Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[d_eddie]

Pegs getting unpegged
The corn keeps growing harder
Burning silicon





#haiku

[Biodom]

Honestly, i don't even get the legality of it.
Say, you are a stockholder at the Signature bank.
Your stock is at $70 at the end of trading day on Fri, was trading freely all day, no halts.
Suddenly, this bank is "seized" on Sunday and you read the following:
"Shareholders and certain unsecured debtholders will not be protected", which means that your stock in this bank is suddenly worth ZERO.
No other explanation given. Is there any legal scholars to comment?

At this point, who would hold any other bank stock, apart from top 4 (JPM, C, BAC and WFC)?

all this is bullish for bitcoin, though.

[BobLawblaw]

The Fed guards your wealth,
Easing fears with sound tactics,
Security found.

[aesma]

Honestly, i don't even get the legality of it.
Say, you are a stockholder at the Signature bank.
Your stock is at $70 at the end of trading day on Fri, was trading freely all day, no halts.
Suddenly, this bank is "seized" on Sunday and you read the following:
"Shareholders and certain unsecured debtholders will not be protected", which means that your stock in this bank is suddenly worth ZERO.
No other explanation given. Is there any legal scholars to comment?

At this point, who would hold any other bank stock, apart from top 4 (JPM, C, BAC and WFC)?

all this is bullish for bitcoin, though.

I think there can be legal actions to get more details but I don't really see the issue. The bank got bankrupt and in bankruptcy shareholders are screwed. If it was another kind of company that could continue doing business under bankruptcy protection, shares might hold some value, but apparently there is no bankruptcy protection for banks, which is understandable as we just saw that banks need trust, who is going to trust a bankrupt bank ?

[philipma1957]

Good day Bitcoinland.
A pretty good day indeed.
Lovely Bart back up.

SVB bank run
Reminding us that Bitcoin
Is the only way.

Money in the bank?
What a silly expression!
Hodlers laugh out loud.

Twenty-two thousand
Is barely a start.
Onward and upward!

Well we have a very long climb back up ⬆️ lets see were we are after the cpi this week.

[JayJuanGee]

Honestly, i don't even get the legality of it.
Say, you are a stockholder at the Signature bank.
Your stock is at $70 at the end of trading day on Fri, was trading freely all day, no halts.
Suddenly, this bank is "seized" on Sunday and you read the following:
"Shareholders and certain unsecured debtholders will not be protected", which means that your stock in this bank is suddenly worth ZERO.
No other explanation given. Is there any legal scholars to comment?

At this point, who would hold any other bank stock, apart from top 4 (JPM, C, BAC and WFC)?

all this is bullish for bitcoin, though.

The essence of the matter is likely something like: "rules do not matter... and we will deal with fall out later"..  The main thing is that no one panics (there's nothing to see here), and even if Govt officials are saying that this bail out is not a bail out since it is not going to cost taxpayers anything, if there is any short fall (holes in the books) the money printer will go buurr and such burrening be silently humming in the background so that no one notices that the cost of the burr is borne by whoever uses the USD.. so technically correct, the bill of the "non-bail out, bail out" is not borne directly by the taxpayer, but instead borne through the debasement of the dollar (which is way the fuck more difficult to actually measure in any meaningful way to facilitate that anyone in particular would be held accountable for having engaged in a "non-bail out, bail out").

On a side note, we might want to pay attention to see if any or all of the executives of the bank are held accountable in a meaningful/legal way ... (perhaps SEC insider trader charges?)... for their having had cashed out their $400 million worth of shares (or whatever the amount was?) within two weeks of this "non-run-on the bank, run on the bank" incident.

The main thing.  Don't panic.  Don't panic.  It's all under control. Everyone and their deposits are safe.. so go back to sleep now.. lull-a-bye---  lull-a-bye... everything is just fine... .. especially if you keep your monies in dee dollars.. .. and for sure don't look at that scary bitcornz behind the curtain.. that is nothing.. nothing at all.. .. it's a scam

[philipma1957]

https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/monetary20230312b.htm

Washington, DC -- The following statement was released by Secretary of the Treasury Janet L. Yellen, Federal Reserve Board Chair Jerome H. Powell, and FDIC Chairman Martin J. Gruenberg:

Today we are taking decisive actions to protect the U.S. economy by strengthening public confidence in our banking system. This step will ensure that the U.S. banking system continues to perform its vital roles of protecting deposits and providing access to credit to households and businesses in a manner that promotes strong and sustainable economic growth.

After receiving a recommendation from the boards of the FDIC and the Federal Reserve, and consulting with the President, Secretary Yellen approved actions enabling the FDIC to complete its resolution of Silicon Valley Bank, Santa Clara, California, in a manner that fully protects all depositors. Depositors will have access to all of their money starting Monday, March 13. No losses associated with the resolution of Silicon Valley Bank will be borne by the taxpayer.

We are also announcing a similar systemic risk exception for Signature Bank, New York, New York, which was closed today by its state chartering authority. All depositors of this institution will be made whole. As with the resolution of Silicon Valley Bank, no losses will be borne by the taxpayer.

Shareholders and certain unsecured debtholders will not be protected. Senior management has also been removed. Any losses to the Deposit Insurance Fund to support uninsured depositors will be recovered by a special assessment on banks, as required by law.

Finally, the Federal Reserve Board on Sunday announced it will make available additional funding to eligible depository institutions to help assure banks have the ability to meet the needs of all their depositors.

The U.S. banking system remains resilient and on a solid foundation, in large part due to reforms that were made after the financial crisis that ensured better safeguards for the banking industry. Those reforms combined with today's actions demonstrate our commitment to take the necessary steps to ensure that depositors' savings remain safe.

Maybe this is better not worse.

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[dragonvslinux]

Honestly, i don't even get the legality of it.
Say, you are a stockholder at the Signature bank.
Your stock is at $70 at the end of trading day on Fri, was trading freely all day, no halts.
Suddenly, this bank is "seized" on Sunday and you read the following:
"Shareholders and certain unsecured debtholders will not be protected", which means that your stock in this bank is suddenly worth ZERO.
No other explanation given. Is there any legal scholars to comment?

This can all be summarised by the simple answer already provided:

The bank got bankrupt and in bankruptcy shareholders are screwed.

Sometimes, it is as simple as that imo. Bank goes bankrupt. Shareholders get screwed.
Shares don't even go to $0 as trading them is halted for liquidation purposes.
Sometimes you wake up and your investment goes to $0, a bit like with Luna.

all this is bullish for bitcoin, though.

Long-term, sure. This is one of the reasons Bitcoin was created, in order to be immune from central banking nonsense.
And with that, Bitcoin goes pump. Who would have thought it. Probably only Satoshi as everyone else is beairsh.

One thing is for sure...Bitcoin is looking good in this debacle.

In reality, why wouldn't it? Bankrupt banks has nothing to do with Bitcoin.

[Biodom]

Honestly, i don't even get the legality of it.
Say, you are a stockholder at the Signature bank.
Your stock is at $70 at the end of trading day on Fri, was trading freely all day, no halts.
Suddenly, this bank is "seized" on Sunday and you read the following:
"Shareholders and certain unsecured debtholders will not be protected", which means that your stock in this bank is suddenly worth ZERO.
No other explanation given. Is there any legal scholars to comment?

At this point, who would hold any other bank stock, apart from top 4 (JPM, C, BAC and WFC)?

all this is bullish for bitcoin, though.

I think there can be legal actions to get more details but I don't really see the issue. The bank got bankrupt and in bankruptcy shareholders are screwed.

Where is the evidence? Nobody said that it is bankrupt apart from some verbiage about "systemic risk".
Signature bank seemed to be more stable than other regional banks on Friday.
You people take "bankrupt bank" too much at the face value.
It does not seem that it was, but it looks like it was shut down for dealing with "crypto companies' if i would be more specific.

[Biodom]

Honestly, i don't even get the legality of it.
Say, you are a stockholder at the Signature bank.
Your stock is at $70 at the end of trading day on Fri, was trading freely all day, no halts.
Suddenly, this bank is "seized" on Sunday and you read the following:
"Shareholders and certain unsecured debtholders will not be protected", which means that your stock in this bank is suddenly worth ZERO.
No other explanation given. Is there any legal scholars to comment?

At this point, who would hold any other bank stock, apart from top 4 (JPM, C, BAC and WFC)?

all this is bullish for bitcoin, though.

I think there can be legal actions to get more details but I don't really see the issue. The bank got bankrupt and in bankruptcy shareholders are screwed. If it was another kind of company that could continue doing business under bankruptcy protection, shares might hold some value, but apparently there is no bankruptcy protection for banks, which is understandable as we just saw that banks need trust, who is going to trust a bankrupt bank ?

no evidence that Signature was bankrupt and NO ONE even alleged that.

[dragonvslinux]

Honestly, i don't even get the legality of it.
Say, you are a stockholder at the Signature bank.
Your stock is at $70 at the end of trading day on Fri, was trading freely all day, no halts.
Suddenly, this bank is "seized" on Sunday and you read the following:
"Shareholders and certain unsecured debtholders will not be protected", which means that your stock in this bank is suddenly worth ZERO.
No other explanation given. Is there any legal scholars to comment?

At this point, who would hold any other bank stock, apart from top 4 (JPM, C, BAC and WFC)?

all this is bullish for bitcoin, though.

I think there can be legal actions to get more details but I don't really see the issue. The bank got bankrupt and in bankruptcy shareholders are screwed. If it was another kind of company that could continue doing business under bankruptcy protection, shares might hold some value, but apparently there is no bankruptcy protection for banks, which is understandable as we just saw that banks need trust, who is going to trust a bankrupt bank ?

no evidence that Signature was bankrupt and NO ONE even alleged that.

If in doubt = bankrupt. It's the new form of risk assessment  

(I'm alleging it)

[hisslyness]

The U.S. banking system remains resilient and on a solid foundation, in large part due to reforms that were made after the financial crisis that ensured better safeguards for the banking industry. Those reforms combined with today's actions demonstrate our commitment to take the necessary steps to ensure that depositors' savings remain safe.

"aLL SaVIngS DepOSiTs ArE SaFU"

Only one way to find out: pull yer money out, folks.

Well, i guess, #NIYHNYC (not in your hands, not your cash)


Doesn't have the same ring as #NYKNYC

[Toxic2040]

#haikuSunday

number going up
dear gentlebeings of the wall
hodlers standing strong

this is the way

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[Richy_T]

You have plenty of reason, but...... if they dont make that move the expading collapse its or can be far worse for the whole society, its sad? yes, but it works that way, all the system is based on this pillars.

The government is always the last insurance in this kind of case.

No. It's always the easy option but it's never the best. When you set the expectation that risks will be socialized, you encourage risky behavior. This shit is the direct fall-out of the bail-outs of the late 2000s. Don't fall for the narrative. Theft is theft.

[Richy_T]

Well, i guess, #NIYHNYC (not in your hands, not your cash)


Doesn't have the same ring as #NYKNYC

Not even then. Govt could tomorrow (well, would possibly need legislation) say that it is announcing the nu-dollar and your bank account will be converted on a 1-1 basis and greenbacks on a 4-1 (or some variation).

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[Arriemoller]

Have the cold from hell
Taking thirteen aspirins
Going back to bed


Actually I only took two, but I needed two syllables.

See you when I wake up.