GBTC Bitcoin Investment Trust Observer

[NotLambchop]

Why would it matter where the bidder (syndicate) got the money, or if the bidder represents many people?

[phoenix1]

I think the "drop in auction participation" is also inaccurate (not your statement, but the reports of it in the news).  Second Market had a syndicate of 104 people (http://www.coindesk.com/secondmarket-syndicate-bidders-real-winners-bitcoin-auction/) so since they count that as one buyer, it changes the statistics dramatically.

This is in direct contradiction to a previous article :

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/12/05/venture-capitalist-tim-draper-wins-small-piece-of-bitcoin-auction/?module=ArrowsNav&contentCollection=Business%20Day&action=keypress&region=FixedLeft&pgtype=Blogs&_r=0

SecondMarket said its syndicate received 104 bids from eight bidders, significantly fewer than the 186 bids from 42 bidders in the first auction. Likewise, Dan Morehead, the founder of Pantera Capital, said fewer investors participated in his syndicate this time, though he declined to give any figures

I think the Silbert consortium had bids for about 125K BTC in total, so 104 people in the syndicate seems extremely unlikely. It would mean that a huge number of them were bidding for less than 1k coins and certainly would not be bidding high.

Just checked ... Silbert tweeted that they had 104 bids, not bidders, for a total of 124,127BTC

https://twitter.com/barrysilbert

OTOH 104 bids seems a lot for 8 people ... perhaps someone should ask him to clarify this

[JorgeStolfi]

[Draper] had some very competitive bidders to compete with according to this article.

http://www.coindesk.com/secondmarket-syndicate-bidders-real-winners-bitcoin-auction/

O’Connor said the drop in auction participation is no indication of more bearish attitudes, as bidders needed to place competitive bids to edge out the competition.

He concluded:

“I think you had a lot of very serious folks come to the table that had a strong interest in participating and are very bullish on bitcoin in general. That I think is a very serious statement to say.”

I think the "drop in auction participation" is also inaccurate (not your statement, but the reports of it in the news).  Second Market had a syndicate of 104 people (http://www.coindesk.com/secondmarket-syndicate-bidders-real-winners-bitcoin-auction/) so since they count that as one buyer, it changes the statistics dramatically.

SecondMarket had 186 small bidders in their syndicate for the June auction.
https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/secondmarkets-bitcoin-investment-trust-syndicate-won-48000-btc-in-latest-silk-road-bitcoin-auction/
So that statistic droped too.

And they won't say what price they paid.  Not even say "we paid above market for some of the lots", or "we paid very close to market".

Perhaps they don't want the world to think that key players in the bitcoin space are optimistic about bitcoin. Right, that must be it.

[JorgeStolfi]

SecondMarket said its syndicate received 104 bids from eight bidders, significantly fewer than the 186 bids from 42 bidders in the first auction. Likewise, Dan Morehead, the founder of Pantera Capital, said fewer investors participated in his syndicate this time, though he declined to give any figures

I think the Silbert consortium had bids for about 125K BTC in total, so 104 people in the syndicate seems extremely unlikely. It would mean that a huge number of them were bidding for less than 1k coins and certainly would not be bidding high.

Just checked ... Silbert tweeted that they had 104 bids, not bidders, for a total of 124,127BTC

https://twitter.com/barrysilbert

OTOH 104 bids seems a lot for 8 people ... perhaps someone should ask him to clarify this

Indeed.  Perhaps those 8 bidders were themselves syndicates.  

In order to enter the SecondMarket syndicate, a bidder had to send them the full amount of their bid in advance.  So, there might have been a "banker" who collected several bids from other people, on credit, and entered the SM syndicate under his name, with his own money, for a fee.

Alternatiely, such sub-syndicates could be a way to avoid the KYC/AML requirements that USMS imposed on SecondMarket.  SecondMarket would not risk getting in trouble with the law, but the sub-syndicate organizer may not care about that.

[phoenix1]

SecondMarket had 186 small bidders in their syndicate for the June auction.
https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/secondmarkets-bitcoin-investment-trust-syndicate-won-48000-btc-in-latest-silk-road-bitcoin-auction/
So that statistic droped too.

And they won't say what price they paid.  Not even say "we paid above market for some of the lots", or "we paid very close to market".

Perhaps they don't want the world to think that key players in the bitcoin space are optimistic about bitcoin. Right, that must be it.

You are misreading it Jorge, you are confusing number of bids with number of bidders as I pointed out above.
But I don't disagree with your conclusion

All in all, the Bitcoin Investment Trust (BIT) facilitated 104 bids from eight different bidders. The first time around, during the BIT’s first run as an organized bidding syndicate, they received 186 bids from 42 bidders

There were 18 blocks, so 104 bids from 8 bidders is entirely possible if they bid on individual blocks or staggered their bids

Whichever way you paint it, TBH I can't see anything to get excited about ...
I stand by my original opinion that anyone entering via a syndicate is likely to be bidding lower than an an individual who wanted all/the majority of the coins, who would be IMO highly unlikely to join a syndicate

[JorgeStolfi]

There were 18 blocks, so 104 bids from 8 bidders is entirely possible if they bid on individual blocks or staggered their bids

OK, but each bid by a syndicate member must have been for less than 2000 BTC.  Otherwise there would be no reason to enter the syndicate, right?

They also said that the bids added to ~120 kBTC, so the average bid was about 1200 BTC.

[bitebits]

Anyone who recommends people to put their retirement money into bitcoin should be thrown in jail.

This is just so painful to read, so biased and off topic. I really have a hard time taking you serious when revealing your hidden agenda like this.
Please stick to analyzing the blockchain, recent news or the BIT.

[phoenix1]

There were 18 blocks, so 104 bids from 8 bidders is entirely possible if they bid on individual blocks or staggered their bids

OK, but each bid by a syndicate member must have been for less than 2000 BTC.  Otherwise there would be no reason to enter the syndicate, right?

They also said that the bids added to ~120 kBTC, so the average bid was about 1200 BTC.

Yes, that would be the average. Something about these numbers just seems off to me. Perhaps some of those 8 bidders were also syndicates/individuals who grouped together under one name and then registered with Silbert as a single bidder.
It's just wierd ... I don't get it.

And I am now done trying to figure it out 

[Davyd05]

Anyone who recommends people to put their retirement money into bitcoin should be thrown in jail.

This is just so painful to read, so biased and off topic. I really have a hard time taking you serious when revealing your hidden agenda like this.
Please stick to analyzing the blockchain, recent news or the BIT.

I know this is off topic, but it really isn't all that evil of a statement. No1 should be investing the entirety of their retirement plan in bitcoins...that is just silly and I love bitcoin.

[bitebits]

Anyone who recommends people to put their retirement money into bitcoin should be thrown in jail.

I know this is off topic, but it really isn't all that evil of a statement. No1 should be investing the entirety of their retirement plan in bitcoins...that is just silly and I love bitcoin.

Nobody is claiming you should (put more than a fraction of your retirement funds in bitcoin), but that is exactly what he tries to make you believe.
And even if so, you have your own brains to figure out that would not be a smart move. Jorge stating that people should be put in jail because of their free speech, is beyond suppression.

[JorgeStolfi]

Anyone who recommends people to put their retirement money into bitcoin should be thrown in jail.

This is just so painful to read, so biased and off topic. I really have a hard time taking you serious when revealing your hidden agenda like this.
Please stick to analyzing the blockchain, recent news or the BIT.

This is not my hidden agenda, it is the very reason why I started following bitcoin -- and I have been clear about that from the beginning.  We already had here a MLM that sucked all the worth -- over a billion dollars -- of millions of Brazilians wo did not know any better.   Now bitcoiners are pushing BTC in Latin America as a hedge against inflation, a miraculous get-rich schema, etc.; hoping that suckers here will lift the price and buy the coins that they want to sell.  You cannot ask me to be silent about it.

EDIT: And bitcoin funds are part of that too, so that was quite on-topic.  Too bad that you will never see criticisms of those funds in the bitcoin media (which is uspported by enterprises like SMBIT).

[JorgeStolfi]

stating that people should be put in jail because of their free speech

Free speech is the right to tell your own honest opinion.  It does not cover intentionally deceiving people, in particular misleading investors about the value of bonds and such -- which can take people to jail, in many jurisdictions.

If those people with money to spare really believe that Bitcoin will be worth 10000$ next year, why don't they buy those coins that are being offered for sale on the exchanges at 370$ now?

[marcus_of_augustus]

get rich schemas like the hyperinflationary Brazilian govt. issued reals you mean?

how many lives have they destroyed comparatively to all the little cons? the big fiat socialist con is the one you studiously (academically) avoid ...

[cr1776]

I think the "drop in auction participation" is also inaccurate (not your statement, but the reports of it in the news).  Second Market had a syndicate of 104 people (http://www.coindesk.com/secondmarket-syndicate-bidders-real-winners-bitcoin-auction/) so since they count that as one buyer, it changes the statistics dramatically.

This is in direct contradiction to a previous article :

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/12/05/venture-capitalist-tim-draper-wins-small-piece-of-bitcoin-auction/?module=ArrowsNav&contentCollection=Business%20Day&action=keypress&region=FixedLeft&pgtype=Blogs&_r=0

SecondMarket said its syndicate received 104 bids from eight bidders, significantly fewer than the 186 bids from 42 bidders in the first auction. Likewise, Dan Morehead, the founder of Pantera Capital, said fewer investors participated in his syndicate this time, though he declined to give any figures

I think the Silbert consortium had bids for about 125K BTC in total, so 104 people in the syndicate seems extremely unlikely. It would mean that a huge number of them were bidding for less than 1k coins and certainly would not be bidding high.

Just checked ... Silbert tweeted that they had 104 bids, not bidders, for a total of 124,127BTC

https://twitter.com/barrysilbert

OTOH 104 bids seems a lot for 8 people ... perhaps someone should ask him to clarify this

I agree.  I don't know what the actual number is since there are various places saying various things.


His tweet says:

Results of our US Marshals bitcoin syndicate:
Bids received - 104
BTC quantity bid - 124,127
Winners notified by USMS today

It isn't clear to me the number as compared the the article I had quoted from above.  Anyway, if USMS had 11 registered bidders this time vs 45 in June, it is down.  If Second Market had only 8, that would be 18 bidders (8 + 11 minus Second Market since they were representing the , so 40% of the number of bidders since June. 

Either way, interesting.

[marcus_of_augustus]

So please stop comparing bitcoins to "filthy fiat" and bitcoiners to bankers and politicians. There is a long way to go before they they can stand the comparison.

in your socialist, monopolist addled academic mind maybe ... the guy on the street has more wisdom than you ivory tower pontificators and they know good money when they see it ... but hey, keep pumping your rotten statist pyramid schemes onto the masses and let your conscience follow you to the grave.

[NotLambchop]

.@marcus_of_augustus:  I can not blame you for being an ignorant, delusional fool, but your utter lack of tact is bothersome.
If at all possible, stop being such an rude faggot.
ty.

[Vlad2Vlad]

.@marcus_of_augustus:  I can not blame you for being an ignorant, delusional fool, but your utter lack of tact is bothersome.
If at all possible, stop being such an rude faggot.
ty.

At least Marcus sounded intelligent and educated in his rebuke; while you sound like nothing more than a dropout bigoted fool.

[jl2012]

Please go to the wall observer for off topic discussion

[wachtwoord]

596 XBT bought yesterday

Nice to see investors keep buying, even after the auction.

Yes, a very good sign

[skivrmt]

Why do you think that Barry created SMBIT, or the Winkles want to create COIN?  Hint: if one has 100'000 coins, how could one sell them without crashing the price?

Dude, are you shitting me?

You think the winklevoss twins are starting an ETF to be able to dump their 110,000 BTC?

Hahahaahaa.

Dude, wake up, that 110,000 BTC is used as needed liquidity to start the fund.

The twins will make billions - BILLIONS in fees alone from the ETF [AND ON TOP OF THAT] they will get to keep ALL of their Bitcoins too.  

It is their ETF fund - they get a cut of all the fees.  Imagine the number of massive buys once this fund launches.  Every mutual fund in the world will be able to legally buy BTC at that point.

I predicted last year the ETF was a done deal and I explained why.  I predicted last year ( in September) BTC would match gold price within one year and it did.  I predicted they would switch to bits and explained why.  Trust me on this ETF thing - it's gonna change everything [again].

I cannot believe so many people have no idea what this ETF really means and where Bitcoin's price is gonna go once it launches.

Next year $10,000 per Bitcoin will be considered cheap; hence the need for "bits" as the common household name when referring to Bitcoin.

Buy all you can now - BIT should go to OTC very soon (January at latest) and COIN is very close behind.

The twins will not make anywhere near Billions is fees from the ETF.  Think about how many billionaires there are in the world, then think of how many ETFs there are.  WAY more ETFs exist. Will they make money?  Of course.  But I don't think the ETF, if it's ever approved, will be a big as most people think.

I am very pro Bitcoin.  But $10k a coin isn't happening anytime soon.  BitBet had a bet going starting earlier this year BTC would reach $10k by Nov 29th.  I bet against that in Jan.  I won the bet.  Go start another bet on BitBet now if you believe it will reach 10k in a year.  Put some money where your statements are!   I'll go bet against you.