Buy, sell, or hold?

[notme]

i do understand the conversation that took place earlier about "selling" essentially being equivalent to "shorting" but most professionals don't view it that way.

It's not even close.  If you are caught on the wrong side of a naked short you are looking at huge losses.  
On the other hand, if you missed the train on an upmove after you just sold your bitcoins you don't have any losses, you just don't have the profit you otherwise would have had.

Serious question, not trying to be a smartass:

If borrowing the shares is required to call it shorting, why does the term naked short mean?  I thought a naked short was shorting without actually owning the asset to begin with, and therefore "regular" shorting would be shorting when you do start out owning the asset.  Am I mistaken?

naked shorting is when you don't even have to borrow the share from a long to put on the short.

WTF, how is that supposed to work?

example:

i'm an account holder at Fidelity.  suppose, in aggregate, they have 100 customers who hold 100,000 shares of Apple.

i am a short seller.  for simplicity let's say i have enough money in my account to allow me to borrow and sell those 100,000 shares to buyers looking to go long.  if Fidelity is an ethical firm, they won't allow me to do that with any more than the 100,000 shares held at the firm, even if i want to short 150,000 shares.  if they aren't ethical, they might allow me to naked short the extra 50,000 shares.

in other words, sell what they don't have.

So if you made too much profit, they would have to pay up themselves to cover the difference?

[cypherdoc]

i do understand the conversation that took place earlier about "selling" essentially being equivalent to "shorting" but most professionals don't view it that way.

It's not even close.  If you are caught on the wrong side of a naked short you are looking at huge losses.  
On the other hand, if you missed the train on an upmove after you just sold your bitcoins you don't have any losses, you just don't have the profit you otherwise would have had.

Serious question, not trying to be a smartass:

If borrowing the shares is required to call it shorting, why does the term naked short mean?  I thought a naked short was shorting without actually owning the asset to begin with, and therefore "regular" shorting would be shorting when you do start out owning the asset.  Am I mistaken?

naked shorting is when you don't even have to borrow the share from a long to put on the short.

WTF, how is that supposed to work?

example:

i'm an account holder at Fidelity.  suppose, in aggregate, they have 100 customers who hold 100,000 shares of Apple.

i am a short seller.  for simplicity let's say i have enough money in my account to allow me to borrow and sell those 100,000 shares to buyers looking to go long.  if Fidelity is an ethical firm, they won't allow me to do that with any more than the 100,000 shares held at the firm, even if i want to short 150,000 shares.  if they aren't ethical, they might allow me to naked short the extra 50,000 shares.

in other words, sell what they don't have.

So if you made too much profit, they would have to pay up themselves to cover the difference?

not sure what you mean.  you actually have to have your own USD's initially in your account to be allowed to short shares.  if you have a margin acct like me (allows leverage), you must hold around $1 of your own money for every $3 in share value that you short.

if the short trade starts going against you (shares go UP in value instead of DOWN like you were betting) then you have to wire in more USD's to keep the ratio in line.

[notme]

i do understand the conversation that took place earlier about "selling" essentially being equivalent to "shorting" but most professionals don't view it that way.

It's not even close.  If you are caught on the wrong side of a naked short you are looking at huge losses.  
On the other hand, if you missed the train on an upmove after you just sold your bitcoins you don't have any losses, you just don't have the profit you otherwise would have had.

Serious question, not trying to be a smartass:

If borrowing the shares is required to call it shorting, why does the term naked short mean?  I thought a naked short was shorting without actually owning the asset to begin with, and therefore "regular" shorting would be shorting when you do start out owning the asset.  Am I mistaken?

naked shorting is when you don't even have to borrow the share from a long to put on the short.

WTF, how is that supposed to work?

example:

i'm an account holder at Fidelity.  suppose, in aggregate, they have 100 customers who hold 100,000 shares of Apple.

i am a short seller.  for simplicity let's say i have enough money in my account to allow me to borrow and sell those 100,000 shares to buyers looking to go long.  if Fidelity is an ethical firm, they won't allow me to do that with any more than the 100,000 shares held at the firm, even if i want to short 150,000 shares.  if they aren't ethical, they might allow me to naked short the extra 50,000 shares.

in other words, sell what they don't have.

So if you made too much profit, they would have to pay up themselves to cover the difference?

not sure what you mean.  you actually have to have your own USD's initially in your account to be allowed to short shares.  if you have a margin acct like me (allows leverage), you must hold around $1 of your own money for every $3 in share value that you short.

if the short trade starts going against you (shares go UP in value instead of DOWN like you were betting) then you have to wire in more USD's to keep the ratio in line.

But what if you are right?... If they (broker) let you(short seller) sell 50k more shares than they(broker) had, they(broker) have to pull profits out of their ass(Bernanke) to pay you.

[CurbsideProphet]

i do understand the conversation that took place earlier about "selling" essentially being equivalent to "shorting" but most professionals don't view it that way.

It's not even close.  If you are caught on the wrong side of a naked short you are looking at huge losses.  
On the other hand, if you missed the train on an upmove after you just sold your bitcoins you don't have any losses, you just don't have the profit you otherwise would have had.

Serious question, not trying to be a smartass:

If borrowing the shares is required to call it shorting, why does the term naked short mean?  I thought a naked short was shorting without actually owning the asset to begin with, and therefore "regular" shorting would be shorting when you do start out owning the asset.  Am I mistaken?

naked shorting is when you don't even have to borrow the share from a long to put on the short.

WTF, how is that supposed to work?

example:

i'm an account holder at Fidelity.  suppose, in aggregate, they have 100 customers who hold 100,000 shares of Apple.

i am a short seller.  for simplicity let's say i have enough money in my account to allow me to borrow and sell those 100,000 shares to buyers looking to go long.  if Fidelity is an ethical firm, they won't allow me to do that with any more than the 100,000 shares held at the firm, even if i want to short 150,000 shares.  if they aren't ethical, they might allow me to naked short the extra 50,000 shares.

in other words, sell what they don't have.

So if you made too much profit, they would have to pay up themselves to cover the difference?

not sure what you mean.  you actually have to have your own USD's initially in your account to be allowed to short shares.  if you have a margin acct like me (allows leverage), you must hold around $1 of your own money for every $3 in share value that you short.

if the short trade starts going against you (shares go UP in value instead of DOWN like you were betting) then you have to wire in more USD's to keep the ratio in line.

But what if you are right?... If they (broker) let you(short seller) sell 50k more shares than they(broker) had, they(broker) have to pull profits out of their ass(Bernanke) to pay you.

He has a margin account, it's just an extension of credit. 

[evolve]

RE: shorts vs naked shorts

WTF, how is that supposed to work?

Ok, a regular short requires you to sell shares you dont own, with a promise to buy back later.

With a naked short, you are doing the same thing, only without securing a loan first.  Basically it's an IOU for a short sale.  

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/nakedshorting.asp#axzz2JUcuT28I





Edit:
this article explains it better than I did

http://online.barrons.com/article/SB50001424053111904184504577518792352585660.html#articleTabs_article%3D1

NAKED SHORTING—selling stock that the seller doesn't have and hasn't borrowed, in the hope that its price will quickly fall, letting the seller repurchase it at a lower price and then deliver the stock to the buyer—is generally illegal. Usually, sellers must borrow a stock, or at least determine that they can borrow it, before they can sell it short.

[cypherdoc]

i do understand the conversation that took place earlier about "selling" essentially being equivalent to "shorting" but most professionals don't view it that way.

It's not even close.  If you are caught on the wrong side of a naked short you are looking at huge losses.  
On the other hand, if you missed the train on an upmove after you just sold your bitcoins you don't have any losses, you just don't have the profit you otherwise would have had.

Serious question, not trying to be a smartass:

If borrowing the shares is required to call it shorting, why does the term naked short mean?  I thought a naked short was shorting without actually owning the asset to begin with, and therefore "regular" shorting would be shorting when you do start out owning the asset.  Am I mistaken?

naked shorting is when you don't even have to borrow the share from a long to put on the short.

WTF, how is that supposed to work?

example:

i'm an account holder at Fidelity.  suppose, in aggregate, they have 100 customers who hold 100,000 shares of Apple.

i am a short seller.  for simplicity let's say i have enough money in my account to allow me to borrow and sell those 100,000 shares to buyers looking to go long.  if Fidelity is an ethical firm, they won't allow me to do that with any more than the 100,000 shares held at the firm, even if i want to short 150,000 shares.  if they aren't ethical, they might allow me to naked short the extra 50,000 shares.

in other words, sell what they don't have.

So if you made too much profit, they would have to pay up themselves to cover the difference?

not sure what you mean.  you actually have to have your own USD's initially in your account to be allowed to short shares.  if you have a margin acct like me (allows leverage), you must hold around $1 of your own money for every $3 in share value that you short.

if the short trade starts going against you (shares go UP in value instead of DOWN like you were betting) then you have to wire in more USD's to keep the ratio in line.

But what if you are right?... If they (broker) let you(short seller) sell 50k more shares than they(broker) had, they(broker) have to pull profits out of their ass(Bernanke) to pay you.

its even worse than that.  even if Fidelity limited short sales to the # of shares they have within the firm, a prolonged bout of deflation would cause all sorts of problems.  b/c basically what they're doing is allowing speculators to come in and sell your assets w/o your permission.  what happens when you yourself wants to sell your shares after they've already been sold by a short seller like me?  oops.

when you understand this you begin to understand why Wall St is for the most part a long only institution.  they can't have too many ppl selling or shorting which is exactly why they put a ban on short selling in 2008.  it would force a situation of too many claims on too few assets.  it's also why they're changing the rules on me right this moment for a number of shorts i have on like Anne Taylor (ANN).  Fidelity has unilaterally decided, as of a month ago, to charge me 1% on the gross value of my short position.  they've never done this before and i've been with them thru the 2008 crisis.  i think they're trying to get me to close them out as too many ppl are selling and trying to get their hands on shares to short.  pricks.

now imagine them allowing naked shorts where they allow short selling above and beyond what shares they actually have in the firm.  Fidelity claims they don't do this but they have an incentive to allow this behavior b/c of tx fees.  the more turnover and velocity of the shares within the firm, the more they make.  i know they won't allow retail clients like me to do this but i know a number of hedge fund managers that for some reason are allowed to naked short.

[legitnick]

[notme]

i do understand the conversation that took place earlier about "selling" essentially being equivalent to "shorting" but most professionals don't view it that way.

It's not even close.  If you are caught on the wrong side of a naked short you are looking at huge losses.  
On the other hand, if you missed the train on an upmove after you just sold your bitcoins you don't have any losses, you just don't have the profit you otherwise would have had.

Serious question, not trying to be a smartass:

If borrowing the shares is required to call it shorting, why does the term naked short mean?  I thought a naked short was shorting without actually owning the asset to begin with, and therefore "regular" shorting would be shorting when you do start out owning the asset.  Am I mistaken?

naked shorting is when you don't even have to borrow the share from a long to put on the short.

WTF, how is that supposed to work?

example:

i'm an account holder at Fidelity.  suppose, in aggregate, they have 100 customers who hold 100,000 shares of Apple.

i am a short seller.  for simplicity let's say i have enough money in my account to allow me to borrow and sell those 100,000 shares to buyers looking to go long.  if Fidelity is an ethical firm, they won't allow me to do that with any more than the 100,000 shares held at the firm, even if i want to short 150,000 shares.  if they aren't ethical, they might allow me to naked short the extra 50,000 shares.

in other words, sell what they don't have.

So if you made too much profit, they would have to pay up themselves to cover the difference?

not sure what you mean.  you actually have to have your own USD's initially in your account to be allowed to short shares.  if you have a margin acct like me (allows leverage), you must hold around $1 of your own money for every $3 in share value that you short.

if the short trade starts going against you (shares go UP in value instead of DOWN like you were betting) then you have to wire in more USD's to keep the ratio in line.

But what if you are right?... If they (broker) let you(short seller) sell 50k more shares than they(broker) had, they(broker) have to pull profits out of their ass(Bernanke) to pay you.

its even worse than that.  even if Fidelity limited short sales to the # of shares they have within the firm, a prolonged bout of deflation would cause all sorts of problems.  b/c basically what they're doing is allowing speculators to come in and sell your assets w/o your permission.  what happens when you yourself wants to sell your shares after they've already been sold by a short seller like me?  oops.

when you understand this you begin to understand why Wall St is for the most part a long only institution.  they can't have too many ppl selling or shorting which is exactly why they put a ban on short selling in 2008.  it would force a situation of too many claims on too few assets.  it's also why they're changing the rules on me right this moment for a number of shorts i have on like Anne Taylor (ANN).  Fidelity has unilaterally decided, as of a month ago, to charge me 1% on the gross value of my short position.  they've never done this before and i've been with them thru the 2008 crisis.  i think they're trying to get me to close them out as too many ppl are selling and trying to get their hands on shares to short.  pricks.

now imagine them allowing naked shorts where they allow short selling above and beyond what shares they actually have in the firm.  Fidelity claims they don't do this but they have an incentive to allow this behavior b/c of tx fees.  the more turnover and velocity of the shares within the firm, the more they make.  i know they won't allow retail clients like me to do this but i know a number of hedge fund managers that for some reason are allowed to naked short.

Each layer of this onion is smellier than the last.

[cypherdoc]

i do understand the conversation that took place earlier about "selling" essentially being equivalent to "shorting" but most professionals don't view it that way.

It's not even close.  If you are caught on the wrong side of a naked short you are looking at huge losses.  
On the other hand, if you missed the train on an upmove after you just sold your bitcoins you don't have any losses, you just don't have the profit you otherwise would have had.

Serious question, not trying to be a smartass:

If borrowing the shares is required to call it shorting, why does the term naked short mean?  I thought a naked short was shorting without actually owning the asset to begin with, and therefore "regular" shorting would be shorting when you do start out owning the asset.  Am I mistaken?

naked shorting is when you don't even have to borrow the share from a long to put on the short.

WTF, how is that supposed to work?

example:

i'm an account holder at Fidelity.  suppose, in aggregate, they have 100 customers who hold 100,000 shares of Apple.

i am a short seller.  for simplicity let's say i have enough money in my account to allow me to borrow and sell those 100,000 shares to buyers looking to go long.  if Fidelity is an ethical firm, they won't allow me to do that with any more than the 100,000 shares held at the firm, even if i want to short 150,000 shares.  if they aren't ethical, they might allow me to naked short the extra 50,000 shares.

in other words, sell what they don't have.

So if you made too much profit, they would have to pay up themselves to cover the difference?

not sure what you mean.  you actually have to have your own USD's initially in your account to be allowed to short shares.  if you have a margin acct like me (allows leverage), you must hold around $1 of your own money for every $3 in share value that you short.

if the short trade starts going against you (shares go UP in value instead of DOWN like you were betting) then you have to wire in more USD's to keep the ratio in line.

But what if you are right?... If they (broker) let you(short seller) sell 50k more shares than they(broker) had, they(broker) have to pull profits out of their ass(Bernanke) to pay you.

its even worse than that.  even if Fidelity limited short sales to the # of shares they have within the firm, a prolonged bout of deflation would cause all sorts of problems.  b/c basically what they're doing is allowing speculators to come in and sell your assets w/o your permission.  what happens when you yourself wants to sell your shares after they've already been sold by a short seller like me?  oops.

when you understand this you begin to understand why Wall St is for the most part a long only institution.  they can't have too many ppl selling or shorting which is exactly why they put a ban on short selling in 2008.  it would force a situation of too many claims on too few assets.  it's also why they're changing the rules on me right this moment for a number of shorts i have on like Anne Taylor (ANN).  Fidelity has unilaterally decided, as of a month ago, to charge me 1% on the gross value of my short position.  they've never done this before and i've been with them thru the 2008 crisis.  i think they're trying to get me to close them out as too many ppl are selling and trying to get their hands on shares to short.  pricks.

now imagine them allowing naked shorts where they allow short selling above and beyond what shares they actually have in the firm.  Fidelity claims they don't do this but they have an incentive to allow this behavior b/c of tx fees.  the more turnover and velocity of the shares within the firm, the more they make.  i know they won't allow retail clients like me to do this but i know a number of hedge fund managers that for some reason are allowed to naked short.

Each layer of this onion is smellier than the last.

oh yes, i actually smelled lots of napalm in 2007-9 and i actually liked it.

[notme]

i do understand the conversation that took place earlier about "selling" essentially being equivalent to "shorting" but most professionals don't view it that way.

It's not even close.  If you are caught on the wrong side of a naked short you are looking at huge losses.  
On the other hand, if you missed the train on an upmove after you just sold your bitcoins you don't have any losses, you just don't have the profit you otherwise would have had.

Serious question, not trying to be a smartass:

If borrowing the shares is required to call it shorting, why does the term naked short mean?  I thought a naked short was shorting without actually owning the asset to begin with, and therefore "regular" shorting would be shorting when you do start out owning the asset.  Am I mistaken?

naked shorting is when you don't even have to borrow the share from a long to put on the short.

WTF, how is that supposed to work?

example:

i'm an account holder at Fidelity.  suppose, in aggregate, they have 100 customers who hold 100,000 shares of Apple.

i am a short seller.  for simplicity let's say i have enough money in my account to allow me to borrow and sell those 100,000 shares to buyers looking to go long.  if Fidelity is an ethical firm, they won't allow me to do that with any more than the 100,000 shares held at the firm, even if i want to short 150,000 shares.  if they aren't ethical, they might allow me to naked short the extra 50,000 shares.

in other words, sell what they don't have.

So if you made too much profit, they would have to pay up themselves to cover the difference?

not sure what you mean.  you actually have to have your own USD's initially in your account to be allowed to short shares.  if you have a margin acct like me (allows leverage), you must hold around $1 of your own money for every $3 in share value that you short.

if the short trade starts going against you (shares go UP in value instead of DOWN like you were betting) then you have to wire in more USD's to keep the ratio in line.

But what if you are right?... If they (broker) let you(short seller) sell 50k more shares than they(broker) had, they(broker) have to pull profits out of their ass(Bernanke) to pay you.

its even worse than that.  even if Fidelity limited short sales to the # of shares they have within the firm, a prolonged bout of deflation would cause all sorts of problems.  b/c basically what they're doing is allowing speculators to come in and sell your assets w/o your permission.  what happens when you yourself wants to sell your shares after they've already been sold by a short seller like me?  oops.

when you understand this you begin to understand why Wall St is for the most part a long only institution.  they can't have too many ppl selling or shorting which is exactly why they put a ban on short selling in 2008.  it would force a situation of too many claims on too few assets.  it's also why they're changing the rules on me right this moment for a number of shorts i have on like Anne Taylor (ANN).  Fidelity has unilaterally decided, as of a month ago, to charge me 1% on the gross value of my short position.  they've never done this before and i've been with them thru the 2008 crisis.  i think they're trying to get me to close them out as too many ppl are selling and trying to get their hands on shares to short.  pricks.

now imagine them allowing naked shorts where they allow short selling above and beyond what shares they actually have in the firm.  Fidelity claims they don't do this but they have an incentive to allow this behavior b/c of tx fees.  the more turnover and velocity of the shares within the firm, the more they make.  i know they won't allow retail clients like me to do this but i know a number of hedge fund managers that for some reason are allowed to naked short.

Each layer of this onion is smellier than the last.

oh yes, i actually smelled lots of napalm in 2007-9 and i actually liked it.

That's the part that worries me about you... and maybe about myself.

[cypherdoc]

i do understand the conversation that took place earlier about "selling" essentially being equivalent to "shorting" but most professionals don't view it that way.

It's not even close.  If you are caught on the wrong side of a naked short you are looking at huge losses.  
On the other hand, if you missed the train on an upmove after you just sold your bitcoins you don't have any losses, you just don't have the profit you otherwise would have had.

Serious question, not trying to be a smartass:

If borrowing the shares is required to call it shorting, why does the term naked short mean?  I thought a naked short was shorting without actually owning the asset to begin with, and therefore "regular" shorting would be shorting when you do start out owning the asset.  Am I mistaken?

naked shorting is when you don't even have to borrow the share from a long to put on the short.

WTF, how is that supposed to work?

example:

i'm an account holder at Fidelity.  suppose, in aggregate, they have 100 customers who hold 100,000 shares of Apple.

i am a short seller.  for simplicity let's say i have enough money in my account to allow me to borrow and sell those 100,000 shares to buyers looking to go long.  if Fidelity is an ethical firm, they won't allow me to do that with any more than the 100,000 shares held at the firm, even if i want to short 150,000 shares.  if they aren't ethical, they might allow me to naked short the extra 50,000 shares.

in other words, sell what they don't have.

So if you made too much profit, they would have to pay up themselves to cover the difference?

not sure what you mean.  you actually have to have your own USD's initially in your account to be allowed to short shares.  if you have a margin acct like me (allows leverage), you must hold around $1 of your own money for every $3 in share value that you short.

if the short trade starts going against you (shares go UP in value instead of DOWN like you were betting) then you have to wire in more USD's to keep the ratio in line.

But what if you are right?... If they (broker) let you(short seller) sell 50k more shares than they(broker) had, they(broker) have to pull profits out of their ass(Bernanke) to pay you.

its even worse than that.  even if Fidelity limited short sales to the # of shares they have within the firm, a prolonged bout of deflation would cause all sorts of problems.  b/c basically what they're doing is allowing speculators to come in and sell your assets w/o your permission.  what happens when you yourself wants to sell your shares after they've already been sold by a short seller like me?  oops.

when you understand this you begin to understand why Wall St is for the most part a long only institution.  they can't have too many ppl selling or shorting which is exactly why they put a ban on short selling in 2008.  it would force a situation of too many claims on too few assets.  it's also why they're changing the rules on me right this moment for a number of shorts i have on like Anne Taylor (ANN).  Fidelity has unilaterally decided, as of a month ago, to charge me 1% on the gross value of my short position.  they've never done this before and i've been with them thru the 2008 crisis.  i think they're trying to get me to close them out as too many ppl are selling and trying to get their hands on shares to short.  pricks.

now imagine them allowing naked shorts where they allow short selling above and beyond what shares they actually have in the firm.  Fidelity claims they don't do this but they have an incentive to allow this behavior b/c of tx fees.  the more turnover and velocity of the shares within the firm, the more they make.  i know they won't allow retail clients like me to do this but i know a number of hedge fund managers that for some reason are allowed to naked short.

Each layer of this onion is smellier than the last.

oh yes, i actually smelled lots of napalm in 2007-9 and i actually liked it.

That's the part that worries me about you... and maybe about myself.

think about it this way.  we need to clean out all the bad actors aka paper pushers.  the nation needs to get back to work; all of us.  not just the real value creators.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-01-30/guest-post-americas-four-socioeconomic-classes

[creativex]

Americans have to make stuff again and stop perpetuating this ridiculous notion that somehow those that work for a living are lower class.

[notme]

Americans have to make stuff again and stop perpetuating this ridiculous notion that somehow those that work for a living are lower class.

Oh, America will make stuff again, but those who work for a living will find jobs harder and harder to come by: http://www.rethinkrobotics.com/

[notme]

think about it this way.  we need to clean out all the bad actors aka paper pushers.  the nation needs to get back to work; all of us.  not just the real value creators.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-01-30/guest-post-americas-four-socioeconomic-classes

I agree we need to clean out the bad actors (good article/podcast btw), but I just fear the collateral damage caused by pulling them out while they still have their hooks embedded in every aspect of the economy.

[cypherdoc]

think about it this way.  we need to clean out all the bad actors aka paper pushers.  the nation needs to get back to work; all of us.  not just the real value creators.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-01-30/guest-post-americas-four-socioeconomic-classes

I agree we need to clean out the bad actors (good article/podcast btw), but I just fear the collateral damage caused by pulling them out while they still have their hooks embedded in every aspect of the economy.

its not up to us.  Mr. Market will rear his ugly head at some point.  and then, just make sure you get out of the way...

[axus]

Hmm, I bought in at $20 in 2011 when the price was shooting up (stupid transfer took forever, it started at $12).  I'm glad I held

[DobZombie]

Buy, sell, or hold?

HOLD 50%
Sell at X%
Buy back at x-1%

So all three?

Made 2% so far.  It's hard to get the jump on the US market at the right times.  Trading becomes active at 11pm or so my time.

[DoomDumas]

Buy and Hold

Seems the only thing to do from my point of view !

2013 will be a super year for BTC..

This is all an intro  !!

[firefop]

Price is going to rise. People who are acquiring it to use as currency give little fucks about what the price is now since they are going to spend it. If they need $100 worth, what do they care if a coin is $20, $50, or $100?

+1, Exactly my thoughts.
People conducting trade in bitcoin will be in and then out, price dont matter to them, they will just buy w/e fraction of a coin is needed for the deal.
Meanwhile the blockchain is being proven as a good value store constantly increasing the price of a whole coin as more people place wealth into the chain.

Exactly right.

But being a miner I'm selling them as fast as they come in right now. But I'm actually keep a large amount of fiat (large for me anyway) on some exchanges to re-buy after the asic induced crash.

[Beta-coiner1]

Exactly right.

But being a miner I'm selling them as fast as they come in right now. But I'm actually keep a large amount of fiat (large for me anyway) on some exchanges to re-buy after the asic induced crash.

I was thinking this.......but then I thought considering when ASICs go popular the difficulty will rise accordingly and considering the rewards are technically halved......BTC would rise again.