GBTC Bitcoin Investment Trust Observer

[FNG]

+7716XBT. Mistake again? We will see tomorrow

wtf...

[bobabouey2]

If you take the sum of the changes in estimated BTX Sep 24 to Nov 3, the total change is 418 BTX.  Out of the Nov 3 total of 106840, that is 0.39%.

Also, leaving aside the big errors that appear to be reversed the next day, there is only one change, on Oct 3, that is more than 100.  That one was for 356, and thus comprises most of the total change.

So in addition to the big errors that appear to be reversed the next day, I would posit that everything else is just minor factors in their calculations that aren't visible to us, or small errors.  And that the fund has been closed for both purchases and sales due to an SEC quiet period commencing after Sep 23.

[BitAddict]

+7716XBT. Mistake again? We will see tomorrow

Would be nice if true.

[derpinheimer]

Interesting. Seems like it could be true considering all the large buys yesterday.

[BitChick]

Interesting. Seems like it could be true considering all the large buys yesterday.

Hopefully they don't change their minds and sell.

[rebuilder]

+7716XBT. Mistake again? We will see tomorrow

Has anyone checked for correllation between secondmarket published data and market movements? If a correllation exists, does the market tend to lead or follow the publication time?

[wachtwoord]

+7716XBT. Mistake again? We will see tomorrow

Has anyone checked for correllation between secondmarket published data and market movements? If a correllation exists, does the market tend to lead or follow the publication time?

Good point and probably it. I have no time to cross reference this now so I'm just going to curiously check back here tomorrow

[whazzledazzle]

To what extent is their NAV calculation change skewing the data?  It seems the timing matches up with the 7k buy, making me think it's probably not accurate.

Source: https://twitter.com/BitcoinTrust/status/529390214897102848

[JorgeStolfi]

Has anyone checked for correllation between secondmarket published data and market movements? If a correllation exists, does the market tend to lead or follow the publication time?

Back in april I made the following plot, using the data from this thread:



The bitcoin price is 10 times the nominal share value (top red line).  The the pink circles are the actual BTC holdings, as published by SMBIT every now and then.  The blue ascending curve that interpolates those circles is their BTC holdings day by day, as estimated by the Original Poster.  The steps and jerks in that line may be artifacts of the interpolation method. 

I don't think it is viable to correlate their buys with the market movements: the data is too coarse and uncertain for that.

[jl2012]

To what extent is their NAV calculation change skewing the data?  It seems the timing matches up with the 7k buy, making me think it's probably not accurate.

Source: https://twitter.com/BitcoinTrust/status/529390214897102848

It seems that the 7k change was not an error.

For the change in NAV calculation, I guess it won't affect my estimation since the change in NAV will also proportionally affect the amount of Total Asset. Anyway, we can't confirm until they announce the actual BTC holding amount again.

[Michael Robinson]

If this 7629   buy on November 4th ends up being a dud, this thread needs to quit being updated.  People believe Second Market has insider tips, and therefore buy/sell when they see Second Market doing the same.  

People are literally losing money on these frequent discrepancies, if you can't get it right....STOP.

[Patel]

People are literally losing money on these frequent discrepancies, if you can't get it right....stop.

Then don't use the data. Simple.

[Michael Robinson]

People are literally losing money on these frequent discrepancies, if you can't get it right....stop.

Then don't use the data. Simple.

I'm sorry, but "If our data is inaccurrate, then don't use it" isn't a justifiable defense.  If your data is meaningless or misleading, you shouldn't be posting it.  This thread is starting to become the "boy who cried wolf", it is inaccurate so often nowadays, you don't even believe it when you see it.  It's become a joke.  And to continue to post bogus data is dangerous and immoral. 

[nioc]

Maybe you should use the data directly from secondmarket.

[JorgeStolfi]

I'm sorry, but "If our data is inaccurrate, then don't use it" isn't a justifiable defense.  If your data is meaningless or misleading, you shouldn't be posting it.  This thread is starting to become the "boy who cried wolf", it is inaccurate so often nowadays, you don't even believe it when you see it.  It's become a joke.  And to continue to post bogus data is dangerous and immoral. 

The thread owner is doing his best to interpret scant data that SMBIT publishes.  If that data is inaccurate or misleading, blame SMBIT.  I don't recall he ever presented this site as anything else, in particular as a trading guide. 

And, by the way, SMBIT is supposed to buy or sell 0.1 BTC whenever the public buys or liquidates one of the fund's shares.  Thus, them buying or selling is independent of what they think the price will do, it only reflects what their customers think.  They are no more likely to have "insider info" than the traders at the exchanges.

This data is very valuable as an indication of the public acceptance of bitcoin funds like SMBIT.  I wish there was similar data for PBP and other funds.  I hope the thread owner continues to post it.

[oda.krell]

@jl2012

Hope you're not taking this newbie account's accusations serious.

You're doing the absolutely best that can be done with the incomplete information that is available.

If someone is dumb enough to run a 1:1 strategy following the reverse engineered suspected account changes of the fund, that's his problem alone. Everyone else with two brain cells to rub together will use it a bit more cautiously: as an (imperfect) estimation of what the currently largest fund with a Bitcoin collateral is doing. Nothing more, nothing less.

[brg444]

so did we get confirmation that the 7k buy was legit?

[oda.krell]

so did we get confirmation that the 7k buy was legit?

So far, the 7k buy is just the result of jl2012's calculations, but at least it wasn't reversed a few days later like before, so it's more likely it is not a mistake.

Confirmation will come if and when the fund officially lists its total BTC holding, which they seem to do about monthly, I think. Someone correct me please if I'm wrong about that.

[jl2012]

so did we get confirmation that the 7k buy was legit?

So far, the 7k buy is just the result of jl2012's calculations, but at least it wasn't reversed a few days later like before, so it's more likely it is not a mistake.

Confirmation will come if and when the fund officially lists its total BTC holding, which they seem to do about monthly, I think. Someone correct me please if I'm wrong about that.

They have just updated the actual holding on 1 Nov. The last time they did so was in April, and monthly before that. So it's difficult to predict when will they update again. Actual I thought they would never update again.

It was pointed out that on the same day of the "7k buy" SMBIT changed the price source for the NAV. It shouldn't have such effect but I can't rule out the possibility without the next actual holding figure.

Anyway, all data shown in this thread were publicly available. The formulas I use are also available.  If there were any errors, it must be the fault of SMBIT as I always double check when there is a big movement. I never presented this as a trading guide and if someone gets burnt with the faulty data from SMBIT, blame them.

I'll certainly keep updating this. I'm not updating as frequent as before because the lack of meaningful movement.

[hongl3liang]

it seems they just bought more.