Bitcoin and Ethereum tumble after renewed fears of regulatory crackdown
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
Personally, I think it's just as likely that some big bitcoin players are having their fun with the suckers who bought BTC futures. If I would have lots of BTC I would have shorted those futures, as much as possible, and then right before those futures expire (jan 18?) would dump lots of real BTC, crashing the price and making money on those shorted futures.
Then, after the expiration, I'd start to buy back BTC at the lower price, using the futures profits. Extra profit for buying futures for the next expiration date (feb 18?) during the crash...
I don't understand how cash-settled futures are meant to provide price stability to a market. They just seem to do the opposite to me.
My experience with race-calling journalism is the reasons are often useless.
Couple years ago, I was on an exotic derivatives trading team. We purchased a portfolio of correlation trades from a French bank. (We thought we could unwind their portfolio for more than what we paid plus expected losses.)
Correlation trades are complex structures designed to profit from the correlation of two assets. For example, if you buy correlation on Apple and Microsoft, and both stocks go up or down, you make money. If one goes up far more than the other, you make less money. If one goes up and one goes down, you lose money. (Vastly oversimplifying.)
Just as with any market phenomenon, buying correlation itself drives correlation. (In the same way buying an asset pushes up its "price" a bit.) Conversely, unwinding a correlation trade drives anti-correlation.
I handed what I thought was a simple unwinding to a junior colleague. They proceeded to fuck it up. Anti-correlation in the system spiked, we lost some money and Mike was temporarily switched to bagel duty. Few moments later, we start seeing CNBC articles about Iranian military activity in the Gulf causing Brent and WTI to diverge, why this company is outperforming that company, and even a political article commending a small Central European country for outperforming a neighbor. The price movements reported were correct, but the reads were crap. Went well with my whitefish salad bagel.
In other words, further out futures dates are trading higher, so short investors in bitcoin are making money by rolling forward their short contracts. If long players were "trying to trap the short futures traders" they're definitely not succeeding.
I think two forces are at work here. First is that a lot of people who held on the way up realize finally a lot of their savings are tied up in a super volatile asset. As they see how much of their wealth can be wiped away in day, they're moving some amount of their savings out. (Now to have gotten to here in the first place, these long term holders are not intrinsically against risk since mathematical volatility equal / higher in the past; they just don't like this volatility when half their wealth is in it!)
Second is that people are still finding out about cryptocurrency. Crypto represents still less than 1% of the total real asset holdings of the world, so this would drive the price up. But this process is slow moving.
You'll notice that this is true of all race-calling journalism.
"The market was down on news that the Fed ..."
"China's announcement caused the market to ..."
"Iron ore prices rose again after production figures from BHP and Rio Tinto showed ..."
They're not performing exact science. They're hitting the daily quota and moving on. Something that makes for a good, plausible story is usually the limit of what you'll get from a journo in a hurry.
Interestingly, thrash and volatility provide stability (and profit) to the entities that take a cut of every transaction with a transaction cost. Think about brokers of any sort (real estate, stocks, insurance); they do not care whether the price momentums are going up or down, only that they can extract the maximum "equity" out of each and every transaction. Since fear-based selling (or fear-based buying by folks with fear of "losing out" on the next big thing) tends to increase overall thrash and volatility (and thus overall volume of selling), it is kind of the perfect scheme for them.
News and momentum of any sort can be exploited by insiders with information.
Normally, in commodities world, players who are on the other side of speculators are real producers or consumers locking into some price which suits them. Think airlines buying a lot of oil futures at suitable price to know what they will pay for fuel next quarter. Or farmers selling their future crop.
In BTC world, no such players exist.
They don't. I imagine it's mostly 'bitter coiners' who didn't buy in when the price was low and who are happy to see any drop because it lessens the amount they feel they lost out by (and I say this as a bitter coiner myself who could have mined bitcoin back when it was possible on a typical desktop but decided it wasn't worth the hassle).
I imagine this drop is caused by people who bought in early last year, saw the price drop from $19,000 to $15,000 and then think "I'm happy to lock in 1,500% gains" and sold, causing others to think "hmmm, the price is dropping, I'm happy to lock in 1,400% gains" and selling, and so on all the way down to the current $10,000, and it will likely keep dropping until you run out of people looking to lock in at least some of the gains from last year. That's when you'll get a whole bunch of people thinking "wow the price of bitcoin is low right now, time to buy, buy, buy".
How will Bitcoin ever recover?!
I don't own any bitcoin, but I remember when it first hit $1,000 and a few months later it was back down at $200 and I thought, hah, those people who bought in at $1,000 will never make their money back.
If it drops down to $200 again, this time I might even be tempted to buy some.
It’s distilled animal spirits. No pretense of utility, no room for analysis. A number you can buy and watch go up and down.
Maybe they don't get 1,900% gains, but 1,000% gains or even 'only' 100% gains in a single year is still an impressive return on investment and so selling anywhere above 2k is going to be a viable choice for many speculators.
Low is around 5K for BTC. Appreciation is much less volatile in the future.
I too look forward to finding these comments in the future.
What would happen to me if I algorithmically pumped and dumped in the USA and was found guilty of it? Some community service or hard jail time?
Or just use Google by yourself.
Pedantry aside, however, I agree with you that these ‘tokens’ are cryptoassets, entities whose only saving grace is their deliberately manufactured scarcity.
That's all block chains are, really: methods of manufacturing scarcity on a distributed, open medium.
First paragraph is all about the nation state. Currency is the state. Why would they give that up?
> In economics, a local currency is a currency not backed by a national government, and intended to trade only in a small area.
It's not a currency.
Them not being directly controlled by governments doesn't mean that they exist in a vacuum. At the end of the day, it's people creating/buying/selling them, so obviously they're affected by: governments, natural disasters, wars, ...
Or Batman dressing like a bat because "criminals are a superstitious and cowardly lot."
Bitcoin will survive for the simple fact that as long as something somewhere is illegal, Bitcoin will have value.
Monero, for example, uses ring signatures to enable a greater degree of anonymity by having x% of block transactions be complete gobbledygook. Sending someone a transaction doesn't unmask your transaction activity for them to see (unlike Bitcoin), values transmitted are obscured to people browsing the blockchain (unlike Bitcoin), etc.
Bitcoin isn't the best, or even a particularly good cryptocurrency for engaging in extra-legal activities.
This has so many meanings that you can be both right and wrong at the same time.
What I haven't been able to get a straight answer on is exactly which specific types of power. Because as far as I can tell, a government could still levy taxes in BTC. They could still impose whatever financial regulations they wanted on top of BTC. They couldn't force or prevent transactions, but they could still observe them and impose fines (and, ultimately, jail time or asset seizure) on entities who didn't follow the regulations. They could still demand record keeping and reporting from any businesses they wanted, and would still be able to perform audits to ensure compliance. Given that most of the blockchain implementations allow a third party to easily reconstruct transaction histories, quite a few types of regulation seem like they would actually be easier to enforce.
As far as I can tell, the only governmental function that cryptocurrencies actually disallow is central banking. That may or may not be a good thing, but either way it doesn't feel to me like a world shaking reclaiming of some fundamental liberty from the clutching tentacles of the Leviathan, and it doesn't seem like it would fundamentally alter the day-to-day experience of participating in the economy.
So, what am I missing? What should "not controlled by the government" actually imply, specifically? Or, if that's the wrong way to express the underlying sentiment, what would be a correct statement of the idea?
why is ether course virtually identical? https://cryptowat.ch/bitfinex/ethusd/30m
not just as a tendency but seemingly even micro movements.
Because many people that hold it bought it together with BTC as speculation and decided to sell simultaneously
I hope nobody's bet the farm on this stuff.
The ones who only bought in to Bitcoin a month ago? Because Bitcoin's still up for anyone who bought in the first 11 months of 2017.
Plus, you know, it still seems to be falling. I'm not going to make any predictions here, because that's next to impossible in a market driven almost entirely by sentiment, but it's not going to take a lot to unwind time considerably further.
I hope they did, because I want them to buy 10 farms in 4 years for that.