Robinhood Crypto – Invest in Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies
crypto.robinhood.com
crypto.robinhood.com
Now they are "democratizing" margin trading (Robinhood Gold), options trading, and crypto...no professional investor who actually knows what he/she is doing is going to be served well by a mobile trading app - this is a play for the mostly uneducated retail investor (and small minority of knowledgable retail traders) who has no idea what they're getting into when they buy a call option in X or trade btc on margin.
I remember seeing on their social a now deleted tweet that read "Trade fast, die young." Ugh.
It's in their best interest to promote more volume to increase revenue. They're making money of each and every trade.
[1] for example https://www.nasdaqtrader.com/Trader.aspx?id=bx_pricing
Your also giving up better trade execution ie paying more for shares. Robinhood is good for getting your feet wet but people should switch brokers as soon as possible.
But I execute maybe, 4 trades per year. E-Trade / Ameritrade / Scottrade are good enough, and offer me Options trading and other useful features.
Like a website, so I can trade on a computer properly damn it.
Yea valid point. I make 2 to 4 trades a week so IB makes sense for me. Plus I signed up before I was 25 so my monthly fees are still only $3 instead of $12. Plus I do enough trades that my monthly fees are waived.
I would be less critical if they had a library of investor education materials, or required investors to go through a training course to understand the risks of riskier trades (i.e. margin or options trading), but as far as I know they don't have anything like that.
This sort of investing works well in bull market, and after an almost 9 run-up, I'm guessing we have a lot of younger traders who have not seen a bear market.
This is not going to end well for a lot of folks...
Trade fees are a relic, and deserve to die. They do nothing but skim money from smalltime players. Yes that also increases risk of gambling behaviors, but the solution is better education and treatment, not depriving everyone of a fair and low friction system.
I can see RH becoming a dominant player in the Tech Fin Millennials space.
This is not a serious sub, it is satire/trolling/shitposting.
On the other hand, it could have got ugly. Hindsight is often 20/20 and young people can get competitive, over-aggressive, and dumb.
It took me until far more recently to even start to pay any attention to things like financial markets and trading.
We’re setting up for a rough time. The baby boomer’s retirements and the millenial’s savings(in the market, not savings accounts) are going to get hit really hard.
It's been an interesting experiment that gave me incentives to learn more about financial markets, which I otherwise would not have touched. However, I started by reading and knowing a little bit, so I won't touch crypto trading until I know more.
The only thing you should be comparing yourself against is the s&p500, if you haven't beaten that, then you're down.
Also, the markets have been in an unprecedented bull run. Everything you've learned will be useless once the tide turns
This is the real problem. Easy to beat the markets in a bull run when you're invested in high beta/high risk stocks.
While I'm 'beating' the S&P by 10% over my puny 3.2 year life, I gained more value from feeling the urge to trade during downturns, but resisting, seeing bad investments fade away (thanks, SolarCity), and effects of global events, such as Brexit and Trump USA. I would recommend trying stocks to people who can afford to do so as a way to really learn what books mean when they say there is an irrational 'fight or flight' instinct that individual investors have, not to mention the herd mentality of institutional investors.
Hope that clarifies things.
If that is not the premise, then it's not good general advice to tell people to avoid day trading as they won't learn anything. If the market is not efficient, then return on investment is correlated with your amount of information, and they will absolutely learn things of actual value, or at least their experience with trading will contain information about the strength of their hypotheses, regardless of whether they infer that information.
Most financial events are cyclical. Trading really hasn’t changed much since the late 17th century so reading a history book on financial speculation and market cycles would teach you plenty.
Another alternative is simulating trades without allocating real liquid to it. Watch how those assets evolve over time.
Regardless, there's a lot to be said for putting actual money down on your beliefs, it has a non-negligible impact on the learning process.
How someone decides to use their money is up to them. If emotional reinforcement helps them remember something then I suppose day trading is an option.
I’m only suggesting there are frugal ways to learn if your ultimate goal is to build wealth.
You certainly don’t learn anything from giving all your money to a mutual fund.
What would be the best way to learn, for someone looking to invest $500+, who's never done much investing before?
Outside of ~10 shares of Starbucks stock given to me when I worked there in 2001, this has been my only experience.
P.S. Those Starbucks shared have been long-lost - somehow they moved them from Schwab to another company and no one told me where/how). I forgot about them until today.
EDIT: Looking at my docs, I bought 7 shares at $18.275 in April 2001. The stock price is $60.55 today. I need to figure out who holds these and see what I can do to reclaim them.
EDIT2: I found them. I found where the original account was, called them and got the details. Sadly, the account was marked as dormant and I learned about "Escheatment". The stocks were cashed and the amount is now held by my state and I have go through several hoops to reclaim.
After that, I would recommend reading Technical Analysis of the Financial Market by John Murphy, and books tailored to specific indicators (you can write me back if you wish and I can go more specific).
All the best!
I traded on emotion, bought high, sold low, with margin leverage, and with options.
Fortunately I didn't have much money then, so my losses were a large percentage but a relatively small dollar amount.
In hindsight all those losses were inexpensive lessons that have served me very well now that I'm older and have more at stake.
So let the young and inexperienced trade. If you protect them from themselves, you deny them the ability to learn at a relatively low cost, and they'll wind up learning later at a much higher cost.
Developing a investor mindset free of emotional responses is fundamental and hard to do if there's not real money at stake. If Robinhood gives young people easy access to learn by doing then all the better to then.
Not true, Interactive Brokers doesn't sell your order flow.
The concept of "bad" vs a national best bid or a national best ask can only come via order delay. Better execution via order delay as seen by a customer is always a lie as none of retail brokerages look at the order, look at the 100@101 x 100@101.1 market and say "ok, i'm buying 380K @ 101.09 from you" followed by posting the trade followed by trying to unwind position. Oh no, they simply present your order by adding it to the book.
There are retail brokerages that allow one to collect order flow charges. Those brokerages cannot make money on such order flow.
Naw. It's still there.
https://twitter.com/robinhoodapp/status/756262680537759744
The reply meme to this tweet tho.
"First time day trading with 2K.... AAAAND IT'S GONE".
Frankly the demand is ALWAYS going to be there for these types of services. And there are people that are actually smarter than the market. Robinhood is so much better than a lot of companies that try to attract those investors (like a site that makes you pay for day trading classes for example)
I'd rather have Robinhood than an app that charges fees, seems like a win for the consumer to me.
This is completely untrue on the face of it:
"Unless you have an equity balance of at least $25,000 in your account, your Robinhood Instant or Robinhood Gold account is limited to no more than three day trades in a sliding five trading day window [emphasis mine]. Exceeding the three day trade limit will restrict your account from placing further day trades for 90 days." [1]
As someone who actually day trades, being able to do 3 trades every 5 days is completely useless.
As an aside, sort of disappointed this is the top-rated comment when the evidence against this claim could be found using ~1 minute of Googling.
[1] https://support.robinhood.com/hc/en-us/articles/217072366-Pa...
Also day trading is not a limit on total buys/sells - they're specifically saying it's a limit on buying/selling the same security repeatedly when they are lending you money in a margin account.
So to follow FINRA's rules, Robinhood will limit cash accounts from pattern day trading as well as margin accounts. The rules applied to margin accounts are stricter, but truly day trading in a cash account won't work for long.
Buying a security, then buying a different security, then selling a third security tomorrow -- that's not day trading, that is just the normal flow of equity investing.
Unless you have a lot of money so you can be invested into many different names, you won't be able to do this very many times before you run into the limit, at which point, the rational person will open an account at a different brokerage instead.
The utility of 'zero commission trades' rapidly declines as you have more capital. If you have >$25k to put into a brokerage, paying $1-2 commission per trade (e.g. Interactive Brokers commissions), or even $5-7 per trade (most other retail brokers) is definitely worth the flexibility of being able to change your mind and reversing that trade without the risk of being locked for 90 days.
As for the addendum, sales in cash accounts are settled over several business days and you can't trade on those funds, so again there is no day trading there unless you're very significantly overcapitalized.
Accredited investor status is a very non-libertarian idea. By forbidding a class of risks to the lower and middle classes, it excludes them from the corresponding class of rewards. When the lower/middle-class investor can only take a subset of the risks another investor can take, it means his money is worth less. The accredited status works as a gatekeeper against class mobility. In some ways it seems similar to disenfranchisement (“pass a test to vote,” “pass a test to take this risk”).
SEC regulations are there to protect investors. If the rules for trading my nn regulated securities were dropped, then there would be much less reason for securities to go through the registration process, undermine my the whole regulatory system, but ncreasing risk for everyone including the country. After all these rules came out of the aftermath of the Great Depression.
Think of it on the same way as retail goods quality control standards. If you buy goods in a store they must comply with strict safety and quality controls, but if you’re a business or dealer those rules don’t apply, for extample if you’re buying the goods to scrap them, or bring them up to standard and then sell on. Different rules apply to retail purchasers and trade purchasers.
I would say yes. Well, he should be able, if he wants, but is it good for him, really? For example, options trading is useful for hedging large positions in stocks, so you can pay small amount to, um, hedge against corrections in a bull market. By hedging correctly, you can make some money in during correction while avoiding fees associated with selling your sizeable position and buying it back.
But options trading without having large positions in stocks? It's not trading, it's lottery. 1% chance of making 10x return and 99% chance of losing the whole bet.
I don't mind, but let's not pretend that options trading is opportunity in itself. Having ability to trade large sums is opportunity, access to options market is not.
That's a pretty naive statement. Have you ever traded options before? Because it sounds like you haven't. Options like most other securities allow you to chose your risk, everything from lottery type bets to mostly sure deals.
The amount of knowledge needed is on a whole different level.
You are technically correct, but again, we are talking about retail broker targeted to millenial audience. I would be very surprised if 1% of it's audience knows what straddle or butterfly means.
From a more pragmatic libertarian perspective, one might also worry about the welfare claims that a person who is ill-equipped to make speculative investments and gets wiped out will make on society. One must also consider debts that they will fail to pay if they are forced to declare bankruptcy (one reason why stock exchanges never let you fund your account from a credit card—unlike coinbase). State-managed bankruptcy and welfare may be seen by some libertarians as incursions on liberty but they are also mechanisms that enable a higher degree of risk-taking and potential innovation from the same class of people who are restricted from some risky sorts of investing. Once you make these provisions you have to manage the costs, but its not clear that a classical libertarian prescription of eliminating state-involvement in bankruptcy and welfare and opening up speculative investments to all would improve class mobility.
The test to become accredited demonstrates that a person has the capacity to handle a failed speculative investment and is less likely to need to socialize their losses (obviously bank bailouts are a counter-example to the point I am making here, but that's just how schizophrenic our regulatory environment is).
More people could sign their money away on this to make the Tesla queue look like a lemonade stand. This has not happened before, we really are in new territory as people en-masse think they can get rich on this. Plenty actually are and all of them are telling everyone else to follow their example. This is a bubble but everyone is getting everyone to pump it up with a view to hold... Oh dear.
I for one totally welcome this move. Coinbase is making billions on their product with high fees (because of low competition) and this should even the playing field.
"What if there are fifty righteous (knowledgeable) people in the city? Will you really sweep it away and not spare the place for the sake of the fifty righteous (knowledgeable) people in it?" :-)
> "Trade fast, die young."
That's hilarious! I mean, until someone actually tries it, but for now, it's hilarious!
Edit: It's still there: https://twitter.com/robinhoodapp/status/756262680537759744
> Cryptocurrencies, stocks, ETFs, and options are now available side by side — all easily accessible in one app. Managing your investments just got even easier.
There is a dangerous theme of companies aimed at millennials that misappropriate Bitcoin (etc) as an investment, when it is just glorified currency exchange speculation. Blurring these lines obscures the real-world value created through actual investments.
The supply is mostly a function of time, as defined by the blockchain's algorithms.
The demand is a function of what, exactly?
Still looks mostly like luck to me.
demand is a function of greed.
It's not at all sustainable, though.
And it's worth noting that people do invest in currency. It is not merely an exchange vehicle.
Well... we're just shoving a poor definition of investment off onto a poor definition of gamble. If potential drawdown could be considered part of the risk of 'investing' )or 'gambling') then Bitcoin is definitely more of a gamble.
1. There's more government regulation and less manipulation.
2. New money is constantly flowing in, via 401K's and pensions. Most people aren't even aware they're invested in the stock market.
3. The government cares so much about the stock market doing good. Look at how Trump brags about the booming market. If it goes in a funk, the government will think of ways to prop it back up.
That said, without any of those 3 things, stocks are just as a gamble as bitcoin.
People say "past is not a predictor/indicator of the present", yet they love to say "stocks return 7-8% annually, and you should just invest in an index to enjoy such returns". Why? That's such as a huge assumption that everyone takes for granted.
> If it goes in a funk, the government will think of ways to prop it back up
I don't disagree with the second statement. I guess what you're saying is that there is manipulation (talking about government intervention in this case) but overwhelmingly in the "right" direction?
Well, you're leaving out something something about the company putting your money to use to increase efficiency or output something something and something something about dividends from the proceeds, none of which you have with cryptocurrencies. (Though it may be disputable whether those are truly the reasons behind the historical returns of stocks and thus good reasons to expect it to continue, even if you wouldn't guarantee the exact numbers, or if those are simply motivated reasons that may or may not be reliable future indicators...)
AKA buy stock at 100$ and sell it at 100$ does not mean you broke even. You could have gotten 10$ in dividends. Now that positive may be small and some people may lose money, but that's allowed as long as the expected returns end up positive.
Bitcoin's can't have a net positive return because they only way to add money into the system is via coin buyers. Further because of transaction costs it's inherently negative sum.
I'm not disagreeing with you. In fact I almost agree with you, but your argument fails for most stocks.
If every year your coin splits so now you have 2 coins then 4 etc no money was added. I can have 10^1000 in a database, but that's not new value.
https://github.com/ethereum/wiki/wiki/Proof-of-Stake-FAQ
Staking doesn't produce new coins. It pays dividends from transaction fees. I.e. actual economic activity.
Lets say I Buy '1,000' tokens including a 10 token payment for a transaction fee for 1$. Now A had 1,000 tokens and now has 1$, I have 990 tokens and another group get's 10 tokens. But, notice that other person(s) got tokens not money.
If I got to keep 1,000 tokens or someone else get's those 10 tokens nothing changes because nobody who has tokens got any money. The only way people with tokens get money is if they sell some number of tokens minus a fee to someone else. It does not matter of all 10 tokens go to a miner, or miners get 5 tokens an 5 go to 'investors' or what not.
It's still a (edit: negative sum game) and contracts don't change anything about this.
I apply, get eth, cashing out by selling it to someone else, then get hit by a buss or just ignore you.
Now, in what way can the system enforce that loan?
If you can get the eth from someone that gave me money then they are not going to give me money in the first place. If you say, sue someone in the real world that's fine. But, the smart contract did not actually do anything. If you say I need to put up eth as collateral then you did not give me a loan.
If they went to the work of creating digital contracts and didn't consider escrow, that seems to be a fairly significant omission.
Escrow accounts are fine if I am doing contracting work, but that are not a loan.
https://i.imgur.com/AltAcnB.jpg
Keep in mind this graph is logarithmic in scale.
If I take that same money and invest it in a business -- the business is going to take that money and create something new. Hopefully what it creates will be worth more than what you invested, but in any case your investment has changed the world in some way.
I think a cryptocurrency is probably something in between that, because your 'investment' is actually ultimately going to miners who will expand the network, so you are actually building something new in a sense by investing in cryptocurrency. However I'm not sure that building the bitcoin network out is a net positive for the world.
Only if you're buying at the IPO. Most of the time, you're just buying stock from another person and the company gets zilch. The service you're providing to the company is just better information about its ability to raise additional capital from selling equity.
For some cryptocurrencies, you are providing a service to the miners by adding liquidity and pricing information, but given the volume trading on crypto exchanges, there is simply not enough currency being mined for even a tiny fraction of it to be going directly to miners as a counterparty. For a currency like Ripple, that is completely pre-mined, you don't even have that.
However, over a long enough timeframe storage fees eat up the entire value of gold stored thus it's not a long term investment.
Also, if you 1 one bitcoin you can only sell less than 1 bitcoin from transaction fees. Remember, someone needs to spend real money maintain servers and that money is constantly being removed from the coin ecosystem.
If I own a house I get to use the house today and still have a house tomorrow. With a field I could grow crops and then still have a field next year.
Commodities are an interesting 3rd thing. But, closer to buying something from a wholesaler than an investment as they represent actual goods (ie Oil) that will be sent somewhere. Think of it like this, if you buy coffee contract you get coffee which can be sold off. However it's a physical thing and it's got a physical expiration date, if you keep it in a pile somewhere for 10 years you end up with dirt.
You could speculate that the utility created will increase the value of the coins you hold. However, unlike mining there is no connection between buying a coin and enabling other people to do these transactions.
gambol: A playful skipping or frolicking about.
The only way money enters the system is for someone to buy a coin, so having more tokens in no way makes something an investment.
Don't forget that investing in the stock market is still something of a gamble, because the return for everyone is not guaranteed to be greater than zero - a company can go bust leaving the shareholders with nothing.
PS: Berkshire Hathaway still returns money to shareholders via stock buybacks. Which preform similar functions the difference is simply related to taxes. They can and are likely to at some point issue dividends.
"Chances are" alone, is an assumption. How is that any different from your speculation on Bitcoin. The only difference is longevity of the window period, otherwise it's the same principle.
so one difference then is that stocks have a justification for their returns given the variance you experience.
Putting money into a company in return for a share of ownership is an investment. A lot of stock market shenanigans are little more than gambling. Gold and crypto-currencies for the most part are speculation.
Although it's not always clear with ICOs if any form of ownership is conferred or what the relationship might be between future profits and token gains.
But yes, in principle.
--edit-- to be clear, I'm not trying to say one class of thing is better than the others, just that to me the words have different meanings.
-Ben Graham, from chapter 1 of The Intelligent Investor
In (spot) market movements, your value goes down as the market declines, but you don't stand to lose everything in a moment.
I can imagine a lottery where usually nobody wins anything but every now and then everyone who bought a ticket wins collectively. It's still a lottery.
With stocks, for example, I can make a prediction about a company's future performance, buy or short accordingly, and expect that if I am correct I will profit.
I may be wrong about my prediction, but if I am correct then I've got far better than chance odds of also being correct about the future price of the asset.
Without making any further predictions about the state of the world I can equally easily imagine the price of Bitcoin in 5 years being $100 or $100,000. Neither price feels "wrong" the way it would if, say, Google's stock price rose or dropped by an order of magnitude without the company changing anything.
With other assets, there's a clear causal arrow leading from outside the system back in. If Google the company performs better, Google the stock will overwhelmingly tend to perform better. If Google the company folds, Google the stock will overwhelmingly tend toward being worthless. The asset is a proxy for something that isn't the asset.
Bitcoin doesn't appear to work the same way. There's no obvious not-Bitcoin that demand for Bitcoin is a function of. It's a proxy for itself, after a fashion. That doesn't mean it has no value, but it does feel uncomfortably self-referential when compared to almost any traditional asset class.
This is true even for the miners, since they would not build out infrastructure and burn energy if bitcoin was worth zero.
It's backed by hash rate, which secures the blockchain.
Even time I think I should play another hand, some new technology gets invented that makes more money for the players in the game.
Even some of the scammy non-blackjack games that people keep making, which act like blackjack (and the players also keep making money).
But there is no way i will ever take part in blackjack because gambling is wrong and stupid.
"An investment operation is one which, upon thorough analysis promises safety of principal and an adequate return. Operations not meeting these requirements are speculative."
http://buffettpedia.com/2017/08/investment-versus-speculatio...
By definition one: yes, by two: no.
It's just betting that the value will change arbitrarily (or through manipulation).
The stock market is a secondary market with people trading stocks, not providing capital.
Providing capital to someone does not only occur in the IPO stage. I'm not even sure how to go about refuting that statement; that's... not how finance works anywhere on the planet.
People do trade stocks with the expectation of stocks rising or falling in varying periods. People also hold stocks for long terms and then sell them afterwards. Just like cryptocurrencies!
However - it's just not the same. A share in a company has evolved and subjected to regulation for hundreds of years. An IPO is a highly regulated legal process involving investment banks and many lawyers (and that is how it should be - so that we don't have con artists running ICOs). It is sold by a company that generally provides jobs and services to society. It represents an actual piece of ownership in that company - if you have enough shares, you impact how that company is run. There are many other points I could make differentiating the two comparisons entirely.
"Providing capital to someone does not only occur in the IPO stage. I'm not even sure how to go about refuting that statement; that's... not how finance works anywhere on the planet."
First, I provided that statement in the context of the parent comment. In the equities market, providing capital occurs only in IPOs, not in the secondary market. When you buy Apple stock, you typically are exchanging money with another person who is selling it. You are not providing capital to Apple.
Second, you could've gone about refuting my statement by providing a counter-example. It's that easy. Otherwise you're simply just trying to put me down, and make me look like an idiot, without explaining why.
Yes, Apple is not receiving any money if there is a share transaction between two investors (duh?). However, providing capital to public companies or does not only occur in IPOs (edit: even if we restrict that with the clause: in an "equities market").
You're right, I could have provided a counter argument. However, at the same time, you should not make such an absurd, unqualified assertion that other people who lack knowledge and are reading these forums may read and assume to be true.
so why not provide an actual counterexample that actually adds value? You still have a chance.
This sentence explains everything about the world we now live in.
Robinhood seems to be pulling in a lot of different directions and there's all these "early access" features that never seem to actually, well, launch.
I've now signed up for:
* Web access (otherwise it's mobile-only)
* Options trading
* And now, cryptocurrency trading (because why not)
and I haven't gotten access to any of them yet, even though Robinhood for web has been in "early access" for quite awhile now.
So I signed up for this, but I have very little faith that I'll get access any time soon (even with the vague promise of early February).
A company I left a few years ago went down the same path.
Otherwise it's a great product. I'm really only writing this in the hope that a Robinhood person catches eye on this comment and takes it to heart.
Entering cryptocurrencies IMO runs counter to that mission. It's a cash grab which will expose their users to poorly-understood risks and will likely not put anyone on a more stable financial footing.
That's already the case. Their entire user-base is comprised of naive stock market investors. If they really wanted to bring about a more stable financial footing for their users they would just offer dressed-up ETFs.
I feel most negative comments on this thread are from folks who missed the crypto train last year and are just bitter and trash any new development in this area.
Also I'm curious if Robinhood Gold (Robinhood's version of margin accounts) will work here, letting people easily borrow money to buy cryptocurrencies. This seems particularly dangerous for a product targeting small/layman investor.
Capitol One is now blocking all coinbase transactions, and Chase is now running them as cash advances, so the credit card companies are aware. I think there may be a large amount of CC defaults due to cryptocurrency "investors" realizing they are in over their heads in the coming months.
Or if you're going for the sweet investor moneydrop, go for something like "Sharing Economy". That says "We steal from the poor and give to the rich" like no other!
[I remember the UK National Lottery being described as a "tax on stupidity"]
http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/fact-sheet...
"annual percentage rates averaging 391 percent." (That's not a typo)
"Average borrowers earn about $30,000 per year"
"Most borrowers pay more in fees than they originally received in credit "
"each year, spending $9 billion on loan fees. "
Robinhood, by not having fees, takes the stock market from the rich and opens it up to everyone else. IMO it's a great name.
I didn’t see how their crypto offering would allow me to transfer my wallet from Coinbase to them, do I create a new wallet, and then send money from one to another? If so it’s unfortunate that I’d need to incur transaction fees to onboard.
Although I did just try to buy SPXH (S&P500 + Volatility Hedge) and for some mysterious reason it was "not available for trading on Robinhood", even though it's an ETF with a not-miniscule AUM ($50M). I pinged their support about this, and it took them over a week to get back to me to ask what type of security SPXH is.
Evey piece of this pie is sweet, so we will probably see more serious legit US-based players on this market of casual crypto trading for housewives.
If Robinhood isn't posting their orderbook, why would anyone trust that there are no fees or commissions when they could bake their costs directly into the price? There's no market regulation (a la Reg NMS) for cryptocurrencies, so who's to say that the user isn't getting screwed on price and allowing Robinhood to take their cut?
But if they are partnering with an exchange, why pick one over the other? Who will pay for the withdrawal/transaction fees?
Are you referring to market orders? I don't understand this. If I place a limit order for 1 share at $20. And the order gets filled at this price; where do you think Robinhood is taking a cut? I think the strategy you mention could be possible with market orders however.
Example: you buy $20 USD worth of BTC on Robinhood. They give you 0.001750 BTC.
But on other exchanges, you would have received 0.001812 BTC instead. The differing price of BTC between exchanges gives them their "commission/fee".
The lack of transparency in pricing gives them the advantage in exchange for retail consumer confusion over "zero fees".
Dump that evil spyware, and tell your friends to as well.
Hey Robinhood if you're reading I'd like
BTC, ETH, LTC, XMR, DOGE, XRP, XLM, XEM
Anyone can suggest sane brokerage with API access allowing trading US stocks, ETFs or options for non-US citizens, with minimal deposit? I'm aware of Ameritrade; how about other alternatives?
For one, Coinbase has a lot of trouble with KYC and fake accounts. Now they have to come up with innovative ways to stop it.
Two, this market can be very demanding. Stuff like delayed payments etc are instantly noticed.
> Robinhood Financial is a member of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) and the Securities Investor Protection Corporation (SIPC) ...
> Robinhood Crypto is not a member of FINRA or SIPC. Cryptocurrencies are not stocks and your cryptocurrency investments are not protected by either FDIC or SIPC insurance.
If Apex goes down, which is vastly more unlikely, Federal SIPC insurance kicks in up to $500,000.
is that possible in cyrpto currency?
Can someone change the title to better match the web page? "Crypto" is a bit confusing without "currency".
Title is perfectly accurate.
I suppose I should've known better.
Unfortunately this will be another case of literally/figuratively.
Seems a bit pointless unless you're strictly interested in day trading and don't actually care about crypto.
If this is true, that means these are cash settled and they might not actually be backed by any assets. That idea is scary and I would avoid it.
Accessible crypto is going to be a disaster simply because of unregulated markets. My friends get shakey when they lose $100 in the market, this is going to be "Weak Hands: The App". Or "Taking Candy From A Baby: The App".
I had to lose ~$200k over the course of a couple months and only after then I started really getting into the swing of things and started making good money while also making it back. It took all that to realize that if I didn't day trade my yields would have been much much higher. Day trading is hard, don't do it unless you really truly know what you're doing. Reading crap about market psychology and fractals and fibonacci this and wave theory that is all trash and does not make you a trader.
Here come the 'I lost my life savings' rants by people with weak hands. Regular people + unregulated market = blood bath.
Might not always be possible if the exchange closes, has liquidity issues, etc.
It is certainly not advisable to expect to get any of your money back from a crypto exchange. Play with what you’re willing to lose.
reads crap about Tether propping up bitcoin price, without audits despite claims of USDT backed by USD
immediately realize you're regular people and invest nothing in cryptocurrencies
It works very well for short-term trading on cryptocurrencies, still waiting to release the longer term strategy (buy and hold is honestly a great choice). We've just started revewing some of the results (since we launched last week), and we're already up stagaring amounts:
https://blog.projectpiglet.com/2018/01/30-weekly-returns-usi...
Not to say it'll always be that way...
It doesn't have that same issue you describe.
Right now we need funds to continue development and add more data. So we will be charging if you don't provide feedback - so please help us improve! :)