In less than one month, total Bitcoin held is falling around 1000 BTC. It sounds as a big amount but for Grayscale the amount is only 0.15% of total Bitcoin they are holding.
Not a big deal. GrayScale in many months bought the amount of Bitcoin that is bigger than total Bitcoin was mined by miners each month.
Not a big deal. They will come back to buy all monthly mined Bitcoin.
HODL??
What happened to what is good for thee, is good for me?
Aren't we all told to HODL? Isn't the 1st commandment from 'lord NSA-Satoshi'?? It's on the tablet "Thou shall HODL"
Yet, here we have the first real BTC-ETF and you tell us they're selling? Selling BTC?? Unheard of
Sounds like BTC-ETF graybeard were the lucky pirates to sell out at the the ATH
How can they call themselves "BTC-ETF', if they don't 110% HODL forever?
For sure some people get stuck in ideas of ONLY do x, y or z with your bitcoin, and bitcoin gives no shits.
In other words, do whatever the fuck you want, including selling your BTC at various times... you should be trying to decide for yourself and not following supposed commandments of anyone, including Satoshi, to the extent that would even be an accurate representation of Satoshi - which seems to be the pure opposite of what Satoshi suggested at least in terms of NOT imposing values on people. Remember, he said something like "you might want to get some in case it catches on" which is far from a mandate, even if it might be reasonably be read as a decently strong hint about potential future value of bitcoin, and suggesting voluntary action in the then present.
Surely, calculations for what to do for institutions are going to be quite different from individuals, and of course, individuals are going to have more freedoms and flexibilities in terms of how to manage their bitcoins and what tactics to use that they perceive to be in their own personal interests based on their calculations of their various personal circumstance.
Some institutions will have more flexibility including those who are holding and managing their own funds, but when they manage the funds of other people (including having partners that are subject to their decisions), then a variety of other obligations might kick in, including fiduciary duties, but they may also end up falling within regulatory restrictions based on the kind of operation they run and also the funds of a public versus private company also has additional reporting obligations - at least in terms of their need to report what they are doing - which seems to be one of the decent vehicles of getting information that might not otherwise be publicly disclosed.
Oh also there are governments too, that might have reporting requirements, too, but not too many folks are going to proclaim that all governments are equal in such regard and there are branches of departments and surely a variety of complications in governments that may or may not end up requiring reporting (to the extent that they are complying with their own mandates - if any).
So, I suppose my main point, is that attempting to over simplify either what is being done or what should be done is going to lead to dogmatic (and likely dumbass) conclusions in trying to assess what is happening, what happened or what might happen in the future.
Not a big deal. GrayScale in many months bought the amount of Bitcoin that is bigger than total Bitcoin was mined by miners each month.
Isn't this the big argument on whales, that they can make these huge moves, so say you had a whale, with a months worth of all mined BTC on earth, and just easy-peasy dumped at on the market as it wished, wouldn't it create enormous volatility, what if the same whale bought futures? and/or calls & puts? What if your were an insider and knew ahead? What if you were a front-runner and knew the king-whales next move? Remember soon we will have USA BITCOIN ETF's and then things will get super engineered, to take USD from 'weak-hands'
A bit difficult to follow your logic on these points, btc-room101. Again you seem to be assuming that Grayscale is free to do whatever it wants regarding funds, including dumping them without running incredible regulatory (and even reputational) risk.
We can imagine all that we like, but if you are presenting pie in the sky ideas in regards to what options might be in front of some of these institutions, including that they are both very free to do what they like and they have a kind of intrinsic corruption that is based on short term desires for lots of money, then you are likely barking up the wrong tree.
Furthermore, some of the institutions, including Grayscale is making all kinds of money, so they hardly have anything kind of desperate motivations built into the system that they have already set up.
I will surely concede that in recent times, they are having some challenges in regards to how the market is reacting to the value of their fund to push it from considerable positive territory to negative territory, so I will concede that those levels of losses in value - even relatively speaking - are likely causing them to engage in a variety of new (and potentially creative) tactics to try to retain and preserve their valuations, but still I am not going to go so far as to start speculating that they are completely untethered in what tools they are wanting to use to attempt to address their specific recently evolving circumstances (even if they might not have already anticipated the possibility of the kind of scenario that is currently playing out).
Seems like bitcoin scammers have taken common robbery to even higher levels.
Huh? Who are the scammers in this case?
Not a big deal? Say what? To sell Bitcoin, is to Hate Bitcoin; To hate bitcoin is to hate God
This is 'HATE' so say the pump&pump bots here 24/7
Huh?
Since about 2010, there has been developing a trading market in bitcoin, and sure it has become more complex and widespread, including some financial instruments that allow for leveraging and even potential might give some tools to corrupt individuals/institutions that may not have been available during the more immature years of bitcoin, referring to 2010-2013-ish.... but still, we are far a state where there is any rationality to suggesting that either selling is bad or even that financial tools or strategies that allow for the betting on DOWNity BTC prices or the selling of BTC is somehow a corrupt or evil practice, even if it is a real world practice in which anyone investing into bitcoin should be trying to account for these kinds of BTC price dynamics, even if they might not completely understand the totality of what is currently happening or what might happen in the future.
All know that these ETF's have a time-loss value, so say HODL this crap and you can only lose money, but the entire point of these 'vehicles' is so you can 'trade' without using a exchange, and they automatically collect taxes for the GOV.
Ya'll lose money, but at least it doesn't get stolen as like on an exchange. Here at least you can file a complaint with the SEC, unlike the exchange, you can't call anybody, well except that exchange that doesn't answer the phone.
You (btc-room101) are probably not completely inaccurate in your above description of varying dynamics and varying options that might exists for some financial instruments as compared with other financial instruments, but you do seem to be getting a wee bit worked up about these kinds of differing financial instrument matters and throwing out a lot of opinionated prescriptive language about what is better or what is worse rather than attempting to present matters in a more descriptive and factual way.
Sure, we are in a kind of evolving space whether we are referring to varying financial instruments that are coming available or changing, various governmental reactions (including regulatory attempts) and those evolving circumstances are going to affect how individuals or institutions use the instruments including the affects that the available instruments might have on the BTC market (and price) as a whole.
As individuals, we should attempt to consider these matters, but of course, many people are not going to necessarily understand varying dynamics in terms of their own getting a stake in bitcoin or how they might allocate their bitcoin holdings (assuming that they get in at all).
The irony is if this fund actually believed in BTC, they would HODL,
Sure, you are specifically referring to Grayscale in this comment, right? Haven't they already shown that they do not necessarily fall in the same category of bitcoin maximalists as evidenced by their getting involved in creating funds of a variety of shitcoins and also I think that some of their folks (such as Barry Silbert) were involved in supporting the new york agreement and maybe some other later efforts that would have likely undermined how easy it would be to change bitcoin's features due to attacks on how consensus was then attempted to be achieved in bitcoin. Anyhow, I guess my point is that we cannot necessarily presume that various players are all aligned with various bitcoin maximalist ideas, and bitcoin seems to have been designed in such a way that allows for a variety of approaches, including resilience to various kinds of attacks - including that price is not everything, and if Grayscale were to go rogue, as you are seeming to imply, then sure there would likely be a pretty big hit on BTC's price, but it remains pretty damned doubtful, that at this stage that bitcoin would die because of such attack, were it to occur..,. and surely even the speculating of such attack from Grayscale seems quite illogical as fuck, especially the way that you are presenting it.. because again, why would anyone (whether institutions or a group of individuals) be incentivized to kill their golden goose - even presuming that they were able to(which is a very presumptive "if").
the fact that they sell out to 'clear' their fee's shows they prefer FIAT over Bullshit Cryptos.
I would think that it is difficult to blame companies for trying to make as much money as they can from goods or services that they provide, and of course, if they overprice, they could end up with some backlash - which probably accounts for some of the current price dynamics of the GBTC fund going from the positive to the negative territory in the past several months or so when some similar (or kind of competing) products were introduced (referring to the going live of a couple of Canadian ETFs).
That they only play the Crypto game to recycle fools money. Churn on Garth, and remember the house keeps all.
You are talking in riddles.. Sure that helps to understand you better.
By the way, our current world as a whole fuckton of varying assets and currencies, including fiat, so anyone who fails/refuses to account for such dynamic is likely going to screw up his own allocations and end up getting too invested in one asset/currency or another, and sure I can understand if you might be a diptwat who only has a few thousand dollars to your name, then you may well end up doing fine with over-allocations because you do not have very much, so it does not likely matter too much if you put all your small quantity of eggs in one basket. The more sophisticated that you become, and even the more value that you have accumulated to your portfolio, you at least be considering the extent to which it might be helpful to you to have allocations in more than one asset/currency.
I am not even suggesting that diversification for the mere sake of diversification is a good or even a wise mindset, practice or strategy because there are likely needs to considering why you might invest in one asset/currency versus another and how much allocation to give to such while considering your own various personal circumstances. Anyhow, fiat (such as the dollar) can play a very central role in any person's/institution's considerations of their own cashflow and ability to pay a variety of ongoing expenses - and the more complicated the expenses (including institutions and richer folks) the more likely that there are needs to plan further in advance and to attempt to be more careful about how they attempt to utilize and hold such assets/currencies... even folks who might end up taking relatively high allocations in one kind of asset/currency or another - but again, seems dumb and short sighted to not be attempting to balance such approaches, especially if you are attempting to manage any kind of meaningful level of value, whether we are referring to individuals, institutions that are not managing the money of others and institutions that are managing the value of others.
[moderator's note: consecutive posts merged]
