Robinhood Opens Cryptocurrency Trading
bloomberg.com
bloomberg.com
-Robinhood is not allowing you to transfer in crypto from outside.
-Robinhood does allow you to transfer crypto out but you have to go through extra verification steps.
The listing of so many altcoins in the robinhood app (monero, zcash, etc) plus it’s low fees makes buying on altcoin exchanges that only accept crypto like binance a lot less attractive. No longer will users have to buy $ltc/$eth on coinbase/gdax then transfer to another exchange to buy altcoins.
This will have a big impact on the crypto ecosystem. The gauntlet has been thrown down for coinbase.
Edit: my bad. I got confused by the app update, Robinhood are just displaying tracking data for alts :
So robinhood is the sole supplier of coins on their exchange? Imagine if NYSE was also running a prop trading operation on the side, talk about conflicts of interest...
I don't understand. My understanding is they allow only BTC and ETH on their platform. So, if I want to buy a ICO token I do need to buy ETH here/GDAX etc and transfer to another exchange.
Editing for source:
https://support.robinhood.com/hc/en-us/articles/360000088623...
Coinbase allow you to buy ltc, eth, bch and btc. If you wanted to buy monero you would first have to buy one of those then transfer to another exchange.
Edit: my bad. I got confused by the new Robinhood ux:
Anyone that uses the Robinhood platform to buy Bitcoin or Ethereum today comes into a market that has lost roughly half of its value over the past couple of months.
I believe those coins can be tracked but not bought.
Better source:
https://support.robinhood.com/hc/en-us/articles/360000088623...
Starting in February, Robinhood Crypto supports buying, selling and real-time market data for:
Bitcoin (BTC)
Ethereum (ETH)
Robinhood Crypto also supports real-time market data for the following:
Bitcoin Cash (BCH)
Bitcoin Gold (BTG)
Dash (DASH)
Dogecoin (DOGE)
Ethereum Classic (ETC)
Lisk (LSK)
Litecoin (LTC)
Monero (XMR)
NEO (NEO)
OmiseGO (OMG)
Qtum (QTUM)
Ripple (XRP)
Stellar (XLM)
Zcash (ZEC)
So not really the game changer you are saying it might be.
I hardly get 502s anymore since the upgrade.
It supports both Market Orders and Limit Orders. Transfers from GDAX to Coinbase are instantaneous and off-blockchain, so there are no fees.
As a bonus fun fact, if you transfer BTC from GDAX to your personal wallet, there is no Bitcoin network fee charged to you. However, if you use Coinbase, you'll end up paying a lot more in fees than you must because Coinbase uses very inefficient fee-estimation systems and still haven't deployed SegWit or batching which would reduce network fee for their customers.
I have a coinbase account that I can buy with but I am stuck at the verification stage on gdax..
Not sure about GC, but it's quite common to have either a driver license or a non-driver license state ID. It might even accept Real ID which is something you can get through DMV. If you live in the U.S. I highly recommend have a state-issued ID (Real ID would be a wise one at this point for future domestic traveling).
I’m renewing my drivers license next month so this problem will go away. Just letting others on hn know as you can be stuck in a verification queue for a long time.
Coinbase/GDAX has been gone down a few times but not at the frequency/duration I experienced with Kraken, YMMV.
Trading view is by far the best to check out a coin, see its indicators etc imo.
Still I think it's good to diversify your funds over various exchanges, just in case of a hack.
On first glance, it seems to fall into the category of "not-intimidating" along with the previously mentioned markets. The point i was trying to illustrate was that there are many laces on the web that skew much more towards LocalBitcoins or the like*.
A lot of these kind of sketchy sites have been stomped out in the frenzy that was the Bitcoin Bubble, being replaced by these more legitimate - at least at first glance - sites.
As more scandals like Mt. Gox etc arise, however, trust in the currency - and random places on the internet to buy and sell said currency - will drop, leaving only those more "reputable" and known brands like Coinbase and Robinhood behind.
Then I got good news for you! the RobinHood app's transfer times are infinite, because you can't transfer the coins out :).
They never let you hold the bitcoin--all buys/sells take place on their system. I imagine they did this to avoid a lot of challenges that come with being able to transfer coins out.
Refer: https://ibb.co/dHNENc
Also the base price is more expensive than gdax (also owned by coinbase).
I'm near-term bullish, but mass marketing a crypto brokerage using imagery of astronauts and moons is really irresponsible and will most likely end terribly for many customers.
Edit:
The video was deleted and an identical video reposted to their YouTube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=233RzfqYExI
My cynical side says it's specifically to divert attention away from this comment.
You're not buying stocks because Lionel Richie said you can trade after hours, are you?
Also your youtube link is dead.
EDIT: Sure, you can call it investing. But I would say it isn't sound investing.
The act of buying a security should be easy, but the thought that goes into that decision is MUCH more important. They trivialize this aspect of investing in their advertising and app, which I believe is dangerous for the retail investors who don't know better.
That's all the app is. The purpose of the app is not to be your all encompassing trading platform. It's a simple way to buy and sell securities.
I don't quite understand why saying that cryptocurrency investment is highly speculative requires me to offer "zero-risk" investments. You know as well as I that none exist.
The word you’re looking for is “gambling”, which is a meaningful difference. This isn’t just pedantic - the word “speculate” has a well-established definition in financial jargon, and altering that definition clouds discussions that could benefit from precision. Moreover, it implicitly puts “Real Investing” on a pedestal of responsibility and financial acumen, while dismissing the utility of speculation.
Sometimes people try to differentiate between speculation and investing by restricting their definitions to high risk trading and value investing, respectively. But in real world investing, it is extremely common for people to “invest” their money in vehicles which are “speculating” on securities of various types.
On the bid ask spread? Do you trade with Robin Hood as a counterpart rather than with other peers on an exchange?
(Just to clarify - I am wondering how they make money on crypto currencies not stocks).
There are two ways that they can easily make money aside from fees. One is to lend their securities to other parties that want to make short sales; that's a fair amount of money. The other is to sell their order flow and keep the price improvement -- if a dark pool or router can fill the order at a better price than the NBBO (National Best Bid/Offer), then they can keep the difference. While the latter sounds a lot like "widening the spread", it is still guaranteed to be inside the best spread offered on all the trading centers that publish market data.
EDIT: Note that I am referring strictly to their equities side; the cryptocurrency side has no such regulations and they could well be doing it. I interepreted the GP comment to mean how they make money as a company, rather than on these particular trades.
I'm curious to see how arbitrage will play out with this.
"Correct, you can’t sell crypto currencies you didn’t buy in Robinhood. This is listed in the faq they provide."
"A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution." [1]
In the Bitcoin community is that vision basically dead? As here, all of the action seems to be through financial institutions.
Crypto adoption is still at a very low percentage in the United States. Imagine one day when _most_ people own crypto, and are willing to transact in it, and there is more advanced tooling and software and understanding. What will the world look like then?
As a specific example, take a look at the 0x protocol, and the many relayers that are building on top of it like Radar Relay or Dy/Dx. 0x and these companies are tying to build exchanges that let you trade alts with zero counter-party risk. The trade occurs via on-chain smart contracts.
The above could all fail; I'm not saying it _will_ happen. Just that it's too early to declare the original vision dead.
And as sibling commentators have noted, even today one can easily send BTC peer-to-peer once you have some without any intermediaries.
Bitcoin is 10 years old... hardly the "early days" in tech.
Of course, digital cash has been worked on for many years too, but if you compare the bitcoin whitepaper to, say, the TCP/IP RFC, then you'd expect AOL-comparable bitcoin usage in 2030, more or less.
I agree that current crypto-currency ecosystems are pretty insane, but the original idea was super-cool.
It doesn't really seem we are moving in that direction. While more people know about bitcoin and more people own bitcoin, it seems like the number of people willing to transact in it has made no progress.
> It's like asking if the goals of the Internet are dead because most people log-in via AOL and browse only AOL curated content.
Arguably, the original goals and design of the Internet ARE dead (or not dead, but certainly not dominant or ascendant). While the AOL business model may have failed, similar closed systems have dominated most of the content and use of the internet. The number of people who build their own sites on any topic or even publish blogs vs. the number of people who post to Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat is pretty tiny. Open federated chat clients have been mostly replace by closed, proprietary systems.
> The above could all fail; I'm not saying it _will_ happen. Just that it's too early to declare the original vision dead.
While it may be too early to declare it dead. Your analogy to the internet seems like a strong argument to be concerned that the vision is dying.
I'd say in some cases there have been regressions. Many indie-type groups have stopped accepting Bitcoin due to its volatility and high transaction fees. Stripe has announced its support for Bitcoin will end late April.
Certainly there's the possibility that things will calm down and it will bounce back, but personally I'm pretty bearish.
The dream of a micro-payment platform remains to be realized, however. The gains in Bitcoin have been towards freedom, but not efficiency.
Anyone can fork it though. And the interesting part, as seen for bitcoin cash, is that the total market cap of the fork + original chain right after the fork was greater than the value pre-fork. You can technically argue that this doesn't amount to creating new bitcoins, but for all practical purposes the total amount of digital tokens did increase.
Not at all. The primary innovators of the protocol are pushing forward with privacy and scalability enhancements every day. The cypherpunk ethos is strong if you know where to look (hint: not CNBC).
Sure, there are lots of corporate-types pushing corporate-type stuff. But any industry will have that before too long, especially if there is profit to be made.
It's never been about the "vision" for anyone but Satoshi. It's just money. That's why this whole thing is just incredibly uninteresting IMO.
I was originally pretty open-minded; blockchains are a cool technology, and I like to see people try out-there experiments. But for me this stuff increasingly falls into the same bucket as 3D movies/TV: lots of excitement, cool tech, and a plausible story as to why it could amazing valuable. But in practice, I've seen little value actually demonstrated, so my eyes generally glaze over at this point.
That's part of why I'm curious to hear from people who were excited about the initial vision. Maybe there's a pony in there somewhere?
Bitcoin has been a godsend. We are able to save money again having it as hard currency. I do exchange some of my btc for dollars, using btc to help to make the transaction (Why change it? Because I respect that you shouldn't have on crypto more than you can't afford to lose).
I'm buying small amounts every day (As our currency depreciate every day as well), but it give us the chance to save and is easier and safer than buying usd in cash.
I do understand the benefits have yet to "trickle down" to the regular people (I'm after all, a business owner), but it will trickle down. Our business is safer, I can afford to raise wages and able to plan ahead (As much as you can plan ahead in a country like Venezuela).
I'm only buying in btc "saving money". Local currency (which my business generates) is spent either in supplies, wages, or just living here. I have yet to change some btc back to local currency (Which I might do to make a large purcharse or some emergency), but will probably just change USD cash (it will be easier).
BTC is not being used for small purchases (So no bitcoin to pay for coffee). Is really just used as "store of wealth". Most business could take USD if you want to use it for payment and some even demand USD (car repairs, construction work, that kind of stuff). Most people DO know about bitcoin, but I wouldn't say is mainstream to own it. There's still fear about volatility.
[1] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/02/venezuela-says-i...
I agree it's a farce. Save from speculators, nobody is going to buy Petro as nobody trust the Venezuelan goverment. It's probably a money laundering scheme.
Maybe the government will try to force it on the population (By making certain things only payable in Petro), but nobody has any reason to invest in Petro as it is now. The next goverment will surely not recognize it and it's value will drop to zero (Maybe even before a new government steps in)
On the one hand, I don't see how creating the Petro helps the government any more than printing bolivars, and on the other hand, the fact that they are trying it indicates they are kind of responding in a cargo cult way to Bitcoin, which is a threat because it can't be printed by them.
Assuming ordinary people use Bitcoin that solves their problems in the short run, but what happens politically next? If it is seriously expected that the Petro will capture the cryptocurrency "magic", and that fails, it seems like a crackdown on Bitcoin might happen next.
The downside of dealing with local currency is too great, so people are willing to risk being caught dealing with USD or BTC.
I don't know that betting on cryptocurrencies is a desirable & admirable method to increase social mobility. Bitcoin lost > 60% of its value from mid-December to mid-February.
I don't see Bitcoin as doing much there. The peer-to-peer aspect requires computing and connectivity requirements most people don't have. What has had mild uptake is new online financial institutions that use Bitcoin. But I don't see any real advantage there. Compare instead with M-Pesa, which has over approximately the same period gained millions and millions of users.
Yes, clearly the solution to this problem is BTC, NOT some kind of other reform or liberalization. </s>
How does Bitcoin's financialization actually help anyone you listed?
Nobody is really using it as a currency when having any amount change hands costs on average a fancy coffee drink from a fast food joint.
so you can see i'm not making shit up https://live.blockcypher.com/btc/tx/8b420f5e6548865535381fdb...
That's a 2sat/byte transaction... come on man! this is amazing for shop owners.
wait until lightning network and its INSTANT.
this app is just USD <> crypto onboarding + price speculations for those who enjoy gambling on their mobile phones
Bitcoin.org removes “fast” and “low fees” from Bitcoin description page | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16204387 (Jan 2018)
Bitcoin itself has a laughably low transaction speed, somewhere in the neighborhood of 4/s. The main way around this appears to "trade" crypto in exchanges without most clients ever taking physical possession of their coins via the blockchain itself.
This is why exchanges getting their hot wallets hacked is a big deal, a shocking percentage of crypto "traders" leave their holdings with the exchange.
You are right that 4 tx/s is too low in the long-run. But people are innovating: DAG networks like Nano, BTC's Lightning Network, Ethereum's Plasma and sharding, etc.
Maybe those ideas will work, maybe they won't, but very smart people like Vitalik believe they will work, and they are putting serious time and effort into them. Happily, Lightning Network, sharding and other proposals are making serious pushes forward this year as a top priority, so we don't need to argue -- we'll soon see how well these upgrades work in practice.
Bitcoin is not good enough. Compare to alternatives that aren't cryptocurrency and it's just straight garbage. Saying that people are innovating is a pointless tautology, that's always true and doesn't change the fact that right now it is absolute garbage.
(I trade bitcoin futures. I don't in any way believe in or care for the tech, I'm just here to make money.)
Also, the Lightning Network will let anyone steal your money if you remain offline for more than 24 hours, which is probably not good.
It seems as though the lightning network is being marketed as a solution, but I don't understand how it isn't simply creating an even bigger problem by stripping me of any/all control.
No, and based on the question it seems like you don’t understand what’s going on very well. Robinhood is a fiat<>btc channel, has nothing to do with btc’s vision.
A small percentage should be ok if you believe in the vision, because bitcoin is not just blockchain, it needs a coin with financial value to work, and for that matter it needs users that either trade or at least can enter the system with what they already have (fiat). Such institutions do the onboarding of users. Afterwrds, those users can then stay in the crypto(currency) world without using financial institutions if they wish...
Starts making popcorn ....