Speculating with Tom Lee

[bbc.reporter]

@carter34. Whales have always controlled everything. In the cryptospace, however, it might be under the act of beginning to be controlled by the bigger whales who own the banks hehehe.

Enjoy it now, I predict more regulations and the isolation of ordinary holders.

[BitHodler]

Whales have always controlled everything. In the cryptospace, however, it might be under the act of beginning to be controlled by the bigger whales who own the banks hehehe.

You make it look like whales operate under the same umbrella and therefore have the same agenda to follow, but that's not the case. In fact, whales clash with each other just as much as they clash with the smaller fishes.

Wall street banks don't cooperate with each other either, but have their own traders trading. It seems that people here have somehow (incorrectly) agreed that whales are evil manipulators working together to crash or pump the price.

Enjoy it now, I predict more regulations and the isolation of ordinary holders.

Nothing too surprising. Governments have always tried to figure out who the owner is of what asset, and how much each onwer actually owns. Crypto isn't any different in that regard. OGs have seen it coming years ago already.

[bbc.reporter]

@BitHodler. However, you make it appear that it would be impossible for whales to cooperate with each other to achieve a similar agenda.

I was also implying that it would be possible that the cryptocoin whales are beginning to be surpassed by a group of banking whales cooperating together.

[JohnBitCo]

What bitcoin will do is dependent on couple dozen whales and that is it, not the market, not the public decision, just those whales wanting bitcoin to go one direction and doing it.

From what you said above, I think the whales won't control the direction of price soon. At the time the popularity of bitcoin will rise more, more investors would come in and the chain of whales will be broken down into smaller parts and unit. By then what you would have are semi whales, that is holders with quantity that can't really change a market direction by a single effort.

When a lot of institutional  and retail investors will come in the crypto world, the bitcoin will be divided among them and it will be more difficult to manipulate the currency which is more distributed and no one holding the major portion of the coins.

As far as Tom Lee is considered, I have stopped following him and other famous persons because none of them give the correct predictions and all of them give statements to move the market in their favor.

[bbc.reporter]

@JohnBitCo. On Tom Lee, he only does not give predictions or statements in his own favor, he is giving them in all our favors.

He also has the more to lose compared to us the forum cave trolls. He is risking his own money, Fundstrat investors' money and his own reputation.

[Lucius]

@JohnBitCo. On Tom Lee, he only does not give predictions or statements in his own favor, he is giving them in all our favors.

He also has the more to lose compared to us the forum cave trolls. He is risking his own money, Fundstrat investors' money and his own reputation.

Do you think Tom Lee still has some reputation? I personally have not seen anyone have so many bad predictions in such a short time, and to continue with the same as if nothing had happened. I doubt he is losing his money directly, but those who listen to it are generally at a loss.

Every day a new statement, it just spins them in a circle hoping that some will come true.

https://www.cnbc.com/video/2019/09/20/fundstrats-tom-lee-expects-big-breakout-for-stocks.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-CXo1HoMY_Q -- Bitcoin heading higher, says Fundstrat's Tom Lee
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7RXJ7g0kaw -- New highs for bitcoin possible this year: Fundstrat's Tom Lee

[bbc.reporter]

@Lucius. We do not know. His reputation might be bad in the forum today, however, how would it be if bitcoin goes to his prediction of $25,000 or higher? His only mistake might only be his timing hehehe.

[redsun114]

@JohnBitCo. On Tom Lee, he only does not give predictions or statements in his own favor, he is giving them in all our favors.

He also has the more to lose compared to us the forum cave trolls. He is risking his own money, Fundstrat investors' money and his own reputation.

We can say that because the market is a speculative markets if anyone says anything in our favor to increase the price of bitcoin, it will surely be in our statement because that their positive review or prediction will surely touch someone and make the person to make some investment.

Tom lee has been of a great blessing to us actually and he has always predicted in favor of bitcoin, one thing that I like about him is that his own prediction is still a little bit reasonable, unlike those other ones that usually predict some figure that we know will not be possible and making them look like they are just like kids and just gambling with price prediction , because I leaned that is gambling, we have some people that do bet on value of coin which is insane to me in this market that is unpredictable.

[bbc.reporter]

Our favorite permabull might be admitting defeat. Tom Lee was interviewed and it appears that he already has silently surrendered and ready to remove himself from his own bullishness on bitcoin.

I reckon this might be because his speculations about institutional investors to buy bitcoin by this time of the year did not come to fruition.



In this week's episode of The Scoop, Tom Lee, Managing Partner and Head of Research at Fundstrat Global Advisor, tells The Block about the barriers preventing institutions from investing in bitcoin.
"There's a mechanical issue for crypto in terms of infrastructure that’s needed but there’s probably also a size of market issue," Lee tells The Block.

Lee said he believes the cryptocurrency space is "too small for the institutional world." Lee goes on to compare bitcoin's relatively small market size to that of gold, stocks, and bonds. "Gold is 9 trillion. The stock market is 66 trillion the bond market is 86 trillion, bitcoin is not even half a percent of the total assets," Lee says, adding that "if you’re asking someone to allocate 1% to bitcoin — that’s like triple the market weighting, like you’re you’re asking someone to make a massive bet even though it’s 1% of their assets because bitcoin is that small."

"It’s probably correct I think about 1% of the U.S. owns bitcoin and at that size it’s too small for an institution, it’s a hobby," Lee concludes.

Another barrier preventing institutional investors from entering the cryptocurrency space is a lack of infrastructure, Lee says. However, Lee believes this is due to the lack of regulatory protection. "There’s not enough legal and regulatory protection for bitcoin in the U.S. to prevent a White House executive order banning bitcoin, like nothing today would prevent bitcoin from being outlawed in the U.S."

Due to regulatory uncertainty, Lee believes institutional investors will feel they are taking on "reputational risk" for "extending it to a market that has no regulatory protection..."

Source https://www.theblockcrypto.com/linked/42086/tom-lee-on-the-main-hurdles-preventing-institutional-investors-from-getting-into-bitcoin

[exstasie]

Lee said he believes the cryptocurrency space is "too small for the institutional world." Lee goes on to compare bitcoin's relatively small market size to that of gold, stocks, and bonds. "Gold is 9 trillion. The stock market is 66 trillion the bond market is 86 trillion, bitcoin is not even half a percent of the total assets," Lee says, adding that "if you’re asking someone to allocate 1% to bitcoin — that’s like triple the market weighting, like you’re you’re asking someone to make a massive bet even though it’s 1% of their assets because bitcoin is that small."

"It’s probably correct I think about 1% of the U.S. owns bitcoin and at that size it’s too small for an institution, it’s a hobby," Lee concludes.

Another barrier preventing institutional investors from entering the cryptocurrency space is a lack of infrastructure, Lee says. However, Lee believes this is due to the lack of regulatory protection. "There’s not enough legal and regulatory protection for bitcoin in the U.S. to prevent a White House executive order banning bitcoin, like nothing today would prevent bitcoin from being outlawed in the U.S."

Due to regulatory uncertainty, Lee believes institutional investors will feel they are taking on "reputational risk" for "extending it to a market that has no regulatory protection..."

Never thought I'd see Tom Lee so bearish on the fundamentals!

I always said if Tom Lee ever becomes a bear, that's the time to go all in. Well ladies and gentlemen, we've got our signal. We're probably on the verge of a major bull run now.

[pooya87]

~
Never thought I'd see Tom Lee so bearish on the fundamentals!

I always said if Tom Lee ever becomes a bear, that's the time to go all in. Well ladies and gentlemen, we've got our signal. We're probably on the verge of a major bull run now.

haha, although i don't yet see an immediate bull run but that is exactly the first thing that came to my mind when i read this post. but i have to say i think Tom Lee is mostly talking based on his company's performance. when they fear losing their investors they start making positive statements (predicting bitcoin to $50k in 2017) and when they fail to get new investors they make statements like this.

[Pab]

Our favorite permabull might be admitting defeat. Tom Lee was interviewed and it appears that he already has silently surrendered and ready to remove himself from his own bullishness on bitcoin.

I reckon this might be because his speculations about institutional investors to buy bitcoin by this time of the year did not come to fruition.



In this week's episode of The Scoop, Tom Lee, Managing Partner and Head of Research at Fundstrat Global Advisor, tells The Block about the barriers preventing institutions from investing in bitcoin.
"There's a mechanical issue for crypto in terms of infrastructure that’s needed but there’s probably also a size of market issue," Lee tells The Block.

Lee said he believes the cryptocurrency space is "too small for the institutional world." Lee goes on to compare bitcoin's relatively small market size to that of gold, stocks, and bonds. "Gold is 9 trillion. The stock market is 66 trillion the bond market is 86 trillion, bitcoin is not even half a percent of the total assets," Lee says, adding that "if you’re asking someone to allocate 1% to bitcoin — that’s like triple the market weighting, like you’re you’re asking someone to make a massive bet even though it’s 1% of their assets because bitcoin is that small."

"It’s probably correct I think about 1% of the U.S. owns bitcoin and at that size it’s too small for an institution, it’s a hobby," Lee concludes.

Another barrier preventing institutional investors from entering the cryptocurrency space is a lack of infrastructure, Lee says. However, Lee believes this is due to the lack of regulatory protection. "There’s not enough legal and regulatory protection for bitcoin in the U.S. to prevent a White House executive order banning bitcoin, like nothing today would prevent bitcoin from being outlawed in the U.S."

Due to regulatory uncertainty, Lee believes institutional investors will feel they are taking on "reputational risk" for "extending it to a market that has no regulatory protection..."

Source https://www.theblockcrypto.com/linked/42086/tom-lee-on-the-main-hurdles-preventing-institutional-investors-from-getting-into-bitcoin

Very good article.All that kind institutional investors are mirage and illusion.There is Greyscale investing in Bitcoin and not much more.I am sure that there are some group of spekulant entering bitcoin time to time creating pumps and dumps but they mostly prefer derivatives
 I only follow Peter Brandt i have learned from him very useful trading tips

[bbc.reporter]

Lee said he believes the cryptocurrency space is "too small for the institutional world." Lee goes on to compare bitcoin's relatively small market size to that of gold, stocks, and bonds. "Gold is 9 trillion. The stock market is 66 trillion the bond market is 86 trillion, bitcoin is not even half a percent of the total assets," Lee says, adding that "if you’re asking someone to allocate 1% to bitcoin — that’s like triple the market weighting, like you’re you’re asking someone to make a massive bet even though it’s 1% of their assets because bitcoin is that small."

"It’s probably correct I think about 1% of the U.S. owns bitcoin and at that size it’s too small for an institution, it’s a hobby," Lee concludes.

Another barrier preventing institutional investors from entering the cryptocurrency space is a lack of infrastructure, Lee says. However, Lee believes this is due to the lack of regulatory protection. "There’s not enough legal and regulatory protection for bitcoin in the U.S. to prevent a White House executive order banning bitcoin, like nothing today would prevent bitcoin from being outlawed in the U.S."

Due to regulatory uncertainty, Lee believes institutional investors will feel they are taking on "reputational risk" for "extending it to a market that has no regulatory protection..."

Never thought I'd see Tom Lee so bearish on the fundamentals!

I always said if Tom Lee ever becomes a bear, that's the time to go all in. Well ladies and gentlemen, we've got our signal. We're probably on the verge of a major bull run now.

It is not only about the fundamentals. I speculate he knew something would occur, however, it did not push through on the last minute.

Also, if bitcoin pumps to $25k, !kcab si eeL moT hehehe.

[Lucius]

It is not only about the fundamentals. I speculate he knew something would occur, however, it did not push through on the last minute.

You don't have to be a genius to understand why this change of mind occurred right now, this can be seen from some recent statements given in connection with a possible law of banning Petro, and flavored e-cigarettes. He also says that US will probably ban BTC when the price reaches $100k. Bad bull, bad bear = Tom Lee

This is un-related but shows White House can issue an ‘executive order’ banning anything. And could even ban bitcoin. Not expecting it. But with current White House, there is “nothing out of bounds nor out of reach”

[exstasie]

This is un-related but shows White House can issue an ‘executive order’ banning anything. And could even ban bitcoin. Not expecting it. But with current White House, there is “nothing out of bounds nor out of reach”

"There’s not enough legal and regulatory protection for bitcoin in the U.S. to prevent a White House executive order banning bitcoin, like nothing today would prevent bitcoin from being outlawed in the U.S."

I don't understand why he's so hung up on this. The flavored e-cigarette ban followed FDA reports that they cause lung disease and are killing people. It was an urgent public health concern. The optics around that are completely different from Bitcoin.

There also isn't enough legal protection for gold to prevent an executive order from banning it. In fact that's already been done before! So what? The Bitcoin market (the gold market too) is already pricing in this extremely unlikely risk.

[bbc.reporter]

@Lucius. The skeptical me would ask if Fundstrat's new statements are implying that the have already sold their bitcoin?

Also, remember when Tom Lee said that bitcoin's fair value was on $14,000?

[Lucius]

I don't understand why he's so hung up on this.

In addition to having poor judgments, it also seems very paranoid to me, from one perma-bull he has become an overnight pessimist. I think this is something about the average American who very easily changes his mind under the influence of the media, which in my opinion are very aggressive and leaves little doubt about something. It is not only about e-cigarettes, but about possible Petro banning ( did they do that) law that would by Lee open possibility to ban other cryptos.


bbc.reporter, maybe they dump their coins and caused this -$2000 we have few days ago, but I think he is not so stupid to just dismiss the idea he has been advocating for years. If I remember correctly the price you mentioned was based on the number of bitcoin addresses that existed at that time or number of active addresses. But that didn't make any sense then, as it doesn't even today.

[exstasie]

I don't understand why he's so hung up on this.

In addition to having poor judgments, it also seems very paranoid to me, from one perma-bull he has become an overnight pessimist.

It might say something about his or Fundstrat's open positions. I got the feeling he and his investors were long and in a lot of pain in late 2018. That recency bias may have pushed them to cover their positions over the last few months. As a matter of fact he estimated BTC's valuation around $14K last December, which supports that idea.

He might be viewing everything through bearish lenses now.

[bbc.reporter]

@exstasie. Agreed! We have very similar views on this hehe.

I had my doubts, however, it certainly appears that Fundstrat might have really dumped bitcoin. This article is based on the same interview.



Tom Lee, Managing Partner and Head of Research at Fundstrat Global Advisor, thinks Visa could be a "long term winner" in the digital asset world.

On last week's episode of The Scoop, Lee told The Block that players like Visa, MasterCard and Facebook will likely emerge as market leaders, but that isn't the backbone of Fundstrat's investment thesis.

"The crypto piece of any traditional equity today is really a call option because it's not going to be the source of intrinsic value or the central thesis for any of these companies," he said.

Still, Lee said he thinks companies like Visa will become "huge winners" in a decentralized finance world supplanting many bank functions.

Source https://www.theblockcrypto.com/linked/42399/fundstrats-tom-lee-says-the-visas-of-the-world-could-be-long-term-winners-in-crypto

[Torque]

Another barrier preventing institutional investors from entering the cryptocurrency space is a lack of infrastructure, Lee says. However, Lee believes this is due to the lack of regulatory protection. "There’s not enough legal and regulatory protection for bitcoin in the U.S. to prevent a White House executive order banning bitcoin, like nothing today would prevent bitcoin from being outlawed in the U.S."

The officially sanctioned, SEC-approved Bitcoin futures market says otherwise. And Tom Lee knows this.

So why the bullshit, Tom?