Bakkt launching on Dec12, is it will start a bull run?

[pdccrypto]

http://coinglobalpress.com/2018/10/23/bitcoin-trading-platform-bakkt-will-be-live-from-dec-12-with-bitcoinbtc-futures-trading/

[1714253030]

1714253030

[1714253030]

1714253030

[1714253030]

1714253030

[1714253030]

1714253030

[Kevin77]

http://coinglobalpress.com/2018/10/23/bitcoin-trading-platform-bakkt-will-be-live-from-dec-12-with-bitcoinbtc-futures-trading/

That is just futures and if we have seen enough of the futures so far and how they affect the prices of bitcoin I think just futures would be really scary for all of us. Even with bitmex that is basically our own we are still seeing a lot of people betting on bitcoin going down and whales spending millions of dollars into short futures and trying to keep the price as low as miners allow them and try to make as much money from it as possible.

Futures are creating a conondurum which allows rich people to both sell bitcoin (create capital for themselves) and at the same time buy short futures with that same money and make double the income. Whereas if they want to make money by buying long futures they would have to both buy bitcoin to increase the price (costs capital) and buy long futures at the same time (costs capital as well) which means they need to spend double the amount for probably even less profit.

[olubams]

http://coinglobalpress.com/2018/10/23/bitcoin-trading-platform-bakkt-will-be-live-from-dec-12-with-bitcoinbtc-futures-trading/

Here we go again. Another service provider ready to start giving false hope by raising expectation that would not be fulfilled. I wonder the volume of future contract that this platform wants to make available that would be significant enough to make much impact to push for the beginning of a bull run as being speculated. Expect the normal gradual increase in price that is being witnessed with its accompanied volatility, the only news that could mean a huge push is the ETF approval which is not even certain.

[gentlemand]

Nope.

It makes future bull runs potentially stronger as that infrastructure is there waiting to be stampeded into. It will not initiate any type of stampede. Same goes for any ETF should it ever arrive. It won't create demand. It'll facilitate more of it when the demand arrives from other factors.

[thecodebear]

http://coinglobalpress.com/2018/10/23/bitcoin-trading-platform-bakkt-will-be-live-from-dec-12-with-bitcoinbtc-futures-trading/

That is just futures and if we have seen enough of the futures so far and how they affect the prices of bitcoin I think just futures would be really scary for all of us. Even with bitmex that is basically our own we are still seeing a lot of people betting on bitcoin going down and whales spending millions of dollars into short futures and trying to keep the price as low as miners allow them and try to make as much money from it as possible.

Futures are creating a conondurum which allows rich people to both sell bitcoin (create capital for themselves) and at the same time buy short futures with that same money and make double the income. Whereas if they want to make money by buying long futures they would have to both buy bitcoin to increase the price (costs capital) and buy long futures at the same time (costs capital as well) which means they need to spend double the amount for probably even less profit.

These futures are physically delivered and not leveraged. Which is entirely different than the futures from last December. Here they will actually be receiving Bitcoins, instead of just making bets on the price. Also futures is just the first product, I'm sure it won't take too long for them to introduce actual Bitcoin trading on BAKKT.

[thecodebear]

I don't think it will immediately launch of into the next bull run, but I think over the course of a few months as more institutions use BAKKT it will help start the bull run. It is going to create a lot of new demand, but I think Wall St will be slow to dive in, so it will be a gradual effect. I think the market needs to trade sideways for a few months before starting to really move up again. Now if BAKKT starts having a lot of volume quickly then I think it could initiate the next bull market, but it seems that institutions on Wall St don't want to be the first into Bitcoin, so I think they'll warm up to it over a few months and maybe by February or March we'll start seeing some solid volume on BAKKT and Bitcoin's price will start moving up, breaking into the next long bull run.

[fabiorem]

No.

And much less the ETF.

[dothebeats]

Absolutely not. It's just another service provider in which people can use its platform to make things happen, but it's not the one who will spark the fire per se. I don't see any significance in Bakkt's launch but only hype and nothing more. It will not create demand out of thin air as if it's the only thing that this present market is waiting for., same as the ETFs that most people are banking on, thinking that it's approval will be on par with bull runs and crazy gains.

[exstasie]

Nope.

It makes future bull runs potentially stronger as that infrastructure is there waiting to be stampeded into. It will not initiate any type of stampede. Same goes for any ETF should it ever arrive. It won't create demand. It'll facilitate more of it when the demand arrives from other factors.

I'm glad there's someone sensible in the room. If I see another person exclaim "Bakkt is the catalyst for the next bull run" I think I'll throw up. No investors out there are "waiting for Bakkt to launch" before getting exposure to BTC. That's completely nonsensical.

These futures are physically delivered and not leveraged. Which is entirely different than the futures from last December. Here they will actually be receiving Bitcoins, instead of just making bets on the price. Also futures is just the first product, I'm sure it won't take too long for them to introduce actual Bitcoin trading on BAKKT.

Perhaps not leveraged with margin, but they are highly unlikely to be fully collateralized since they don't have to be. Take a look at the paper gold market for inspiration. Most "physically settled" gold contracts are never delivered.

What makes you think they'll offer spot trading? The ICE mostly offers futures and options markets. Even their "physical" markets are all still contracts that settle based on an index of spot, forward, and derivative market prices.

[thecodebear]

Absolutely not. It's just another service provider in which people can use its platform to make things happen, but it's not the one who will spark the fire per se. I don't see any significance in Bakkt's launch but only hype and nothing more. It will not create demand out of thin air as if it's the only thing that this present market is waiting for., same as the ETFs that most people are banking on, thinking that it's approval will be on par with bull runs and crazy gains.

BAKKT is where Wall St will be able to start entering the market in a regulated exchange though. That is unique in the market. I don't think the effect will be immediate but it will introduce real new demand, not demand out of thin air. Since it is a Wall St exchange, eventually BAKKT will bring in huge amounts of money and will probably dwarf the size of any other normal crypto exchange. The demand is there in Wall St, and they will slowly roll many billions into BAKKT as they become more confident the bear market is behind us. Make no mistake, Wall St can make all the money that has ever been put into Bitcoin look like pocket change, and they likely will in the coming years.

[thecodebear]

Nope.

It makes future bull runs potentially stronger as that infrastructure is there waiting to be stampeded into. It will not initiate any type of stampede. Same goes for any ETF should it ever arrive. It won't create demand. It'll facilitate more of it when the demand arrives from other factors.

I'm glad there's someone sensible in the room. If I see another person exclaim "Bakkt is the catalyst for the next bull run" I think I'll throw up. No investors out there are "waiting for Bakkt to launch" before getting exposure to BTC. That's completely nonsensical.

These futures are physically delivered and not leveraged. Which is entirely different than the futures from last December. Here they will actually be receiving Bitcoins, instead of just making bets on the price. Also futures is just the first product, I'm sure it won't take too long for them to introduce actual Bitcoin trading on BAKKT.

Perhaps not leveraged with margin, but they are highly unlikely to be fully collateralized since they don't have to be. Take a look at the paper gold market for inspiration. Most "physically settled" gold contracts are never delivered.

What makes you think they'll offer spot trading? The ICE mostly offers futures and options markets. Even their "physical" markets are all still contracts that settle based on an index of spot, forward, and derivative market prices.

Why do you think Wall St investors aren't waiting for a regulated exchange before getting into Bitcoin. How is that nonsensical? That is probably what a lot of them are waiting for. Wall St mostly has no interest in throwing their money into these crypto exchanges that get hacked every few months. They require a much safer environment, and they are really only interested in operating in their own environment - operating with other institutions on Wall St. That is what BAKKT is. I find it bizarre that anyone would think BAKKT isn't a huge deal. I don't expect an immediate crazy price run because even when BAKKT launches I think it'll take time for many Wall St players to start buying in, but December 12th is the start of the flood. All the money that has ever been put into Bitcoin so far will be laughable once Wall St has regulated Bitcoin exchanges and ETFs and whatnot to make money from.

Maybe they won't offer spot trading, I dunno, I read that they will be offering more and more services, and with the way BAKKT is talking about wanting to spread the investment and usage of Bitcoin to everyone I can only assume they will open up spot trading eventually. Regardless, other Wall St institutions will (we already know Fidelity and Goldman Sachs are creating their own Bitcoin services, no doubt many more will in the next 12 - 24 months). The point of physically settled bitcoin futures on BAKKT is that BAKKT has to actually hold all the Bitcoin. They have to buy up the supply for whatever volume they have. As supply goes down in the broader market demand gets pinched and price goes up, simple market economics.

[exstasie]

Why do you think Wall St investors aren't waiting for a regulated exchange before getting into Bitcoin. How is that nonsensical? That is probably what a lot of them are waiting for.

Ever heard of LedgerX? They are a CFTC-approved swap execution facility. They offer physically-settled Bitcoin derivatives, including options and swaps. They are a clearinghouse that handles Bitcoin custody on behalf of brokers and clients. They were approved by the CFTC well over a year ago. Now they're waiting for CFTC approval for physically-settled Ethereum derivatives.

What were you saying about regulated exchanges again?

I also find it baffling how people say "cash-settled futures" (like the Cboe and CME Bitcoin markets) aren't appropriate for Wall Street because it's just "betting on the price." What exactly do you think derivative markets are for, if not speculative exposure to market volatility? If an institution wants exposure to the Bitcoin market, why would they specifically not want to acquire CME Bitcoin quarterlies? If they wanted exposure past settlement date, why couldn't they just roll over their contracts?

Wall St mostly has no interest in throwing their money into these crypto exchanges that get hacked every few months.

Nobody said anything like that. LedgerX and CME =/= Mt Gox and Bitfinex. More importantly, there are several robust institutional custody solutions and a liquid OTC market. That's why hedge funds have been in the game for several years already.

The point of physically settled bitcoin futures on BAKKT is that BAKKT has to actually hold all the Bitcoin. They have to buy up the supply for whatever volume they have.

No, they don't. They need assets equivalent to the USD value of outstanding Bitcoin contracts. This is not an ETF: BTC are not held in trust with shares issued against them.

Again, the proper parallel is CME/COMEX physically-settled gold markets. There are way more gold contracts than gold in their vaults. There are multiple registered "owners" for every physical claim to gold.

If everyone who is long BTC on BAKKT wanted to physically settle, they probably couldn't. The truth is, they probably don't want to. Like the gold markets, the vast majority of market participants are just betting on the price. They don't want to accumulate the underlying.

Which brings us back to why cash-settled futures are perfectly appropriate for institutional exposure to BTC.

[windjc]

Why do you think Wall St investors aren't waiting for a regulated exchange before getting into Bitcoin. How is that nonsensical? That is probably what a lot of them are waiting for.

Ever heard of LedgerX? They are a CFTC-approved swap execution facility. They offer physically-settled Bitcoin derivatives, including options and swaps. They are a clearinghouse that handles Bitcoin custody on behalf of brokers and clients. They were approved by the CFTC well over a year ago. Now they're waiting for CFTC approval for physically-settled Ethereum derivatives.

What were you saying about regulated exchanges again?

I also find it baffling how people say "cash-settled futures" (like the Cboe and CME Bitcoin markets) aren't appropriate for Wall Street because it's just "betting on the price." What exactly do you think derivative markets are for, if not speculative exposure to market volatility? If an institution wants exposure to the Bitcoin market, why would they specifically not want to acquire CME Bitcoin quarterlies? If they wanted exposure past settlement date, why couldn't they just roll over their contracts?

Wall St mostly has no interest in throwing their money into these crypto exchanges that get hacked every few months.

Nobody said anything like that. LedgerX and CME =/= Mt Gox and Bitfinex. More importantly, there are several robust institutional custody solutions and a liquid OTC market. That's why hedge funds have been in the game for several years already.

The point of physically settled bitcoin futures on BAKKT is that BAKKT has to actually hold all the Bitcoin. They have to buy up the supply for whatever volume they have.

No, they don't. They need assets equivalent to the USD value of outstanding Bitcoin contracts. This is not an ETF: BTC are not held in trust with shares issued against them.

Again, the proper parallel is CME/COMEX physically-settled gold markets. There are way more gold contracts than gold in their vaults. There are multiple registered "owners" for every physical claim to gold.

If everyone who is long BTC on BAKKT wanted to physically settle, they probably couldn't. The truth is, they probably don't want to. Like the gold markets, the vast majority of market participants are just betting on the price. They don't want to accumulate the underlying.

Which brings us back to why cash-settled futures are perfectly appropriate for institutional exposure to BTC.

You are just wrong on this point.

I've been around these parts since 2013 and have seen literally 100s of people also wrong about equivalent points in the past.

You need to do more research if you aren't just trolling.

Simple fact: Bakkt will custodian all bitcoins purchased at the end of each day (futures expiration).

[1Referee]

There might be a speculative increase at launch, just because traders get excited and buy up the market, but nothing more than that.

The main reason that it won't be coming from Bakkt itself is because it has very likely enough coins in reserves to deliver already, all bought through the OTC market. The only way for them to buy up new coins is to have the demand shrink their reserves to such degree, that they are forced to buy another load of coins, which will be done through the OTC market again.

The positive aspect however is that with various competing coin backed products, that it will slowly dry out the OTC market, which eventually might force these entities to touch the spot market, but that's far away from this point. Let's first see what happens with Bakkt and if there is enough demand.

[windjc]

There might be a speculative increase at launch, just because traders get excited and buy up the market, but nothing more than that.

The main reason that it won't be coming from Bakkt itself is because it has very likely enough coins in reserves to deliver already, all bought through the OTC market. The only way for them to buy up new coins is to have the demand shrink their reserves to such degree, that they are forced to buy another load of coins, which will be done through the OTC market again.

The positive aspect however is that with various competing coin backed products, that it will slowly dry out the OTC market, which eventually might force these entities to touch the spot market, but that's far away from this point. Let's first see what happens with Bakkt and if there is enough demand.

Golden Sachs is already onboarded to use Bakkt. I am sure there are several others as well. I agree the effect will most likely be felt over time. Sellers have started to show signs of drying up, so marginal increases in demand will start to move the market a little at a time.

[BitHodler]

The more people expect Bakkt to initiate a bull run, the more convinced I am that it won't. I haven't seen anyone predict a bull run or even a rally correctly in the years that I have been here, and I don't see that change this time.

What makes things even worse is how Bakkt goes live during a bear market, and that's not really the best time to start in crypto. It's a market that thrives on positive sentiment, and that's lacking this year.

Institutions ignored Coinbase's index fund which was physically backed by a basket of crypto currencies. Coinbase shut it down not that long ago, likely because no one even bothered to invest in it.

[figmentofmyass]

No, they don't. They need assets equivalent to the USD value of outstanding Bitcoin contracts. This is not an ETF: BTC are not held in trust with shares issued against them.

Again, the proper parallel is CME/COMEX physically-settled gold markets. There are way more gold contracts than gold in their vaults. There are multiple registered "owners" for every physical claim to gold.

If everyone who is long BTC on BAKKT wanted to physically settle, they probably couldn't. The truth is, they probably don't want to. Like the gold markets, the vast majority of market participants are just betting on the price. They don't want to accumulate the underlying.

Which brings us back to why cash-settled futures are perfectly appropriate for institutional exposure to BTC.

You are just wrong on this point.

I've been around these parts since 2013 and have seen literally 100s of people also wrong about equivalent points in the past.

You need to do more research if you aren't just trolling.

Simple fact: Bakkt will custodian all bitcoins purchased at the end of each day (futures expiration).

the bolded might be the point at issue. you guys are talking about two different things. i'm not sure that he's wrong.

do you actually have proof that all bakkt contracts will be fully collateralized? where is that specified? that's not required by the CFTC as he pointed out with the comex markets. 

i'm not sure myself, but i pointed this out in another thread because this "fully backed" talk doesn't seem to be based in fact. i think it's actually a legitimate point of contention:

the contracts are supposed to settle in coins, but some worry that if bakkt is run like the ICE and other wall street exchanges, that this will lead to fractional reserve practices:

Caitlin Long, who spent more than two decades on Wall Street and co-founded the Wyoming Blockchain Coalition, said that she was partially-pleased by Loeffler’s post, which answered some questions that she and others had been asking about ICE’s handling of bitcoin, specifically about explicit leverage and margin trading.

However, she noted that the post was silent on what she calls “hidden leverage,” through which institutions commingle and rehypothecate different types of collateral (bitcoins, physical USD, securities, etc.), which involves substituting them for one another on their balance sheet as well as allow multiple parties to declare ownership of the same asset on their financial statements.

These practices, Long says, are standard on Wall Street and could serve to taint bitcoin’s fixed currency supply with elements of the wider financial system, which relies on fractional-reserve banking.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/nyse-owner-bitcoin-market-may-205553702.html

the "simple fact" above doesn't actually speak to the point made about comex gold futures, or to caitlin long's point above. you're talking about the "net" long deliverables, not all outstanding long contracts, which may or may not actually be fully backed.

it's a well known fact that comex gold futures aren't fully backed, even though they are physically deliverable. what makes you so sure that bakkt bitcoin futures would operate differently? it's obviously not required by the CFTC, which is why it's common practice on wall street for firms to "commingle and rehypothecate" different types of collateral for balance sheet purposes.

[windjc]

No, they don't. They need assets equivalent to the USD value of outstanding Bitcoin contracts. This is not an ETF: BTC are not held in trust with shares issued against them.

Again, the proper parallel is CME/COMEX physically-settled gold markets. There are way more gold contracts than gold in their vaults. There are multiple registered "owners" for every physical claim to gold.

If everyone who is long BTC on BAKKT wanted to physically settle, they probably couldn't. The truth is, they probably don't want to. Like the gold markets, the vast majority of market participants are just betting on the price. They don't want to accumulate the underlying.

Which brings us back to why cash-settled futures are perfectly appropriate for institutional exposure to BTC.

You are just wrong on this point.

I've been around these parts since 2013 and have seen literally 100s of people also wrong about equivalent points in the past.

You need to do more research if you aren't just trolling.

Simple fact: Bakkt will custodian all bitcoins purchased at the end of each day (futures expiration).

the bolded might be the point at issue. you guys are talking about two different things. i'm not sure that he's wrong.

do you actually have proof that all bakkt contracts will be fully collateralized? where is that specified? that's not required by the CFTC as he pointed out with the comex markets.  

i'm not sure myself, but i pointed this out in another thread because this "fully backed" talk doesn't seem to be based in fact. i think it's actually a legitimate point of contention:

the contracts are supposed to settle in coins, but some worry that if bakkt is run like the ICE and other wall street exchanges, that this will lead to fractional reserve practices:

Caitlin Long, who spent more than two decades on Wall Street and co-founded the Wyoming Blockchain Coalition, said that she was partially-pleased by Loeffler’s post, which answered some questions that she and others had been asking about ICE’s handling of bitcoin, specifically about explicit leverage and margin trading.

However, she noted that the post was silent on what she calls “hidden leverage,” through which institutions commingle and rehypothecate different types of collateral (bitcoins, physical USD, securities, etc.), which involves substituting them for one another on their balance sheet as well as allow multiple parties to declare ownership of the same asset on their financial statements.

These practices, Long says, are standard on Wall Street and could serve to taint bitcoin’s fixed currency supply with elements of the wider financial system, which relies on fractional-reserve banking.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/nyse-owner-bitcoin-market-may-205553702.html

the "simple fact" above doesn't actually speak to the point made about comex gold futures, or to caitlin long's point above. you're talking about the "net" long deliverables, not all outstanding long contracts, which may or may not actually be fully backed.

it's a well known fact that comex gold futures aren't fully backed, even though they are physically deliverable. what makes you so sure that bakkt bitcoin futures would operate differently? it's obviously not required by the CFTC, which is why it's common practice on wall street for firms to "commingle and rehypothecate" different types of collateral for balance sheet purposes.

No, they have clearly said that every contract will be backed by a physical bitcoin in their custodial bitcoin fund. The reason that it is a 1 day futures contract is so they can make sure they acquire the necessary backing bitcoins for each purchase that has not been sold. This information is not hard to find. Long has concerns, that's fine and justifiably so, but her hidden leverage concern is entirely different from the point that I made that is fact.

You are making a second point, but he said "btc are not held in trust." That is not true. They are held.

[cellard]

If it's bitcoin-settled then the price must go up. I have lost track of what Bakkt will actually deliver at least on the initial phases. From what I've heard the platform will deliver bitcoin-settled contracts, this means that his is not some phantom derivatives bullshit in which no bitcoins are being traded, so it must have an impact on the market one way or another.

We'll have to wait and see. Any instant changes on the market will just be speculation on the news unless some big players have moves already planned for launch day but someone needs to confirm that actual BTC is used to settle contracts.

[figmentofmyass]

No, they have clearly said that every contract will be backed by a physical bitcoin in their custodial bitcoin fund.

comex gold contracts are also "backed by physical gold" in name. but based on comex's gold vaults vs outstanding longs, it is physically impossible for that to be true. comex has enough assets on its books to cover longs, but not with physical gold.

in other words, comex gold contracts are indeed "fully collateralized" but they are not "fully collateralized with physical gold". you see the distinction, right?

this is how wall street operates and there are no regulations against it. why would bakkt operate differently than the other commodity markets, including those offered by its parent company (ICE)?

You are making a second point, but he said "btc are not held in trust." That is not true. They are held.

i can't speak for anyone else, but as i read it, you're omitting important context: "This is not an ETF: BTC are not held in trust with shares issued against them". i think the point was about whether contracts are fully collateralized by bitcoins ("issued against them"). a bitcoin ETF can't legally issue shares beyond the bitcoins held in its trust. that's not true for bakkt, comex, CME or anyone else offering "physically backed" futures contracts. i agree with that statement. in researching the gold markets, i've dug through enough CFTC reports to know.

when i read through bakkt's published releases, i notice their words have been chosen extremely carefully. is it "fully collateralized" or "fully collateralized by physical bitcoins"? we'll find out when their legal filings are made public.

for now, this is all speculation on both sides. but i see no reason to take their word for anything, especially when it flies in the face of common wall street practices. these guys aren't bitcoiners; it's the friggin ICE.

[windjc]

No, they have clearly said that every contract will be backed by a physical bitcoin in their custodial bitcoin fund.

comex gold contracts are also "backed by physical gold" in name. but based on comex's gold vaults vs outstanding longs, it is physically impossible for that to be true. comex has enough assets on its books to cover longs, but not with physical gold.

in other words, comex gold contracts are indeed "fully collateralized" but they are not "fully collateralized with physical gold". you see the distinction, right?

this is how wall street operates and there are no regulations against it. why would bakkt operate differently than the other commodity markets, including those offered by its parent company (ICE)?

You are making a second point, but he said "btc are not held in trust." That is not true. They are held.

i can't speak for anyone else, but as i read it, you're omitting important context: "This is not an ETF: BTC are not held in trust with shares issued against them". i think the point was about whether contracts are fully collateralized by bitcoins ("issued against them"). a bitcoin ETF can't legally issue shares beyond the bitcoins held in its trust. that's not true for bakkt, comex, CME or anyone else offering "physically backed" futures contracts. i agree with that statement. in researching the gold markets, i've dug through enough CFTC reports to know.

when i read through bakkt's published releases, i notice their words have been chosen extremely carefully. is it "fully collateralized" or "fully collateralized by physical bitcoins"? we'll find out when their legal filings are made public.

for now, this is all speculation on both sides. but i see no reason to take their word for anything, especially when it flies in the face of common wall street practices. these guys aren't bitcoiners; it's the friggin ICE.

Jesus. Bitcoin is NOT gold. Holding physical gold is about 100x more difficult than holding digital bitcoin in a wallet. What is up with you guys speculating facts away?

They either have a bitcoin storage or they dont. They do.

Saying they are going to hold physical bitcoins in a wallet means they are going to hold physical bitcoins in a wallet.

[windjc]

ICE Futures U.S. offers physically delivered daily futures contracts on Bitcoin traded in BTC/USD (subject to regulatory approval). These contracts will be traded on ICE’s electronic trading platform, which offers industry-leading speed and reliability, regulated by the CFTC. All trades are cleared and guaranteed by ICE Clearing US, the central counterparty for all ICE cleared forex futures trades. Trades will result in physically delivered Bitcoin in ICE’s regulated Digital Asset Warehouse.

[windjc]

https://twitter.com/Bakkt/status/1044567318771232769?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1044567318771232769&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Ftoshitimes.com%2Fbakkt-revealed-their-first-crypto-product-physical-bitcoin-futures%2F

[windjc]

It is ludicrous to compare this to gold. If they said you bought an ounce of gold and then they gave you an ounce of gold to your account, where the hell is your account and where do you pick it up if you want?

If they deliver bitcoin to your account, then its easy to take your bitcoin if you want it. This isn't "paper" bitcoin with no actual backing. This is digital bitcoin right off the blockchain onto their off chain system. They've said so. I'm not doing any more research for the thread.

I know some of the people on here are looking for lower prices. Maybe you'll be lucky and get them. But let's not be obtuse.

[figmentofmyass]

Jesus. Bitcoin is NOT gold. Holding physical gold is about 100x more difficult than holding digital bitcoin in a wallet. What is up with you guys speculating facts away?

what facts, lol?

you can't point to any filings that confirm what you're saying. this is all speculation, including everything you've said. you're the one hand-waving away how wall street literally operates day-to-day by saying "no way, not with bitcoin, cuz wall street banksters said so in a press release"!

if what you're saying about bitcoin vs gold is true, why does grayscale charge a 2% annual fee to hold bitcoins for its traders? why does everyone say "wall street is waiting for regulated exchanges"?

if holding gold is "difficult", why does that mean comex should implement fractional reserve practices?

They either have a bitcoin storage or they dont. They do.

comex has large gold vaults too. they have gold; they just can't fully deliver on it. FYI, gold is just one example of how collateralization works on wall street. 

i'll tell you one thing: an exchange can make a lot more via trading commissions and carry costs with fractional reserve. if they can legally issue more contracts than they can cover, why wouldn't they? it's simply rational.

Saying they are going to hold physical bitcoins in a wallet means they are going to hold physical bitcoins in a wallet.

again, comex says they hold physical gold in their vaults. and it's true. that doesn't mean they can cover all outstanding longs with physical gold.

this is literally the exact same dynamic. bakkt has rational incentive to issue contracts beyond physical bitcoin collateral, there's no legal reason not to, and it's how everything else works on wall street. why would you assume everything will be different for bitcoin?

[windjc]

Jesus. Bitcoin is NOT gold. Holding physical gold is about 100x more difficult than holding digital bitcoin in a wallet. What is up with you guys speculating facts away?

what facts, lol?

you can't point to any filings that confirm what you're saying. this is all speculation, including everything you've said. you're the one hand-waving away how wall street literally operates day-to-day by saying "no way, not with bitcoin, cuz wall street banksters said so in a press release"!

if what you're saying about bitcoin vs gold is true, why does grayscale charge a 2% annual fee to hold bitcoins for its traders? why does everyone say "wall street is waiting for regulated exchanges"?

if holding gold is "difficult", why does that mean comex should implement fractional reserve practices?

They either have a bitcoin storage or they dont. They do.

comex has large gold vaults too. they have gold; they just can't fully deliver on it. FYI, gold is just one example of how collateralization works on wall street. 

i'll tell you one thing: an exchange can make a lot more via trading commissions and carry costs with fractional reserve. if they can legally issue more contracts than they can cover, why wouldn't they? it's simply rational.

Saying they are going to hold physical bitcoins in a wallet means they are going to hold physical bitcoins in a wallet.

again, comex says they hold physical gold in their vaults. and it's true. that doesn't mean they can cover all outstanding longs with physical gold.

this is literally the exact same dynamic. bakkt has rational incentive to issue contracts beyond physical bitcoin collateral, there's no legal reason not to, and it's how everything else works on wall street. why would you assume everything will be different for bitcoin?

Ok, lets bet a bitcoin on it? If you are so sure this is the same set up as Comex, then lets bet a bitcoin on it and see. I say they are telling the truth, you say they are lieing. Let's go?

[xuan87]

Hopefully,we are running out of factors to make the bull run, hopefully this event could be the start of Bitcoin to run again, from the article it showed so many prospect for the future, so I believe this could attract more investors, but I don't know whether this thing will be good or not for long term, and how long can this event make the bull run

[figmentofmyass]

Ok, lets bet a bitcoin on it? If you are so sure this is the same set up as Comex, then lets bet a bitcoin on it and see. I say they are telling the truth, you say they are lieing. Let's go?

can't prevail by way of reason or facts, so you try to prove your point by waving your dick around? that's cute.

not interested in betting on utter speculation---i'm a trader, not a gambler. also not interested in risking a bitcoin with a trusted third party escrow. i just saw some baseless claims and called them out as such.

at least you've conceded you're not operating off facts, but rather the word of bakkt's PR folks. good enough for me.

[JohnBitCo]

Hopefully,we are running out of factors to make the bull run, hopefully this event could be the start of Bitcoin to run again, from the article it showed so many prospect for the future, so I believe this could attract more investors, but I don't know whether this thing will be good or not for long term, and how long can this event make the bull run

Sooner or later the bull run will start. It take takes few months or many months but a time will come when market and people sentiments will be bullish and they will know that bitcoin is the real future and real money. The major cause can be a downfall of fiat from where bitcoin will take over.

[windjc]

Ok, lets bet a bitcoin on it? If you are so sure this is the same set up as Comex, then lets bet a bitcoin on it and see. I say they are telling the truth, you say they are lieing. Let's go?

can't prevail by way of reason or facts, so you try to prove your point by waving your dick around? that's cute.

not interested in betting on utter speculation---i'm a trader, not a gambler. also not interested in risking a bitcoin with a trusted third party escrow. i just saw some baseless claims and called them out as such.

at least you've conceded you're not operating off facts, but rather the word of bakkt's PR folks. good enough for me.

You made a fool of yourself. You and the original person I was responding to simply choose to believe that Bakkt is bullshitting people. I happen to believe that they are not. I happen to believe what they have said is true and factual. Just because you have a conspiracy theory about how they are obfuscating the truth right in front of the public's eye, doesn't mean I am speculating.

There is only one person speculating and it is you.

In another 6 weeks, that'll be proven out and you will probably be on to some other thing that you are trying to discredit because A) your bored B) you have an agenda or C) you're ignorant. I've seen dozens like you before you and there will be dozens more like you in the future.

[Herbert2020]

There might be a speculative increase at launch, just because traders get excited and buy up the market, but nothing more than that.

that may be more than enough to start the bull run!

at this point price is not down because of lack of demand! there is a huge demand for bitcoin which is increasing every day. the problem is that this demand is scared of the market at the moment so it is waiting on the sideline for some signal before they can jump in. they have been burned so many times this year that they don't want to be burnt again.
(this is also why some people consider this price under the real value aka underpriced)

a rise, for whatever foolish reason can bring back that confidence specially if we end up breaking some sort of resistance.

[Supercrypt]

http://coinglobalpress.com/2018/10/23/bitcoin-trading-platform-bakkt-will-be-live-from-dec-12-with-bitcoinbtc-futures-trading/

That is just futures and if we have seen enough of the futures so far and how they affect the prices of bitcoin I think just futures would be really scary for all of us. Even with bitmex that is basically our own we are still seeing a lot of people betting on bitcoin going down and whales spending millions of dollars into short futures and trying to keep the price as low as miners allow them and try to make as much money from it as possible.

Futures are creating a conondurum which allows rich people to both sell bitcoin (create capital for themselves) and at the same time buy short futures with that same money and make double the income. Whereas if they want to make money by buying long futures they would have to both buy bitcoin to increase the price (costs capital) and buy long futures at the same time (costs capital as well) which means they need to spend double the amount for probably even less profit.

These futures are physically delivered and not leveraged. Which is entirely different than the futures from last December. Here they will actually be receiving Bitcoins, instead of just making bets on the price. Also futures is just the first product, I'm sure it won't take too long for them to introduce actual Bitcoin trading on BAKKT.

Even though some of the things you have said may be right, but I still do not see it bringing any possible bull run. I am sure people's perspective when it comes to Bakkt is to be associating it with the likes of CBOE futures that we had last year which to me seems more like something that was busy suppressing the market even though it is delivered in fiat.

I am not sure what Bakkt will bring positively or negatively, but it is not a bad idea looking at the angle they are coming with in terms of their own future trading. One way I think though is that the market will always do whatever it wants, and most times, things like this just do not effect into a bull run immediately, and we will get to see the market develop to some extent first before we even start seeing any.

[arpon11]

http://coinglobalpress.com/2018/10/23/bitcoin-trading-platform-bakkt-will-be-live-from-dec-12-with-bitcoinbtc-futures-trading/

This is good news and this is going to triger another bull market.  If you take your mind back you will agree with me that future trade was the reason for the bull run last year and the samething might happen again.  I think we should buy now and do the samething that happens last year . Many of us that buy bitcoin this time last year makes profits from it in December because of this same future trade.

[thecodebear]

There might be a speculative increase at launch, just because traders get excited and buy up the market, but nothing more than that.

that may be more than enough to start the bull run!

at this point price is not down because of lack of demand! there is a huge demand for bitcoin which is increasing every day. the problem is that this demand is scared of the market at the moment so it is waiting on the sideline for some signal before they can jump in. they have been burned so many times this year that they don't want to be burnt again.
(this is also why some people consider this price under the real value aka underpriced)

a rise, for whatever foolish reason can bring back that confidence specially if we end up breaking some sort of resistance.

I agree. It's not like there isn't demand, it's just that a lot of people are afraid if they buy now maybe it drops down again for a few months. I don't think that is very likely but I guess in times like these at the bottom of a bear market even Bitcoin investors are wary.

A strong and lasting surge above the last high of the bear market ($7400), for whatever reason, could clear these people of their fears and get them to to start buying back in, and that process will just feed on itself, starting the next bull run.

I'm not sure BAKKT opening will actually create a pump though immediately. The way I understand it ICE has to go buy up Bitcoin to back all the trades people make for whatever initial demand they think they will have. I'd bet they're already doing that. I think BAKKT will only start to move the needle once it starts bringing in more of Wall St in the months following its opening.

[exstasie]

Simple fact: Bakkt will custodian all bitcoins purchased at the end of each day (futures expiration).

The issue was never about whether the net difference between long and shorts (bitcoins purchased) is physically deliverable. That doesn't speak to whether all contracts are fully backed by BTC at all.

It's funny to me how we went from opposing trust, to trusting institutions to "back" contracts with BTC, and now we're even trusting every word a banker says. This is the evolution of Bitcoin users.

You are making a second point, but he said "btc are not held in trust." That is not true. They are held.

You left out the second part of the sentence, which clarified that futures exchanges don't need to issue contracts on a 1:1 basis to the underlying inventory. Nobody said an inventory doesn't exist, nor that Bakkt's contracts wouldn't be fully backed by equivalent value. I'm just not confident that in a "bank run" scenario that all contracts would be physically deliverable in BTC. I don't really care either. But it's an additional reason why I wouldn't store BTC with Bakkt, beyond those that apply to conventional exchanges like Coinbase.

[figmentofmyass]

Ok, lets bet a bitcoin on it? If you are so sure this is the same set up as Comex, then lets bet a bitcoin on it and see. I say they are telling the truth, you say they are lieing. Let's go?

can't prevail by way of reason or facts, so you try to prove your point by waving your dick around? that's cute.

not interested in betting on utter speculation---i'm a trader, not a gambler. also not interested in risking a bitcoin with a trusted third party escrow. i just saw some baseless claims and called them out as such.

at least you've conceded you're not operating off facts, but rather the word of bakkt's PR folks. good enough for me.

You made a fool of yourself. You and the original person I was responding to simply choose to believe that Bakkt is bullshitting people. I happen to believe that they are not. I happen to believe what they have said is true and factual. Just because you have a conspiracy theory about how they are obfuscating the truth right in front of the public's eye, doesn't mean I am speculating.

There is only one person speculating and it is you.

how did i make a fool of myself? point out some examples and explain.

in truth, you're completely misrepresenting what i said. i specifically said "i'm not sure that he's wrong", "i'm not sure myself", and "i think it's actually a legitimate point of contention" based on X, Y, and Z.

how do you manage to misconstrue this---

is it "fully collateralized" or "fully collateralized by physical bitcoins"? we'll find out when their legal filings are made public.

---for "simply choosing to believe that Bakkt is bullshitting people"?

obviously you are assuming they're telling the truth. i'm not assuming anything and i stated why. you refused to address any of the points i made and then challenged me to a bet. (lol)

i was just calling your opinion out for having no basis in fact, because you were condescending people with "facts" which were just your speculation from bakkt's press releases. (as i pointed out, i can't even find where bakkt literally said that contracts would be fully collateralized with bitcoins---just "fully collateralized or pre-funded" which leaves open the possibilities i pointed out)

In another 6 weeks, that'll be proven out and you will probably be on to some other thing that you are trying to discredit because A) your bored B) you have an agenda or C) you're ignorant. I've seen dozens like you before you and there will be dozens more like you in the future.

wtf are you even talking about? all you do is attack people with ad hominems. i'm just being skeptical and pointing out why it's foolish to make grand assumptions based on press releases. what's wrong with that?

fyi, this is a bitcoin forum and you're telling everyone they should blindly trust press releases from banksters. check yourself before you tell other people they made a fool of themselves lol.

[windjc]

Simple fact: Bakkt will custodian all bitcoins purchased at the end of each day (futures expiration).

The issue was never about whether the net difference between long and shorts (bitcoins purchased) is physically deliverable. That doesn't speak to whether all contracts are fully backed by BTC at all.

It's funny to me how we went from opposing trust, to trusting institutions to "back" contracts with BTC, and now we're even trusting every word a banker says. This is the evolution of Bitcoin users.

You are making a second point, but he said "btc are not held in trust." That is not true. They are held.

You left out the second part of the sentence, which clarified that futures exchanges don't need to issue contracts on a 1:1 basis to the underlying inventory. Nobody said an inventory doesn't exist, nor that Bakkt's contracts wouldn't be fully backed by equivalent value. I'm just not confident that in a "bank run" scenario that all contracts would be physically deliverable in BTC. I don't really care either. But it's an additional reason why I wouldn't store BTC with Bakkt, beyond those that apply to conventional exchanges like Coinbase.

Fine. But you were clearly making an argument that Bakkt would not have a positive impact on price action and moreover, would potentially have a negative one. This smacks of agenda and twisting of reality. Bakkt might not start a rally, but with Goldman and others coming on board to allow their institutional investors access to bitcoin, that is obviously a net positive.

The people using Bakkt arent this "we" that you are talking about. Keep your offline cold storage and your paper key. Bitcoin is big enough for everyone, including wall street.

[cellard]

Bakkt could be audited if in doubt of they owning the required collateral amounts of bitcoin, they could show their wallets and cryptographically sign them. With gold you are supposed to believe the amount is there somewhere, so it being physical is actually more troublesome. It's not on their incentive to get caught faking something that can easily be proven, you either own the coins or you don't.

I think people worry too much about these things. What are they going to do, sell a bunch of bitcoin they don't have and fail on the delivery on someone else? who cares, 21 million coin limit is always there. Naked shorting doesn't have an impact on bitcoin long term.

[figmentofmyass]

Bakkt could be audited if in doubt of they owning the required collateral amounts of bitcoin, they could show their wallets and cryptographically sign them. With gold you are supposed to believe the amount is there somewhere, so it being physical is actually more troublesome. It's not on their incentive to get caught faking something that can easily be proven, you either own the coins or you don't.

it gets a bit more complicated with rehypothecation of collateral. the question will always remain---they may control a certain amount of bitcoin, but how many times have those bitcoins been pledged to different parties? this is how it works in today's markets:

The IMF ’s Manmohan Singh is the foremost expert on collateral chains. He has combed through the footnotes of banks’ financial statements around the world, attempting to quantify the risk Giancarlo discussed, and he estimates collateral is re-used 1.8 times (as of year-end 2015). This means only one of the 2.8 people who think they own a U.S. Treasury bond, for example, actually does own it—namely, the original owner of the bond and the 1.8 parties to which the bond was re-pledged.

I think people worry too much about these things. What are they going to do, sell a bunch of bitcoin they don't have and fail on the delivery on someone else? who cares, 21 million coin limit is always there. Naked shorting doesn't have an impact on bitcoin long term.

very true. it doesn't matter to bitcoin holders---at least outside of a short term "bad news" event.

except for one other consideration---the possibility of market manipulation. i'm ambivalent about this.

[windjc]

Bakkt could be audited if in doubt of they owning the required collateral amounts of bitcoin, they could show their wallets and cryptographically sign them. With gold you are supposed to believe the amount is there somewhere, so it being physical is actually more troublesome. It's not on their incentive to get caught faking something that can easily be proven, you either own the coins or you don't.

I think people worry too much about these things. What are they going to do, sell a bunch of bitcoin they don't have and fail on the delivery on someone else? who cares, 21 million coin limit is always there. Naked shorting doesn't have an impact on bitcoin long term.

Me too my friend.

[upsidedown75]

If it's bitcoin-settled then the price must go up. I have lost track of what Bakkt will actually deliver at least on the initial phases. From what I've heard the platform will deliver bitcoin-settled contracts, this means that his is not some phantom derivatives bullshit in which no bitcoins are being traded, so it must have an impact on the market one way or another.

We'll have to wait and see. Any instant changes on the market will just be speculation on the news unless some big players have moves already planned for launch day but someone needs to confirm that actual BTC is used to settle contracts.

Yeah, it is going to be bitcoin settled and that is what makes it different from other futures contract. Nonetheless, the impact it would really have on the market generally is something I am still trying to wrap my head around and like you said, I guess we will just have to wait and see.

Nonetheless, we have always known the practices of the Wall street and some of their shenanigans, so in this case, I really would not want to be so optimistic with whatever comes out with Bakkt, until I get to see it happen. Bull run though is something I hardly believe will be happening anytime soon, with or without Bakkt.

[windjc]

If it's bitcoin-settled then the price must go up. I have lost track of what Bakkt will actually deliver at least on the initial phases. From what I've heard the platform will deliver bitcoin-settled contracts, this means that his is not some phantom derivatives bullshit in which no bitcoins are being traded, so it must have an impact on the market one way or another.

We'll have to wait and see. Any instant changes on the market will just be speculation on the news unless some big players have moves already planned for launch day but someone needs to confirm that actual BTC is used to settle contracts.

Yeah, it is going to be bitcoin settled and that is what makes it different from other futures contract. Nonetheless, the impact it would really have on the market generally is something I am still trying to wrap my head around and like you said, I guess we will just have to wait and see.

Nonetheless, we have always known the practices of the Wall street and some of their shenanigans, so in this case, I really would not want to be so optimistic with whatever comes out with Bakkt, until I get to see it happen. Bull run though is something I hardly believe will be happening anytime soon, with or without Bakkt.

The theoretical impact is increased demand. Retirement and 401k and pension fund moneys will have more access, as institutions use Bakkt for trading. Purchases should outpace sales for sometime as things ramp up, and those purchases bitcoins will be held in custody by Bakkt.  Most likely supply will come OTC, but regardless if it comes OTC or from Coinbase/Gemini exchanges, it will be a part of the overall supply/demand economics and have some positive influence over price.

How much positive influence? Impossible to know.

Its similar to halving. We can look at historical charts and see correlation to price moves 6-18 months after halving. But since its impossible to know the tipping point between daily bid/asks averages, we can really only speculate based on hindsight 20/20 data.

Any run up into Dec. 7th, will be simply rumor/news influence and will be sold off to a degree. Perhaps we can look back 6-8 months from now and have a better sense of the real affect of Bakkt.

[cellard]

If it's bitcoin-settled then the price must go up. I have lost track of what Bakkt will actually deliver at least on the initial phases. From what I've heard the platform will deliver bitcoin-settled contracts, this means that his is not some phantom derivatives bullshit in which no bitcoins are being traded, so it must have an impact on the market one way or another.

We'll have to wait and see. Any instant changes on the market will just be speculation on the news unless some big players have moves already planned for launch day but someone needs to confirm that actual BTC is used to settle contracts.

Yeah, it is going to be bitcoin settled and that is what makes it different from other futures contract. Nonetheless, the impact it would really have on the market generally is something I am still trying to wrap my head around and like you said, I guess we will just have to wait and see.

Nonetheless, we have always known the practices of the Wall street and some of their shenanigans, so in this case, I really would not want to be so optimistic with whatever comes out with Bakkt, until I get to see it happen. Bull run though is something I hardly believe will be happening anytime soon, with or without Bakkt.

Then it will go up pretty much guaranteed. The demand is already there, there's a lot of people that haven't invested yet because they are computer illiterates. There's a ton of boomers out there that simply aren't cut to be custodians of their own bitcoins, and this could finally be what helps them to get that 1% diversification into BTC.

At some point not owning BTC will pose a bigger risk than owning BTC, once this is widely understood FOMO will kick in and things like Bakkt will help everyone that doesn't know how to deal with computers to get themselves exposed to the market. We all know ideally everyone should learn how to deal with their own coins but that will never happen, so the more ways to get people on board the better. Im not bothered by it as long as contracts are bitcoin-settled.