average bitcoin users which bitcoin is actually designed to serve, but rather they are aimed at institutional investors and speculators in general, as you mentioned. So even if it does get approved, there are no real tangible benefits. Secondly, people think that this is a stance that the SEC is taking on bitcoin itself. It's far from that. They're making an evaluation on the fund, whether it can be offered to investors, not bitcoin itself. Overall, I'm glad to see that people are starting to realize how irrelevant ETF approval really is to the market. But if it does get approved, we really can't do anything about it, nor is it going to affect people much at all. |
|
|
|
-snip-
Great job, OP. And thanks for setting out the accusation in a clear format. With the CEO being a fake profile, I think that it is safe to call this site as scam regardless of whether or not the rest of the team is fake (which probably is). There is really no point in wasting energy in trying to uncover the rest of the team when it's already guaranteed to be a fraud. The idea is really sketchy anyways, with such high promises from a team that has never been heard before. Another alarm that should have went off. Bounty was closed today, which is a good job on the part of the manager. In future, probably do some more research before accepting gigs like this. |
|
|
|
I like the blogs published by Bitmex. One of the awesome sources to gather knowledge around cryptocurrency. In this blog they discuss problem and benefits of deflationary economics. https://blog.bitmex.com/bitcoin-economics-part-3/To quote from this: However, even if Bitcoin has solved this economic problem, perhaps it’s naive to think Bitcoin would result in a more prosperous economic system. Bitcoin is a new and unique system, which is likely to cause more economic problems, perhaps unexpected or new ones. After all there is no perfect money. It just may not be correct to apply the traditional economic problems of the past, to this new type of money. Although it may be more difficult, identifying Bitcoin’s potential economic problems may require more analysis and a stronger understanding of the underlying technology. I agree that it's a new kind of monetary system and it would have it's own problem when it becomes well adapted. but economically speaking do we need this system adding to the complexity already existing financial system. If bitcoin was to just be an alternative currency in the future to existing world fiat currencies, then there is really no problem with it being deflationary whatsoever, or having a stagnant currency supply for that matter. Prices would theoretically simply continue rising, as bitcoin would represent essentially approximately the same underlying real value, but with fiat depreciation, would increase in nominal value. This has nothing wrong, in my opinion. If bitcoin was to become the single dominant global currency, then it's probably a different story. We don't know what's going to happen, since there simply has been no precedents before with a controlled disinflationary currency. However, what we do have is the advantage of such currency, as it's not based on debt, and has a stable supply - meaning that depreciation would not occur like it does on fiat currencies. |
|
|
|
|
Keep in mind that this Phoenix that is suggested is merely an example. It has no relation to the similarly named cryptocurrency whatsoever, and may not even be in existence at the moment.
Even though a global currency is already possible with bitcoin and other cryptos, this is proposing a global currency controlled by a central entity - which is completely different to what bitcoin is.
At the moment it would still remain to be quite far fetched as there is no agreed world central bank or government with enforceability. Could happen in the future, and if it does happen, it would essentially mean that one organization is controlling the entire monetary policy of the whole world, which may not necessarily be that good of a thing.
|
|
|
|
|
Inspection is probably just an excuse/cover story for this unconfirmed "crackdown".
The company even states that they are completely compliant, so it's likely that the government isn't targeting the individual business for any wrongdoing, but rather the entire crypto space within Russia, which is definitely worrying.
It could even be a warning for other potential bitcoin ATM operators. While I don't know what the reason is, I could only speculate that they are trying to stop capital flight happening through bitcoin as much as possible through attempting to doing this, since the ATMs themselves even require ID and are not anonymous.
|
|
|
|
If bitcoin holds its value around $7,150, cryptocurrency trader Michael Moro says, it could be on its way back to $10,000. “If the [$7,000] level holds, say for the next week, two weeks, the bulls will 100 percent be back. They will be more comfortable that the lows for the year are in, and that we are more likely to see $10,000, rather than $5,000,” Moro said Wednesday on CNBC’s “Fast Money.” The Securities and Exchange Commission rejected nine applications to create a bitcoin exchange-traded fund last week, due to worries about bitcoin price manipulation, Business Insider reported. Similar news has in the past sent bitcoin tumbling, but this time, the price rallied. “Once the news broke about the SEC rejection and the price actually held, we did not see the 5, 10, 15 percent sell-off that you’ve seen in previous rejections. So I think the bears have realized they’ve run out of steam,” said Moro, CEO of cryptocurrency trading firm Genesis Trading and of Genesis Capital. To get back up to that $10,000 price, bitcoin is going to need slow and steady growth in price and trading volume, rather than violent 5 percent and 10 percent jumps, he said. “I believe the market now understands that the SEC’s ETF approval isn’t any time soon. So I think that the market sentiment regarding the product and the approval process is now far more muted, which I think is a healthier outlook for the next 12 months,” he added. Moro said if bitcoin holds just above its current level, bulls will jump back in. “I think the key level is $7,150, to be more exact, but if we can hold that next week, I do think we will see a sentiment turnaround in the market,” Moro said. Bitcoin was trading around $7,050 Wednesday evening, according to Coindesk. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/29/crypto-trader-the-bulls-will-be-back-if-bitcoin-holds-above-7000.htmlI still doubt this. Not every "expert" opinion is valid, and some of them merely say things for their own benefit (not saying that this person is doing so, so don't get me wrong), or to get more media coverage with bullish news in a bearish market. Anyways, I think that it's extremely unlikely to see a trend reversal happening to all of a sudden see bullish activity coming out in a period of such bearishness. The bear market doesn't seem to be ending and this pump at the moment should only be temporary. The $10k resistance which is much stronger than the author suggests it to be is likely not to be broken at this stage either. Just because bitcoin holds it current level, doesn't mean that the support is necessarily there yet. We don't even know if $6k is going to continue to hold as support. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin has been on a constant decline in value ever since 2018 started. Most say it has been a result of government regulations, others say that whales are manipulating the market, and some say that it's the result of FUD within the cryptocurrency markets. However, given that Bitcoin was designed to be scarce or limited in supply, it could become much more valuable in the future. Nevertheless, do you think Bitcoin will hit a trillion-dollar marketcap in the future? How far do you think this is from becoming a reality? I would like to know your thoughts about this.  If given no time constraints, it will happen without a doubt some time in the future. Whether this be a few years or perhaps even a few decades though, no one knows. It's really just a matter of time, to be honest. The logic behind this is simple. Growing adoption + depreciation of fiat will lead to prices continually going up in the long run without fail. There may not even be many bullish events that lead to a trillion dollar market cap. Though, if such high prices are reflective of the fact that fiat has inflated beyond imagination, the "real" value (as opposed to nominal) of each bitcoin may not necessarily change or appreciate as much as its nominal value. |
|
|
|
It's an obvious ponzi. Registering in the UK companies house can be easily done and this has been done thousands of times on other HYIP programs as well. The entire site is laid out in a way that would scream scam, as they offer "plans", which is the telltale sign of a ponzi. No legitimate business would ever offer you tiered investment plans guaranteeing profit like this. Don't work for them, as you may associate your reputation with a scammer and thus ruin it. On a side note, this person seems to be either the owner of this site, or a promoter of this site: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=460144;sa=showPosts. Their ANN thread is still under construction as of right now, it seems. |
|
|
|
The thing is that these central banks can only assert control over cryptocurrencies that they issue themselves, and they must be centralized. They can't just all of a sudden assert direct control over bitcoin, for example, which seems like what the article is making it sound like. India creating a central bank for crypto simply would mean that they are looking into creating some centralized digital tokens on a blockchain, or perhaps a special branch of operations of the central bank to deal with crypto policies. There's nothing more to it than that. It's no different to the Petro, or any other "state owned" cryptocurrency, which is not necessarily something that positive. |
|
|
|
|
First off, the fact that they would ring you around the clock to advertise their site pretty much guarantees that they are shady, if not a complete scam. No legitimate business would do this. The manner which they obtained your friend's contact details is probably questionable as well.
Fxempire seems to obviously be shilling for FSMsmart from what I can gather. The trading site most likely paid a sum of money to get their site on the Fxempire site with nice ratings.
What I can tell at the moment is that FSMsmart has ambiguous legality, it's not clearly regulated by any entity, it's operating with not a lot of transparency, and most of all, is advertising their site through unethical means. That alone tells me that one should never even try to trade on that platform, as there would be a high likelihood of them going scam sooner or later.
|
|
|
|
|
Seems like an interesting idea.
No doubt though, the control over this cryptocurrency, if it was ever practically issued, will remain in the hands of the local authorities. it's probably not going to be a completely decentralized cryptocurrency in the traditional sense.
There's also going to be issues with getting people to adopt such centralized cryptocurrency, and the investment in education and developing this may be huge. If it does go well, however, I think that it could definitely serve as a replacement for these local gift certificates, and are just a whole lot more convenient and can potentially connect the local economy to the world as well. Just demonstrates the power of cryptocurrencies, I guess.
|
|
|
|
From what I have seen so far in this forum and other crypto platforms, most of us want fiat eliminated. But let us not forget that there are still situations whereby we can't use crypto except fiat like in rural places without computers or even internet facilities.
I don't think that it's up to us whether fiat will ever be replaced completely by bitcoin or not. I think that it's rather unlikely that it will ever happen, considering that as long as the government is functional, there will most likely be a fiat currency which is used within the jurisdiction of them. What you raise is an interesting point. However, the fact is that even in rural areas now, internet connections are abundant. And don't forget the fact that bitcoin can be accessed using just a phone with no internet access in the most extreme cases as well, there are various services that do this. I think that the major issue that these rural population face is not really not having an internet connection at all. They are underbanked, or unbanked, due to their physical distances from banks. Bitcoin can really be of help here, in fact, by offering a way for them to save and transact with the rest of the world. |
|
|
|
We all know, there are 2 types of cryptocurrency
1st: centralized
2nd: decentralized
The difference between them, centralized cryptocurrency is controlled by a government or a company. It has value only in the specific area under company or government boundaries.
Decentralized cryptocurrency has no connection with any state, government
But, the government of some countries are against Bitcoin and some are ready to adopt Bitcoin. So what would effect on Bitcoin if any government approved Bitcoin as a legal tender?
There is virtually no point in adopting centralized cryptocurrencies at least in my opinion, simply because of the fact that it's essentially the same as fiat currency - it's not backed by anything, its supply can be debased, and it's just totally controlled by a single entity. Decentralized cryptos like bitcoin are going to be the trend in the future. These are the real store of values when it comes to an economic crisis because of the fact that they are not controlled by anyone and can't be abused. Your last question didn't make much sense. I'll still try answering it, though. There is going to be no effect on bitcoin itself if it ever becomes legal tender in a particular country, but it will have an effect on those who live in that particular jurisdiction, as the legal definitions of bitcoin may change. |
|
|
|
|
The idea is definitely intriguing. Probably the crypto lending first site to have fiat loans.
However, what would be the difference between your site, and simply posting a loan request in the lending section with some crypto as collateral and getting an escrow to hold the collateral for the timeframe of the loan? What exact advantages do you guys have over that method of obtaining a loan?
Furthermore, since you're dealing with fiat currency loans, how will you ensure that your bank accounts will remain functional and don't get frozen (huge concern since you're dealing with crypto as well as fiat). Personally, I feel like fiat pegged loans, in BTC, would make a lot more sense.
|
|
|
|
|
The thing is that I think he's trying to suggest that the google search trends are the indicator responsible for price movements.
What happens is that the price influences people's interest in bitcoin. With bearish sentiments like we're seeing right now in terms of prices moving down, it's no surprise that mainstream search interest in bitcoin is going down. It's not because of the search index going down that bitcoin prices are going down, it's the opposite way around.
Even though I think that this bear market has got some more to go, his economic reasoning here is flawed. Essentially he's trying to suggest that bitcoin has not reached its bottom because search interest is lower than the price index; but the search indicators are influenced by price in the first place.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
