I would like to ask a very simple question to all you Bitcoin lovers out here. "Explain to me, why it makes rational sense that the prices of most alt-coins (in relation to USD/EUR/Fiat) should become different when the price of Bitcoin changes."Note that I am not asking why this happens at present. To put it a bit differently - if a regular dude with no knowledge of the crypto market would ask you: Why is it sensible and/or "right" that the price of a given alt-coin asset valuation goes up and down when the price of Bitcoin (in most cases, a seemingly unrelated asset) moves up and down? How does the value of said alt-coin become more or less.. why does it make sense that the BTC price de-facto "decides" that whatever actual utility the alt-coin asset enables me to make use of (in-game currency, computing time, storage space, etc.) can now be had for a different amount than a few moments ago? And, again, just to be sure - please refrain from 'arguments' along the lines of: - It has always been thus - Coz alt-coins are [enter your derogatory description here] and so on. I want to know... why is this the right way for this market to function. How does it make rational, economic sense. Thank you  Because a large portion of alt coin prices is based on btc:alt-coin trading pairs, so the price direction of bitcoin necessarily drags the price of alts with it. If you were only to consider fiat:alt-coin trading in determining the price of a particular alt-coin, they would move much more independently. But because BTC is so dominant in determining the market cap and price of alts, the alts are highly correlated with BTC. |
|
|
|
Elon, in my opinion, is truly manipulating the market by issuing a statement on his Twitter account that is very influential to the majority of people in the crypto scene without DYOR even his people that are engineers can't assess the reality of bitcoin mining! He stated that BTC isn't good for the environment and having a huge power consumption but many of the experts have already debunked his statement.
Elon spouts off on all types of things on twitter, there's really no evidence he's trying to manipulate the market. It's more likely he just craves constant attention and constantly opining on crypto is the easiest way to stay in the limelight and command the constant attention that he seeks. Many of the "experts" have not debunked his power consumption claims, just bitcoin maximalists who pump bitcoin no matter what. Independently minded folks generally agree that Bitcoin's power demands are woefully inefficient on a per transaction basis. |
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin is an exceptionally poor currency. It's expensive, it's slow, it doesn't scale... Nothing in the OP post supports the subject of the thread that bitcoin could win the currency war. Bitcoin will have to solve all three of it's major problems to win any type of currency war. Cash is superior in every aspect right now, and centralized payment systems are far superior to a decentralized blockchain system thus far.
|
|
|
|
|
The estimated 3% drop isn't even consequential. Furthermore, drops in difficulty aren't even uncommon. You can see from the history that the difficulty has dropped in 4 out of the last 12 cycles. You shouldn't expect it to be a factor in the price.
|
|
|
|
Nah, we can't force exchange to take the blame since it's not them who made such crimes but they also have the authority to implement such rules to make people stop doing illegal activities such as money laundering. You may think that you can't launder money even if you provided some credentials but that person will find a way to transfer money under radar that the platform think it is just a regular transfer funds.
The onus is on the exchange to monitor for evidence of money laundering. That requires KYC and a program that identifies red flags and devises a method for detecting them. Customers attempting to get around KYC or making frequent short-duration deposits and withdrawals are two obvious red flags. |
|
|
|
this is the same old pump and dump scheme that hundreds of pumpers have used on social media, the only difference is that Musk is using it with much more effect. Isn't that..... illegal? It's one thing for anonymous pumpanddumpers to do it, it's a different story if it's a billionaire who was already fined $20 million by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commision for misleading investors. You'd have to prove that Elon is intentionally trying to manipulate the price for his own benefit or for the benefit of those who are close to him. It's an almost impossible standard, and one you wouldn't be able to prove circumstantially. You'd need a smoking gun. |
|
|
|
 https://twitter.com/zerohedge/status/1395745248408707079.... Remember when china apologized for crashing bitcoin off miner hash rate decline. They claimed industrial crypto mining in china shut down due to coal power outtages. As if no one today owns or uses a back up generator. Bitcoin's value plummeted. China apologized for crashing crypto for the 1st time ever. China didn't want investors, hedge funds and the wealthy being mad at them for crashing bitcoin. That happened before Elon Musk's tweet. There were unprecedented events in china crashing bitcoin before and after Elon Musk's social media postings. Which some might find odd. "Oh good, a post from zerohedge- a blog where all the authors post anonymously because they're so credible." -Nobody ever Zerohedge is a dumpster fire of a website that peddles conspiracy theories. Nobody should post anything from zerohedge and be expected to be taken seriously. |
|
|
|
What makes Bitcoin valuable to me is because it's unique, better and safer Network/System. I don't think this is true. What makes bitcoin valuable to you is that other people think it's valuable. You wouldn't be paying $40,000 per coin if everyone else thought it was paying $10,000 just because it's "unique, better and safer Network/System." Your perception of what bitcoin is worth and whether it's overvalued or undervalued is inextricably linked to what other people think of it. If that wasn't the case, you would have never stopped buying when it was sub $1000. The problem was you didn't know what it was worth then, because nobody else did either. And nothing has changed there. Nobody still knows what it's worth because it's all just speculation, and the speculation is about what other people are going to think about it in the future that's going to determine its value. An inability to value it and just investing based on speculation are why it's a bad investment choice for me. Isn't that determined by demand and supply? I mean, back in the early days of 2013-14, Bitcoin wasn't that popular, thus, its demand was pretty restricted to a limited amount of skilled individuals. (Metaphorically speaking when mentioning individuals, I'm implying that the demand was pretty limited compared to nowadays). More and more people are involved now, rendering Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies popular, while at the same time being suggested by multiple investors. It's now seen as an investment asset, similar to gold, it's valuable because it's being bought and used, not only by individuals but also from large corporations, such as Tesla, or PayPal. Demand comes from people wanting to buy it as an investment; actual use-case remains scant compared to people just holding it. The demand as an investment comes from speculation that other people will consider it to be worth more in the future than you bought it for, which leads directly back in to my prior post that it's driven exclusively by speculation. |
|
|
|
All of these are examples which show how an insane guy's personal revenge on a whole community could lead to unexpected losses. I want to ask those institutions' lovers, do you still want them in crypto? Do you want them to make crypto their hedge all their losses and when they will take out their profits, everyone in crypto will lose? Isn't everything in crypto getting under their control, which means it is being centralized? Anyway I thank Elon as he is selling all his $1.5 billion worth btc in the markets causing this correction, thanks to him we will be buying his btc more cheaper. 1. Tesla hasn't sold any more bitcoin, so you're not buying Elon's coins, and since he hasn't sold, that's not the reason bitcoin has fallen so far from its ATH. 2. Yes, Elon is a troll. Believe anything he tweets at your own risk. |
|
|
|
What's it to you if they are still unprofitable, don't buy their stock then if you think that they are unprofitable. Also, it's not like they are rushing to make money, they still do a break even and make something more out of it and just let it be, the profit will eventually come to them.
The point of the post is to contrast "Tesla is a profitable company" with the fact that Tesla is not a profitable automaker. Tesla was profitable because they sold tax credits from the government and crypto, they lose money on the production of cars still. |
|
|
|
Gary Gensler, the newly appointed chairman of the US Securities and Exchange Commission, told Squawk Box on Friday that "many" cryptocurrencies are originally securities:
"As long as an asset class is classified as a security, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has a lot of authority over it. "A lot of cryptocurrencies, which I don't think should be called that, are actually securities."
I would not be surprised if this is indeed happening, however, I see some problems: 1. Why all this has to be as declarations instead of clearly helping out the "culprits" into doing it right or fine them? Because in the current way it's just cheap talk against crypto scene. 2. Isn't it a bit late to notice and handle this? And I'm back to cheap talk at TV. 3. Are there any proper guidelines to allow a coin/whatever get properly categorized? (I clearly don't know, but I somehow doubt it). So.. yeah... politics... 1. Because the securities laws are the securities laws. It's all out there, it's up to the people issuing securities to follow them. The SEC's role is to educate (there is plenty of information available on their website about how to issue securities under the securities laws) but more importantly protect investors from those not following the laws. 2. No, the SEC doesn't lose it's mandate to protect investors because technology moves fast. 3. There are clearly defined criteria about what constitutes a "security" that has been established through laws and litigation, including precedents set by the Supreme Court on the matter. In short, the onus is on anyone issuing a token to follow the securities laws. Anyone selling tokens to the public to raise money to finance a project is selling unregistered securities. |
|
|
|
|
This theoretical 1% tax savings only applies to moves the ETF makes, not moves an individual investor makes. If you're moving money in and out of a mutual fund or in and out of an ETF, the investor pays the same capital gains tax on their transaction. I don't see this being a driver of money out of mutual funds, because that would have immediate tax consequences. This might impact future inflows, but that would play out over decades, not immediately.
|
|
|
|
If an exchange doesn't do KYC, it ought to be shut down. If an exchange facilitates tax evasion, it ought to be shut down. I don't know if Binance is doing either, I suppose that's what the investigation is about. However where there's smoke there's usually fire. This isn't some wild fishing expedition. The investigators probably have a pretty good idea of what they're going to find, which is the genesis of the investigation.
It could be true. They have been moving many times in the past which right now is Cayman Island. They may be right about some suspicious activity to the exchange but what right will the US government have to examine their database? I'm sure they could find more on Yobit or any other exchange that had been long active before Binance suck as Bittrex or Polo. I can not exclude reasons like it's political if they only investigate Binance. If you're operating in US jurisdictions (i.e., taking money from people living in the US or otherwise using the infrastructure of the US financial system), you're subject to the jurisdiction of the US government and US regulations. If you don't like that, don't operate in US territories. It's as simple as that. |
|
|
|
(1) Waiting and trying to pick a point in the dip that you believe is the bottom before investing is very risky as the point you pick might not be the bottom, perhaps just the top of the bottom. Adopting the strategy of investing specific amounts of money into your portfolio over time is advised. This ensures and helps you to avoid the temptation of putting all your money into a portfolio with no certainty.
This is the most important point for investing in anything. If you are a high-conviction investor in an asset, the best way to purchase (especially if it is a volatile asset) is to dollar cost average over time. Regular, small investments at set intervals with the conviction to hold for the long term no matter the short term fluctuations. |
|
|
|
|
These conspiracy posts are dumb. There was no signal, there is no puppet. The market is made up of millions of different people all looking out for their own best interest. To believe that crypto is dropping because of some complicated conspiracy theory and not because crypto traders are mostly momentum traders and followers is beyond deranged.
|
|
|
|
It doesn't matter if Tesla sells off their Bitcoins because the crypto market is decentralized and it can't be in decline forever because of an institution.
If Tesla doesn't buy Bitcoin, other hedge funds will invest in this cryptocurrency. Microstrategy is an investment fund that actively buys Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies as they consistently bottom out. I think they will make a significant profit as we know that Bitcoin will continue to appreciate in the long term.
Not necessarily. All bitcoin has going for it is perception, which is why maximalists battle so hard to try and control the narrative. If growing numbers of people lose confidence in bitcoin or don't believe it will always increase in value, it won't. The perception makes the reality. So any loss of influence is a blow to the future of bitcoin. |
|
|
|
I can imagine if MicroStrategy announces something like Musk on May 12th. Dump will be powerful.
Uh, yeah. If MSTR were to sell a substantial amount of bitcoin right now, it would be in serious trouble--more so than it looks like it already is (it's at $36,740 right now). Just thinking out loud here, I imagine MSTR's CEO is one of the biggest bitcoin bulls I've ever seen, but he is head of a publicly-traded company with shareholders he's accountable to. MSTR's share price hit $1300 back in February, and right now it's $452. I doubt shareholders are happy with the decline, and I bet many of them attribute it to bitcoin's slide. What would happen if the board of directors decided to boot Michael Saylor? What would happen if there was a shareholder revolt? It's not inconceivable that MSTR would be forced to sell at least some of its bitcoin holdings. I'm not hoping that happens, just saying that it could. If bitcoin continues its downward trajectory, it would become even more likely IMO. I'm not sure how accountable he is to shareholders really. He has so much voting control over the company that nobody can get on the board without his approval and so there are effectively no checks on him. It's impossible for any combination of shareholders to ever own enough voting control to make him accountable to anyone. |
|
|
|
What makes Bitcoin valuable to me is because it's unique, better and safer Network/System. I don't think this is true. What makes bitcoin valuable to you is that other people think it's valuable. You wouldn't be paying $40,000 per coin if everyone else thought it was paying $10,000 just because it's "unique, better and safer Network/System." Your perception of what bitcoin is worth and whether it's overvalued or undervalued is inextricably linked to what other people think of it. If that wasn't the case, you would have never stopped buying when it was sub $1000. The problem was you didn't know what it was worth then, because nobody else did either. And nothing has changed there. Nobody still knows what it's worth because it's all just speculation, and the speculation is about what other people are going to think about it in the future that's going to determine its value. An inability to value it and just investing based on speculation are why it's a bad investment choice for me. |
|
|
|
Not really relevant to an assessment of operating cost since being in an accident isn't routine and part of the normal cost of owning a car. If you get in a lot of accidents, yeah, it's an obvious down side. If you get in a lot of accidents, you're also probably not the type of driver who buys anything other than total garbage cars anyway. Range is only a concern for the vast minority of drivers since the number of drivers who drive more than a couple hundred miles in a day is so small. Operating costs are superior for EVs over gas-powered cars for everyone else.
Operating costs may be lower for Tesla, but the huge expense for maintenance take away that advantage. If I am not wrong, the battery needs to be replaced every 5 years or so and it costs at least $35,000. On the other hand, a gasoline-driven car doesn't need any major replacements for at least 20 years. And regarding accidents, they can occur anytime. You can't just say that all of the accidents happen due to the carelessness of the owner. And in case that happens, the Tesla owner will be in deep trouble. The battery in a $35,000 car obviously does not cost $35,000. Gasoline driven cars have regular maintenance on the engine, all the points that use oil, etc. Teslas have an electric drivetrain, there is no internal combustion engine, so nothing to maintain related to that. The maintenance is essentially tires and air filters, which is the same for gasoline cars. Your post isn't even close to being accurate. |
|
|
|
Tesla unveiled plans to design and build revolutionary new battery technology for 2022.
...
Anyways, if someone wanted to claim tesla stock is overvalued, this might be one good place to start.
"Plans to design" is a long way off from an ability to build. This is a hype piece and there's nothing of substance. Elon's "plans" are pretty worthless. He overhypes everything and falls short on the hype when push comes to shove. He's been promising battery breakthroughs for years already and not delivered on it. It's only in the past year that he's started meeting the annual vehicle production rates he promises; he's quit well-known for setting production targets and never reaching them. So yeah, Tesla's overvalued because they haven't done squat about the batteries yet and Elon's "plans" to solve the battery issue isn't worth anything until he actually does it. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
