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

[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.