Proper management means a lot of thimgs and by saying that I mean the ability of ops not to panic at whatever market situation
Fair enough. I thought you meant investing that btc with 3rd parties to earn yield etc. Which is not necessarily a good idea. -0.1BTC may not be enough for someone to have a good financial life in any part of the world with the current global I inflation rate, but then if the price and amount accumulated to $24k you mentioned and ops is smart enough with that amount he can build a good and sustainable life but it requires a lot of hard and diversification's for that to be achieved.
Sure, but my point still stands. That hypothetical $24k is not enough to retire (if that's what OP meant). He would have to use that money to kick off some other project that either provides him a regular income or to multiply that into a more significant amount. |
|
|
|
There is logic in what you say, especially if interest rates on time deposits in banks are between 0.5 and 1%, so that 3% (or even a little more) does not look so bad. However, when you look at the minimum investment which is 500 EUR, and after 2 years you will get about 530 EUR + if you need the money before the bond's maturity, there is a high probability that you will get less money than you invested.
Depends on the terms of an early redemption I guess. Many bonds would allow you to do that but you'd either lose accrued interest or have to pay some sort of fee that would reduce the interest you earned, but you would unlikely end up losing money (in nominal terms) unless you decide to redeem in the first few months. It is far from the fact that I will advise someone what to do with their money, but I know that I would rather invest in something else that can very likely bring me a profit of at least x2 or x5 in the same period, regardless of the risk that always exists.
Out of curiosity, can you name a few of such? I don't think pointing investments "likely" to yield 6%-15%/year is as easy as it seems at first. If you have a family or other financial responsibilities, or if you just like to 'play it safe' with your finance - you probably won't go 100% on those investments anyway, as the risk is just too high. Again, we are in quite an unprecedented period, where anything could happen (markets wise). People are jumping on those bonds (or other forms of sub-inflation rate deposits) as simply there are no better, safe options. Even seasoned investors like to sit on some cash during market downtrends or recession, waiting for good buying opportunities, and if you could park that cash somewhere that yields an interest (provided you have quick access to it) - that's even better. |
|
|
|
To a lot of people, 0.1 Bitcoin may be a lot of money and is enough investment amount and if properly managed it can amount to something substantial in the future because no one can tell the direction Bitcoin price is heading in the future.
-Take if you hold that amount of Bitcoin and in the next few years, bitcoin reaches $200,000 which is alot of accumulated profits for Bitcoin.
-When it comes to investing in bitcoin, it should be on a long-term basis, and the amount of accumulation in dollars cost does not matter, and what matters are the future price and the timeframe you can hold before considering selling.
What do you mean by "properly managed"? Investment in BTC is not supposed to be managed, just keep the custody and keep your keys secure. And true to be told, even know anything is possible, it's very unlikely that BTC0.1 will be "enough". OP didn't bother to properly explain what he meant by this, but if we assume that "enough" means achieving financial independence (i.e. being able to retire early), then we have to consider that BTC cannot sustain its past levels of growth (quite obviously). Even if it goes x10 (meaning it would roughly match the current global market cap of gold), the OP's investment would be worth ~$24k. Not enough to retire even in the poorest of the 3rd world countries. |
|
|
|
Should the value of backed stablecoins count as value of cryptocurrency or as value of US dollar? Or as no value at all? Because we just take billions of US dollars out of circulation in their cash/bank form and put them into crypto form. But no new wealth was created, unlike with Bitcoin. That's over 20% of crypto market cap we are talking about.
That's a good question. In my personal opinion, stablecoins that are meant to be 100% backed by cash/treasury deposits should not be included in the total crypto market cap, as they're essentially just a token representation of fiat currency. I would make an exception for projects like dai, which is designed to keep its value at par with USD but is not necessarily backed by it. By the same logic, WBTC (Wraped Bitcoin) also shouldn't be counted. The same goes for any other "wraps" that are just representations of other coins on different chains. I wouldn't mind if CMC/CoinGecko or others worked out an "adjusted" market cap to weed out any fiat, wraps, or derivatives. Here, as an example, I will state that for the first time in history, my country is issuing state bonds, the purchase of which ordinary citizens will be able to participate, and the interest rate is about 3% with a maturity of 2 years. I don't have to tell you that the interest is significant and that it might not be enough for everyone, but to people it seems like a smart investment.
In uncertain times, when the global recession is expected, 3% on cash, even if below the inflation rate, is still a sensible choice for someone who does not want to take high investment risk. |
|
|
|
I don't expect the SEC to have much impact on Binance. Binance could easily move to the right jurisdiction and issue a new stablecoin with ratio 1:1 to busd. Or take other steps. there are games just behind the scenes right now
Binance already operates in multiple jurisdictions, so it's not like they would have to move. But potentially losing access to the entire US crypto market would be a huge blow. Regarding BUSD, I think they'd have to ditch Paxos and find a new issuer. As things are now, Paxos could still operate with already issued BUSD tokens, but not being able to issue any new ones, means stifling the growth of that market for Binance. And I don't imagine it would be practical to have two different issuers/operators of the same token. But, at the end of the day, they could also just ditch BUSD altogether and replace it with some other existing stablecoin that SEC/NYDFS don't (yet) have a problem with. |
|
|
|
Very interesting veritasium vid. It sheds light on how our brains are built with pessimism.
I wouldn't call that a pessimism, but rather an evolutionary trait that tells us to stay away from things we don't understand if they can cause us some kind of harm. If any of the people in that video had a good grasp of odds and EV, they would take the opportunity in a blink of an eye. And they (or most of them) did eventually, when it was explained to them in detail. |
|
|
|
That's the problem, you can't have the cake and eat it at the same time, it will either become more and more a store of value and by this becoming less interesting as an investment or continue growing while not so much of a transaction and storing of wealth thing and more like speculation.
You seem to be assuming here that "store of value" and "investments" are somehow mutually exclusive. They're not. It's estimated that about half of the demand for gold comes from investments (I think it's more as a lot of "jewellery" demand would also overlap into this category). That's x7.6 more than entire crypto market. Big money don't tend to be chasing risky >x100 opportunities, and greedy kids throwing their lunch money into get-rich-quick projects will not take crypto market into the next level. So it's not about having a cake and eating it, but just shifting from one type of investment into other, which will have to happen eventually if bitcoin carries on. And there's nothing wrong about that. (...) If Bitcoin proves reliable in appreciating in value, why exchange it for depreciating fiat if you don't have to?
(...)so if you're in your 30s and you want to start a family would sell now for a profit to buy a home or spend the next decade living with your parents and planning to have kids when you're in your 80s when you're a millionaire? Some look at it and see 200x profits already, and they ask themselves, should I wait for another 5 years to double the money or should I simply stop worrying now while I don't have to spend money on blue pills to have fun? Yeah, that's why I said "if" and "if you don't have to". If you're at the stage of your life that you need to cash out, than you will cash out. But what's next? You will carry on working and accumulating wealth that has to be stored somewhere. If you look at the wealth distribution, people's investments grow as they age (no surprise here), so why would they switch from holding an investment that appreciates in value (be it BTC or anything else) to depreciating cash? Thinking that cashing everything out is somehow a way to stop worrying and the only way to "have fun" is flawed. Cash is just as investment as anything else. Again, it's possible, I would never write it off as that would just be stupid, but it's not as simple as it you make it look.
I'm not saying it'll be easy for Bitcoin at all. I'm just pointing out that there are still opportunities and rationale for further growth. But anything is possible, it could get replaced by Dogecoin for what we know  |
|
|
|
The rewards from the freeroll will adjust automatically to the movement of the Bitcoin price when it goes up or down, but if the bitcoin price reaches $ 500k then the lowest value that will be obtained from the freeroll is still 1 Satoshi because that is the lowest value in Bitcoin units, or they can also change fractions Bitcoins to µBTC.
That's not really a problem. The smallest part of bitcoin is (currently) 1 satoshi, but freebitco.in can easily introduce sub-satoshi units just by increasing decimal places. It'd be just a minor adjustment. It's not like transactions are done on-chain or anything. Changing display to µBTC won't make any difference though, other than the psychological effect. |
|
|
|
All that talk about risk aversion and not taking risks in life reminded me of the video I watched years ago. I managed to dig it up. It nicely shows how human psychology and basic instincts can make us turn down even great opportunities. Here's the link (put it in the OP as well):  |
|
|
|
Więc może brak odgórnych przepisów? Brak norm postępowania, których przestrzeganie miałoby być weryfikowane?
Swoją drogą to jak oceniacie prawdopodobieństwo upadku BUSD (spadek poniżej 1$) w wyniku niewypłacalności PAXOS i braku poczucia odpowiedzialności przez Binance i nie zrobienie bailouta w razie konieczności?
Bo z technicznego punktu widzenia PAXOS i Binance pilnują by kurs nie spadł poniżej 1$. Nikt natomiast nie broni BUSD przed pompą do 2$, bo nie da się generować nowych jednostek ... busd jest trzymany sztywno tylko w 1 stronę.
Spadek poniżej 1 USD raczej nie wchodzi w grę (no chyba ze minimalny np na >$0,99). Choć zawsze może wystąpić krótkotrwała, nieracjonalna panika. O ile dobrze rozumiem całą sytuację, to NYDFS nakazało Paxos zaprzestania emisji nowych tokenów BUSD od 21 lutego. To w żadnym wypadku nie oznacza że Paxos przestanie być wypłacalny. Jeżeli, jak twierdzą, BUSD ma 100% pokrycie w gotówce i obligacjach to decyzja NYDFS nie powinna mieć żadnego wpływu na cenę. Oczywiście Bianance będzie musiał albo: - zastąpić Paxosa innym emitentem (albo emitować BUSD samemu) - znależć dodatkowego emitenta, zostawiając Paxosowi obsługę już istniejących BUSD, jeśli NYDFS nie również tego nie zakaże. Ale to mogłoby być mocno skomplikowane. - zastąpić BUSD innym stablecoinem. Upadek BUSD jest prawdopodobly ale nie tyle w sensie krachu wartości, ale po prostu zwinięcia tego projektu i wypłaceniu użytkownikom równowartości w fiatach albo innych stablecoinach. |
|
|
|
Albo zbyt mało wiedzy jak to zrobić skutecznie. Brak odpowiednich, opracowanych wcześniej i sprawdzonych schematów działania.
Możliwe, ale raczej nie. Duże firmy nie miałyby raczej problemu w szybkim stworzeniu i zrekrutowaniu dedykowanego działu ekspertów, czy skorzystaniu z usług zewnętrznych ekspertów. Zgadzam się, ale chyba schemat działania jest podobny. konflikt interesów wynikający z faktu, że podmiot twojej "obiektywnej" oceny jest jednocześnie twoim klientem a "klient ma zawsze rację".
Na pierwszy rzut oka tak, ale różnica jest spora. Zdaje się że agencje ratingowe w okresie "big shorta" jeżeli wogóle były regulowane, to w minimalnym stopniu. Chyba dopiero po tym wszystkim zaczęto im nieco dokręcać śrubę (ale tu mogę się mylić). Audyty finansowe są prawnie wymagane, co wiąże się z bardzo dużymi regulacjami i przepisami zmniejszającymi konflikt interesów (np nakaz zmiany autytora co kilka lat itp). W razie dużej wpadki mogliby stracić licencję. Do tego dochodzi ryzyko reputacyjne, co pokazał np. przykład Enrona - kiedy afera wyszła na jaw, cała wielka firma audytorska (Andersen) praktycznie się rozsypała włacznie z jej zagranicznymi oddziałami, które z Enronem nie miały nic wspólnego. |
|
|
|
They also use other tactics to divide the people and create a setting where communities will fight against each other to make it much harder to see the real enemy. A divided community is easier to manipulate because they only think that their enemy is from the opposite side of the argument, however, the real enemy is the one creating the division.
I think the problem is deeper than "them" creating divisions. That would suggest that if "they" (however you define them) stopped doing that, everything would be fine. What we witnessed in recent decades is a massive erosion of what used to be common values that kept societies and communities together. To not be divided means to be united, and for that, you need to unite around something. If people can't agree on basic values or agree on any principles and on what's right or wrong - you're ending up with a low-trust society where everyone cares mostly about themselves. Such a society is very easy to control. |
|
|
|
Maybe it's just a 'me problem'. I don't know why, but my mind works like this. Even if the prize is high and the price is to pay is low, I won't risk it. It's totally my opinion, so people can have different opinion on this. But for me, it is what it is. Can't help it. I guess it is a default thing for me  I do understand where you're coming from. It's a safe approach in a way. But, as they say, by not taking any risks in life, you're unlikely to ever go bankrupt but you're also unlikely to ever get rich. So it's probably good to have some sort of decision-making approach that is based more on a cold calculation than feelings. This topic discusses a dye roll, but it's just a simple example that can be transferred into other areas of life (i.e. whether or not to take a particular business opportunity etc.). |
|
|
|
However, it's really had some lasting effects on the forum, which even today we're still cleaning up. I'm determined to get to the bottom of it though. Definitely, showing signs of catching up, even if it's only the start. To be fair, most of the users spamming during this period have already been banned, but their posts still remain so it's just doing a little of the after cleaning.
Yeah, I can imagine that easily over a half of that 15.6 million posts in 2018 was pure garbage made just for the sake of "bounty campaigns". That's what you get when you combine ability to run ICO campaigns at virtually zero costs (paid in self issued tokens of no value) and hundreds of thousands of people from poor countries chasing "easy money". The real damage was all the valuable members that had left and never came back as the forum was unbearable at times. |
|
|
|
Nah, I will still do the same. If the price is too low to pay in order to gain that much profit, in my mind it's obviously a scam. I don't know what you think about this, but for me this is what comes to my mind. So no. I won't take the bet. And it's not based on any current situation or decision-making flaw. If you take this opportunity, then you are just greedy and making decisions based on your emotions.
You're going to assume scam even in the purely hypothetical scenario?? So if the winnings are EV+ but are too small - you're not going to take it because it's not worth it, but if there are too high - it must be a scam. Fine, not judging. Is there any optimal stake/chance/winnings ratio of a one-time opportunity, or do would you reject anything by default? |
|
|
|
Is 19.3 trillion doable? If history is about to repeat itself (dollar will lose >97% of purchasing power in 100 years) than after 100 years we will hit this number and bitcoin wont even pump. It will only remain current purchasing power (~30 000$).
If Bitcoin was to achieve a price of $1 million per coin, the market cap would be $19.3 trillion. Doable?
Inflation-adjusted $1 million or $1 million no matter what that 1 million would buy? Obviously, we're talking about the actual value that $1mil has today. Assuming things will stay roughly the same, $1m in nominal value is just a matter of time. The problem is where are all those money going to come from since a lot will either sell for $ or for goods and other assets so you simply have to insert a matching number value back into the system just to keep the price, and if we look short term, so that's two halvings you would still need to cover up $250 million in newly issued coins each day only to keep the balance.
Few things to consider: 1 - wealth (including bitcoin) tends to get concentrated in the hands of a few, rather than getting equally distributed. This will accelerate even more when regulated institutions get a green light to include BTC on their balance sheets. If BTC proves to consistently appreciate in value over time, it's unlikely that any of the big holders would decide to dump it all at once. That means less and less bitcoins are on the markets available for sale, so you pumping its value becomes progressively easier. 2 - new people are born every day, so it's not like the retail market will get saturated and the logic "whoever was interested in Bitcoin has already bought in" is flawed. 3 - lots of bitcoins are being lost forever (people lose their keys or die without passing them to others etc) and fewer bitcoins are being mined with each halving. 4 - people who bought in are unlikely to sell it all when the price goes up, but rather just a portion of it, so they can enjoy the immediate benefits but still have skin in the game in case it goes further up. If Bitcoin proves reliable in appreciating in value, why exchange it for depreciating fiat if you don't have to? Second is what users will perceive bitcoin at that time, it's easy now to get investors on board, the price is 20k , it was 3x times not so long ago so 10x returns sound plausible to a lot of people, but when the price would be half of the target, like $500k, do you think there would be that many with hopes of another 10x in another halving.?
That's true, but if public perception of Bitcoin shifts from "get rich quick" to something more of a "store of value+" that would be a good thing in the long run. Plus, I don't imagine that hotheads gambling on coins going >x10 overnight are as significant to the market as they used to be. Bitcoin has the potential of stealing (some of) gold's lunch as well as replace cash if we are to move to a cashless society. Will there be enough for $1 mil per coin? I don't know. But the opportunities are still there. |
|
|
|
A rather strange situation. Allegedly the SEC has labeled it as security and is suing Paxos, which, if true, was likely the reason behind NYDFS ordering them to cease issuing new tokens.  https://twitter.com/milesdeutscher/status/1624953792872718336That's bizarre, if anything, BNB would fall much closer to being security than BUSD. All this fits in into operation Chokepoint 2.0 theory. Or maybe it's just a result of a geopolitic tensions between US and China, as Binance is rumoured to have quiet support of the Chinese governmet. |
|
|
|
I missed the good old days when you could mine profitably with this bad boy. Everything was simpler back then  At least I have some memories. I kind of feel sorry for those who got into bitcoin later and never had a chance to mine anything themselves. |
|
|
|
And here is the kicker that nobody want's to hear. Most people WANT more regulation of things like this. Because *most* people don't want to know or care about how BTC works they just want to make money off of it somehow, and regulation makes them feel safe.
Most people don't have strong convictions about anything really. You can shift their "opinions" just by phrasing the question differently. If you present a question of more regulations emphasising safety etc, they'd be for it, but if you point that the banks/authorities will limit their freedoms and have ability to censor them - they'd be against it. Another black pill is that what people think is completely irrelevant to what type of legislation is being passed. As evidenced by a "Gilens' flatline", aka "The most terrifying graph on democracy" (a big study compiling nearly 2,000 US polls, conducted in 2014).  |
|
|
|
But be careful, the road to 1M RPs is really long, and once you reach this mark, there are serious risks bitcoin will be on a much higher price range, what can consequently make freebitco.in's staff team to reduce the currently exchange rate of 1 RP : 1 satoshi to something like 1 RP : 0,5 satoshi.
Possible, but I'd be guessing, that if they were to go that route, they would first announce that the exchange rate for reward points is now variable and depends on BTC price, so it would go down progressively rather than jumping straight from 1 sat to 0.5 sats. But that's just speculation. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
