Does anyone care to explain or know how these ETF's work?
I am not any kind of expert, but I understand that if the end user is wanting exposure to bitcoin and they buy one of the spot BTC ETF products, then the ETF provider has an obligation to buy the underlying within a relatively short period of time that could be anywhere around 24 hours, and my understanding is that they might even require notice from the client (the end user), so that they buy exposure prior to selling the ETF share to the client.
So pretty much the ETF providers match the quantity of shares (or BTC exposure) that their various clients want to have, and if a client sells, then the ETF provider sells within a short time, too.
Do they hold indefinitely?
That is going to depend on the client.. the client could be individuals, institutions and/or governments, and they might be going through tax privileged vehicles or they might have tax consequences for their buying/selling. I think it is presumed that ETFs are not as likely to be trading as much, and they are more likely to be longer term holders, but they are not prevented from trading so they may well buy and sell frequently and/or reallocate from time to time.
Do they sell at x y Z % profit?
That's up to the client.
Do they sell when the clients(boomers) say sell?
Yes.
Or is the fund manager in control?
There are going to be some clients that are institutions and/or fund managers and/or in charge of other people's money who are buying BTC spot ETFs and they might be buying the BTC spot ETFs as an individualized product, or they might be re-packaging the BTC spot ETFs as part of another product. Within a couple weeks of the launch of the ETFs Fidelity already came out with a product that had a few percentages of the allocation dedicated to BTC spot ETF exposure.
Do they actively trade too?
They can trade, but they are not the same as trading BTC on an exchange, so maybe they might be considered to be more as swing traders rather than day traders.
Thanks,
I was just having a read through some of the recently released email history between Satoshi and Martii 'Sirius' Malmi. I only just became aware of these, so thought I'd share in case others had missed/are interested:
https://twitter.com/pete_rizzo_/status/1761040089075888292One question I've always had is why he picked 21 million? Why not a round number, like 50m or 100m? And why is a Satoshi 100 millionth of a BTC and not a 10 millionth or a 1,000 millionth? Did he make assumptions about future value and therefore the minimum required 'value' of a satoshi relative to fiat?
Curious.
I thought that I read somewhere that Satoshi had stated to someone that the number was somewhat arbitrary, and of course, he (satoshi) had to go through the way that whole system works with the issuance and the halvenings and how long it would play out in order to consider a variety of possible numbers to use.
Watching this model it really looks like we had the worst bear market ever in this cycle, with BTC being undervalued like never before in history. That'd actually make sense with all these fake BTC being sold and the many lender crashes afterwards..
Wouldn't be surprised too much, if S2F had a great comeback...
S2F projections would have been valid last cycle if China Ban and FTX fraud wouldn't have happened, some analysts said (maybe even PlanB himself, IIRC).
I see no reason to proclaim that S2F is not valid, merely because there was some underperformance. Yeah, maybe the specifics did not come true, but so what?.. there could be questions about if the actual price moves are one or two standard deviations above or below what the model suggests, but those deviations would not likely last long, and then the BTC price returns into the parameters of the model, but just happen to be on the low end rather than being in the middle.
The current cycle was projected to reach between $300k and $450k, somewhere after 2018. With Spot ETFs in place, this could be exceeded, but i have more trust in the old numbers. So, yes, the most bearish cycle so far should have been the last one, but it should somehow compensate later, according to economic theories.
That's why bottoms are better to track rather than tops. Yeah, sure sell some BTC at various top points, yet in the end who knows where they are going to land..
I might have to update
my percentage/probabilities assignment for this cycle.. of course starting for the odds for topping anywhere between $64,001 and perhaps $5 million.. and sure we might need a category for $5 million plus... or should I just call the last category $2.5 million plus? I used $1.5 million plus for my last one (which I had put at ONLY about 0.5% odds of happening for that cycle), and still that number has not been used, but it would seem lame to use the same top number as previously.. as if we had not advanced (or made progress) in the last couple of years since my last probabilities assignments that I did in December 2021?
Another thing is that the 200-WMA has come up quite a lot since then too.. so that probably helps to move the possibility for higher tops up too.. just tentatively thinking... it is getting tempting to plug in the numbers, but I hate to get too far ahead of myself and to plug the numbers in what seems to be our earlier stages of uppity rather than what ended up being the end of our UPpity from the last cycle.
Even though he could be correct, he is too much of a bitcoin newbie, but I did watch the video, and he makes quite a bit of sense, but he does still sound a bit like a newbie in terms of his having quite a bit of reliance on pumpamentals.. which yeah could still end up being true.. He also seems to think that $1 million is a kind of stable price for bitcoin.. and that seems to really underappreciate his thoughts of governments taking bitcoin into their treasuries.
I have said that 2x to 3x from here in the short term might give us some place to reassess and maybe put some more bitcoin on the market to help give some relief to the flows and the pressures of the ETFs. and other related current UPpity price pressures.
Poll
