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

[DaRude]

10 friends go out every day for dinner. The bill would be SEK 1,000. The bill was divided in the same way that taxes are paid. The first four - (the poorest) pay nothing; - the 5th pays SEK 10 - the 6th pays SEK 30 - the 7th SEK 70 - the 8th SEK 120 - the 9th SEK 180 - The 10th person (the richest) pays SEK 590.
The ten friends ate dinner at the restaurant every day, happy with the deal. Until one day, when the owner of the restaurant gave them a discount. “You are such good customers. I give you SEK 200 off your dinners. ” Dinner for 10 people now costs SEK 800.

They still wanted to pay for the dinner the way taxes are paid in Sweden. The first four people were not affected. They were allowed to continue eating for free. But what would the other 6 do - those who paid? How would they divide the discount of SEK 200 so that everyone would get their share? They realized that SEK 200 divided by 6 would be SEK 33.33. But if they deducted it from each person's share, the 5th and 6th person would be paid to eat. The restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each person's bill proportionately. He calculated the amounts each person would pay:

The result was that the 5th person also got to eat for free - the 6th had to pay SEK 20 - the 7th paid SEK 50 - the 8th SEK 90 - the 9th SEK 120 - the 10th person paid SEK 520 instead of the previous SEK 590. Everyone got a lower price than before and now the first five could eat for free. Outside the restaurant, they began to compare what they had saved. "I only earned a tenth of the discount!", The 6th person began. He pointed to the 10th person, "… but he earned 70 kroner !!!" - "Exactly, I also only saved ten", said the 5th person. "It's unfair that he got seven times as much as I did!"
"It's true!" Shouted the 7th person. “Why should he get SEK 70 back when I only got SEK 20? The rich always gets the most! ”-“ Wait a minute ”, shouted the first four,“ We ​​got nothing! This system exploits us poor! ”

The nine people scolded the 10th and called him a cold-hearted egoist, a capitalist pig, a bloodsucker who kicks those who lie down. The next night, the 10th person didn't come to dinner. The other nine said " how nice", sat down and ate. When the bill came, they discovered something. They couldn't pay it. SEK 520 was missing.

10th friend owns all 9 houses his friend live in and collects rent from them. He has more total wealth than his other 9 friends combined. On top of that every year 10th friend amasses more and more % of over all wealth, as the other nine own less and less. So the other 9 friends get together and say remember how things were more even with the tax rate 30yrs ago? Yeah lets make sure not come back to that as current trend is totally sustainable, instead let's just blame the friend who's poorer then you. 10th friend doesn't do anything and just buys more land

[1713501871]

1713501871

[1713501871]

1713501871

[1713501871]

1713501871

[1713501871]

1713501871

[Toxic2040]

Giant, likely insurmountable sell wall on Bitstamp. Looks like another humiliating leg down is eminent.

[d_eddie]

This all is curse of Shiba Inu.

Accumulation is going on around current price level, 30m chart is also very positive and  good crossover of Moving Average.. Huge break out is possible.

I think the recovery will be swift and merciless, lest the leveraged plebs get to long a few cheap sats, too. I insist, this was a technical dump tied to futures expiry. It's the arbitragers. They manage to shake the price so badly only because the books are thin. Remember the deflux of btc from exchanges that we've been witnessing in the latest weeks? Well, it turns out illiquidity works both ways.

I would like a regulation that mandates market makers on large exchanges, exactly to avoid nasty cases of liquidity shortage and fast, fake pumps and dumps.  A rule of thumb to tell a "large" exchange? For example, an exchange is "large" if it is listed on the stock market ;-) And I would suggest that for new exchanges to go public, they need to have had certified, liable market makers for a certain amount of time (like 1-2 years).

They say they want to "regulate crypto", but most exchanges are basically free to pull off any shit they like, as long as they don't let USA citizens sign up/use their services if the exchange is overseas and boss is American, black and cocky.

[Biodom]

This all is curse of Shiba Inu.

Accumulation is going on around current price level, 30m chart is also very positive and  good crossover of Moving Average.. Huge break out is possible.

I think the recovery will be swift and merciless, lest the leveraged plebs get to long a few cheap sats, too. I insist, this was a technical dump tied to futures expiry. It's the arbitragers. They manage to shake the price so badly only because the books are thin. Remember the deflux of btc from exchanges that we've been witnessing in the latest weeks? Well, it turns out illiquidity works both ways.

I would like a regulation that mandates market makers on large exchanges, exactly to avoid nasty cases of liquidity shortage and fast, fake pumps and dumps.  A rule of thumb to tell a "large" exchange? For example, an exchange is "large" if it is listed on the stock market ;-) And I would suggest that for new exchanges to go public, they need to have had certified, liable market makers for a certain amount of time (like 1-2 years).

They say they want to "regulate crypto", but most exchanges are basically free to pull off any shit they like, as long as they don't let USA citizens sign up/use their services if the exchange is overseas and boss is American, black and cocky.

I see what you did there  

Bottom at $40-42k or rip to $75K, bitcoin is unpredictable. I don't believe in fractals, sorry.
S2F is holding and surprisingly well so far, though. Woonomic believes that this is because bitcoin behaves like an incredibly sophisticated machine and is almost "mechanical".
What I am amazed mostly with is a few original thoughts by Satoshi (who said few one liners about how it is worth getting some in case it catches on) and Hal Finney who calculated a $10mil "omega point" price for btc also very early on.

I am currently watching the end (soon, hopefully) of the 3rd season of "Dark" and it resonates quite well with that and a block universe model. It's almost like it already happened in a sense and we are just unveiling the statue so to speak.

[rolling]

10 friends go out every day for dinner. The bill would be SEK 1,000. The bill was divided in the same way that taxes are paid. The first four - (the poorest) pay nothing; - the 5th pays SEK 10 - the 6th pays SEK 30 - the 7th SEK 70 - the 8th SEK 120 - the 9th SEK 180 - The 10th person (the richest) pays SEK 590.
The ten friends ate dinner at the restaurant every day, happy with the deal. Until one day, when the owner of the restaurant gave them a discount. “You are such good customers. I give you SEK 200 off your dinners. ” Dinner for 10 people now costs SEK 800.

They still wanted to pay for the dinner the way taxes are paid in Sweden. The first four people were not affected. They were allowed to continue eating for free. But what would the other 6 do - those who paid? How would they divide the discount of SEK 200 so that everyone would get their share? They realized that SEK 200 divided by 6 would be SEK 33.33. But if they deducted it from each person's share, the 5th and 6th person would be paid to eat. The restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each person's bill proportionately. He calculated the amounts each person would pay:

The result was that the 5th person also got to eat for free - the 6th had to pay SEK 20 - the 7th paid SEK 50 - the 8th SEK 90 - the 9th SEK 120 - the 10th person paid SEK 520 instead of the previous SEK 590. Everyone got a lower price than before and now the first five could eat for free. Outside the restaurant, they began to compare what they had saved. "I only earned a tenth of the discount!", The 6th person began. He pointed to the 10th person, "… but he earned 70 kroner !!!" - "Exactly, I also only saved ten", said the 5th person. "It's unfair that he got seven times as much as I did!"
"It's true!" Shouted the 7th person. “Why should he get SEK 70 back when I only got SEK 20? The rich always gets the most! ”-“ Wait a minute ”, shouted the first four,“ We ​​got nothing! This system exploits us poor! ”

The nine people scolded the 10th and called him a cold-hearted egoist, a capitalist pig, a bloodsucker who kicks those who lie down. The next night, the 10th person didn't come to dinner. The other nine said " how nice", sat down and ate. When the bill came, they discovered something. They couldn't pay it. SEK 520 was missing.

10th friend owns all 9 houses his friend live in and collects rent from them. He has more total wealth than his other 9 friends combined. On top of that every year 10th friend amasses more and more % of over all wealth, as the other nine own less and less. So the other 9 friends get together and say remember how things were more even with the tax rate 30yrs ago? Yeah lets make sure not come back to that as current trend is totally sustainable, instead let's just blame the friend who's poorer then you. 10th friend doesn't do anything and just buys more land

Plot twist, back in high school, 9 friends screwed around smoking weed all day and gave the 10th friend wedgies for always doing his homework on time. Now they are all grown up and they want to go back to how things were 30 years ago when they weren't such losers. They want to fuck around and make their hard working friend pay for it.

Taking stuff away from successful people to give it to less successful people is called socialism. Just because you can beat someone up and take their money doesn't mean it's a good way to run a society. It's immoral and has never worked in any country that has tried it. It doesn't help the poor people, it just hurts the rich people. Poor people will always be poor because they don't know how to be rich or are just unmotivated.

[nullius]

...whenever I go to a strip joint.

Ah, Bunny.  I’ve been intending to inquire, who is this?

I am asking for a friend.  He is performing academic sociological research on the bodily semiotics employed by whatever porn stars are popular nowadays.  For the sake of science, please sauce this girl.  Thanks.

* nullius trolls WO “for the articles”.

A youngish Ava Addams.

Thanks.  So, does she do Bitcoin?

Forget what I said about “science”.  This is the important question!

Not sexy:

[DaRude]

Anyone advocating for more taxes has been watching too much MSNBC. It's not about feeling sympathy for people who have billions, it's about people thinking the government is their daddy.

Do you think billionaires are swimming around in a pool of gold coins or pallets of $100s? Nearly all of the wealth that people are complaining about is on paper. Jeff Bezos owns a bunch of Amazon shares. If you raise the capital gains tax, he'll just never sell those shares. If the capital gains tax was lowered however, he might sell those shares and invest that money in some other endeavor which could create millions of new jobs. I'm betting the guy who created Amazon is a lot smarter than anyone in the government.

Nearly all the wealth in the world is invested in companies and profits are reinvested in other companies to create more and more jobs. Taxes stifle growth. All taxes are a deterrent to economic activity.

The Government is not your baby daddy and the more money the government takes, the less economic activity, jobs etc.

That is not correct.

Remove all bridges and roads in all countries. Let me know which is harder on economy  no roads no bridges
no canals. Or taxes that build roads bridges and canals such as the panama and the suez.

The correct statement is many taxes are ill conceived and they can hurt the economy.

The bridge/underwater car and train tunnel between Malmö and Copenhagen cost absolutely nothing for the taxpayers, it's all funded by loans that's paid of by a bridge toll, and that even includes a brand new artificial island.

https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%96resundsf%C3%B6rbindelsen#Finansiering_och_%C3%A4garskap

No English text unfortunately, there's a German site though for the speakers of said language.

But a nice picture I provide can.



And a train drivers view, starting with arriving at Malmö C and going underground Malmö with stop at two stations and then surfacing before entering the bridge and going on to Denmark.
I sometimes like to watch train driver view films just as a relaxation and this is one of them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LE_BlE4DxcA
You don't need taxes to build infrastructure.

Ahh the 108€ ($130) round trip toll bridge. Minimum wage worker in USA ($7.25/hr) would have to work over 2 days full time (17.9hrs) just for the privilege to drive across it. But if they buy online they can save 8€!
https://www.oresundsbron.com/en/prices
Should get one going to my house so those poor plebs don't come visiting! 'murika!

That's for one trip, if you go more frequently it gets cheaper. Or you could just take the train, 12 euro/ 14 bucks That's just two hours of work, you can probably manage.
And it's not like it was free before the bridge was built. The ferry wasn't exactly cheap for cars.

The bridge have increased the traffic fivefold and cut the traveltime not to mention the goods that can now go by train between the countries with all the benefits to the economy that brings.
And lastly, it's in my book just fair that the people who uses the bridge pay for the bridge. Why should the taxpayer collective in Denmark and Sweden pay for that?

Edited.

So if i take a chopper to work, have a private doctor, my gated community has private security and my kids have private tutors/fly to private schools then i shouldn't have to pay taxes that go for public roads, schools, healthcare? So you're telling me that way I can concentrate all my energy on accumulating more wealth while poorer folks have to fight for remaining resources? Wait are you sure they'd support that, no way, they'd actually vote for me to have lower tax rate than them? Ok how much do you think i'll be able to push it? What percentage of the overall wealth do you think i can accumulate before the system collapses? More importantly will the system show cracks before collapsing and how will those crack materialize? My security can probably hold back 100 pitchforks but i'd need private army if 1000s show up  

[d_eddie]

In the case of the government, they will probably give it away.

To millionaires and billionaires, just to be clear. The poor it's claimed to be taken for usually only see a small fraction of it.

Too many poorz, too little dollar. Easier to feed the rich.

[Hhampuz]

Taking stuff away from successful people to give it to less successful people is called socialism. Just because you can beat someone up and take their money doesn't mean it's a good way to run a society. It's immoral and has never worked in any country that has tried it. It doesn't help the poor people, it just hurts the rich people. Poor people will always be poor because they don't know how to be rich or are just unmotivated.

And what about generational wealth, you cool with putting a tax on "dead" money (when someone uber rich dies)?

Or is successful a term that applies to anyone you are associated with, no matter what they did to generate that success?

[Arriemoller]

Anyone advocating for more taxes has been watching too much MSNBC. It's not about feeling sympathy for people who have billions, it's about people thinking the government is their daddy.

Do you think billionaires are swimming around in a pool of gold coins or pallets of $100s? Nearly all of the wealth that people are complaining about is on paper. Jeff Bezos owns a bunch of Amazon shares. If you raise the capital gains tax, he'll just never sell those shares. If the capital gains tax was lowered however, he might sell those shares and invest that money in some other endeavor which could create millions of new jobs. I'm betting the guy who created Amazon is a lot smarter than anyone in the government.

Nearly all the wealth in the world is invested in companies and profits are reinvested in other companies to create more and more jobs. Taxes stifle growth. All taxes are a deterrent to economic activity.

The Government is not your baby daddy and the more money the government takes, the less economic activity, jobs etc.

That is not correct.

Remove all bridges and roads in all countries. Let me know which is harder on economy  no roads no bridges
no canals. Or taxes that build roads bridges and canals such as the panama and the suez.

The correct statement is many taxes are ill conceived and they can hurt the economy.

The bridge/underwater car and train tunnel between Malmö and Copenhagen cost absolutely nothing for the taxpayers, it's all funded by loans that's paid of by a bridge toll, and that even includes a brand new artificial island.

https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%96resundsf%C3%B6rbindelsen#Finansiering_och_%C3%A4garskap

No English text unfortunately, there's a German site though for the speakers of said language.

But a nice picture I provide can.



And a train drivers view, starting with arriving at Malmö C and going underground Malmö with stop at two stations and then surfacing before entering the bridge and going on to Denmark.
I sometimes like to watch train driver view films just as a relaxation and this is one of them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LE_BlE4DxcA
You don't need taxes to build infrastructure.

Ahh the 108€ ($130) round trip toll bridge. Minimum wage worker in USA ($7.25/hr) would have to work over 2 days full time (17.9hrs) just for the privilege to drive across it. But if they buy online they can save 8€!
https://www.oresundsbron.com/en/prices
Should get one going to my house so those poor plebs don't come visiting! 'murika!

That's for one trip, if you go more frequently it gets cheaper. Or you could just take the train, 12 euro/ 14 bucks That's just two hours of work, you can probably manage.
And it's not like it was free before the bridge was built. The ferry wasn't exactly cheap for cars.

The bridge have increased the traffic fivefold and cut the traveltime not to mention the goods that can now go by train between the countries with all the benefits to the economy that brings.
And lastly, it's in my book just fair that the people who uses the bridge pay for the bridge. Why should the taxpayer collective in Denmark and Sweden pay for that?

Edited.

So if i take a chopper to work, have a private doctor, my gated community has private security and my kids have private tutors/fly to private schools then i shouldn't have to pay taxes that go for public roads, schools, healthcare? So you're telling me that way I can concentrate all my energy on accumulating more wealth while poorer folks have to fight for remaining resources? Wait are you sure they'd support that, no way, they'd actually vote for me to have lower tax rate than them? Ok how much do you think i'll be able to push it? What percentage of the overall wealth do you think i can accumulate before the system collapses? More importantly will the system show cracks before collapsing and how will those crack materialize? My security can probably hold back 100 pitchforks but i'd need private army if 1000s show up  

The tax money that are now NOT going towards paying for the bridge can now be used for other, better purposes, it's a win win situation.

[Arriemoller]

Taking stuff away from successful people to give it to less successful people is called socialism. Just because you can beat someone up and take their money doesn't mean it's a good way to run a society. It's immoral and has never worked in any country that has tried it. It doesn't help the poor people, it just hurts the rich people. Poor people will always be poor because they don't know how to be rich or are just unmotivated.

And what about generational wealth, you cool with putting a tax on "dead" money (when someone uber rich dies)?

Or is successful a term that applies to anyone you are associated with, no matter what they did to generate that success?

Sweden abolished the inheritance tax because it gave very little in tax revenue and hinders generational build up of wealth among the common people and the handing over of businesses to the next genertion, the rich could pass on their wealth anyway through clever tax planning.

[Syke]

Taking stuff away from successful people to give it to less successful people is called socialism. Just because you can beat someone up and take their money doesn't mean it's a good way to run a society. It's immoral and has never worked in any country that has tried it.

Wake up, dude. It's working now, in every single modern country.

The problem is the ultrarich not paying their fair share. The ultrarich are paying lower tax rates than the poor.

[Toxic2040]

the evening wall report

Well...im trying dang it..but its hard to get into bear mode with bitcoin still trading over $50k  

Maybe if I review a few more Proudhun posts I can get back into the swing of things...doubtful however

Anyway..some TA at first glance at the charts in awhile...still hodling up surprising well

It will take some serious fuckups to test the lower bounds of the approaching wave imo but could easily see a retest of the $35k support area
Not sure if it was pounded enough on the runup
The good news I think it will all be decided before we get to June

#dyor

As always...hodl on for dear life and ride it out

4h


Daily medium and long views

[rolling]

Taking stuff away from successful people to give it to less successful people is called socialism. Just because you can beat someone up and take their money doesn't mean it's a good way to run a society. It's immoral and has never worked in any country that has tried it. It doesn't help the poor people, it just hurts the rich people. Poor people will always be poor because they don't know how to be rich or are just unmotivated.

And what about generational wealth, you cool with putting a tax on "dead" money (when someone uber rich dies)?

Or is successful a term that applies to anyone you are associated with, no matter what they did to generate that success?

If the person inheriting a fortune doesn't learn how to manage the money and be successful then the money goes back into society through mismanagement anyway.

Sure they got a head start but that's no guarantee of success.

[Hhampuz]

Taking stuff away from successful people to give it to less successful people is called socialism. Just because you can beat someone up and take their money doesn't mean it's a good way to run a society. It's immoral and has never worked in any country that has tried it. It doesn't help the poor people, it just hurts the rich people. Poor people will always be poor because they don't know how to be rich or are just unmotivated.

And what about generational wealth, you cool with putting a tax on "dead" money (when someone uber rich dies)?

Or is successful a term that applies to anyone you are associated with, no matter what they did to generate that success?

If the person inheriting a fortune doesn't learn how to manage the money and be successful then the money goes back into society through mismanagement anyway.

Sure they got a head start but that's no guarantee of success.

But wouldn't that be socialism then? If taking from successful people and giving it to less successful ones? I just wanted to know when it applies and when it doesn't in your view.

[Richy_T]

the evening wall report

Well...im trying dang it..but its hard to get into bear mode with bitcoin still trading over $50k  

You jinxed it.

[rolling]

Taking stuff away from successful people to give it to less successful people is called socialism. Just because you can beat someone up and take their money doesn't mean it's a good way to run a society. It's immoral and has never worked in any country that has tried it.

Wake up, dude. It's working now, in every single modern country.

The problem is the ultrarich not paying their fair share. The ultrarich are paying lower tax rates than the poor.

A lower tax "rate" doesn't mean they paid less. The rich are paying more than their fair share, the poor are paying nothing, and the middle class is paying way too much.

You fix it by lowering taxes on the middle class, not raising them on anyone else.

[Richy_T]

But wouldn't that be socialism then? If taking from successful people and giving it to less successful ones? I just wanted to know when it applies and when it doesn't in your view.

Socialism is a system of government. How is passing wealth onto others that?

[Arriemoller]

[...much snip...] But I doubt that we can have a world without government, and it seems that the more dense the population (such as in BIG cities), the more needs there are for a variety of government services.  There does not seem to be enough land for each person to have self-sustainability and voluntariness without attempting to account for various public goods, whether we are talking about roads or air and water or even questions about access to property that could be classified as either public or private depending on the structure - and I question whether removing government even resolves property rights and access matters.

time to immigrate to mars. plenty of prime* land is still up for grabs.

*definition of "prime" subject to change.

I already have a plot on Mars, bought it from the same guy that sells plots on the moon a long time ago.

https://discover.hubpages.com/education/Buying-land-on-moon

[rolling]

Taking stuff away from successful people to give it to less successful people is called socialism. Just because you can beat someone up and take their money doesn't mean it's a good way to run a society. It's immoral and has never worked in any country that has tried it. It doesn't help the poor people, it just hurts the rich people. Poor people will always be poor because they don't know how to be rich or are just unmotivated.

And what about generational wealth, you cool with putting a tax on "dead" money (when someone uber rich dies)?

Or is successful a term that applies to anyone you are associated with, no matter what they did to generate that success?

If the person inheriting a fortune doesn't learn how to manage the money and be successful then the money goes back into society through mismanagement anyway.

Sure they got a head start but that's no guarantee of success.

But wouldn't that be socialism then? If taking from successful people and giving it to less successful ones? I just wanted to know when it applies and when it doesn't in your view.

Who is doing the taking in this scenario? Someone is willfully giving wealth to their heir. If the heir is indeed unsuccessful then they will lose the money that was given to them.