Bitcoin falls 12.1% to $23,366; Ether dropped 13.62% to $1,237.72 | Hacker News Reader

Bitcoin falls 12.1% to $23,366; Ether dropped 13.62% to $1,237.72

reuters.com

81 pointszinekeller26 comments

> losing $3,218.95 from its previous close

It's interesting how the concept of limited trading hours is so ingrained that reporters continue to talk about "market close", even though it doesn't exist for crypto markets.

It does and it doesn't. Futures trade almost around the clock and yet the only time market moves are -really- solidified is during the US trading session when most of the liquidity is sloshing around.

The reason for this is almost all assets are priced relative to other assets. Once the markets for bonds and equities open BTC will rapidly reprice according to movements in these markets so in a way it can't really change independently of them.

It also trades on much greater volume during these hours so as a result the "real price", i.e the volume-weighted average price moves much more consistently during the normal market hours than say on the weekend.

When they say “close” it’s usually referring to the candle chart on some timeframe. In this case the previous 24h candle closed in the mid ~$26500s and dropped ~$3200.

The exact time is mentioned in the article. It is the NYSE closing time.

I've been wrong with every prediction I've ever made about crypto but I still think it has to be over valued. I struggle to understand how you could accurately estimate it's value. I do think it has tremendous value as a currency but not as a speculative investment.

I believe it's overvalued because most folks who are new to investing are making decisions based on hype and tweets, and believe people who will still tweet "HODL" the day of the big crash where they'll try to sell everything they have, hoping someone will buy the final dip... Fear everywhere.

I wish it was still a niche thing that nerds talk about in their circles, with very few miners using small PCs, as it was intended, where you could buy a coffee with it in the nerdiest bar of Paris even though it was complicated to do, and people were ok with giving it or losing all because they hadn't put all their savings into it. And they were no survivor bias douchebags yelling about how they bought a lambo with it, making late adopters think they could too when the party was already over. Then came NFTs which made it even worse.

>believe people who will still tweet "HODL" the day of the big crash where they'll try to sell everything they have, hoping someone will buy the final dip.

Those people buying the final dip are shorts closing a part of their position ;)

I think the reason it’s so hard to place is that there are no fundamentals. It’s all speculation and “greater fool” theory. Almost no one thinks bitcoin will actually be used as a serious currency but they do think someone else will buy it for more than they did under the assumption it could be sold again for even more.

So as soon as it moves in one direction, it rockets away as everyone tries not to be the last fool.

The value at minimum in my opinion has to be what it costs to mine each coin. This makes the most sense to me, who would sell it below the cost? Silly. When people were raving about a crash a few years back (was it 2018?) I said, unless it costs less to buy than to mine, I don't see it, and sure enough it bounced back then.

Anything above that amount is either speculation or perceived value in a specific coins ecosystem. I still hold that Ethereum should be worth way more than bitcoin given how much richer its ecosystem is.

Stuff is sold below cost all the time. Often for very good reason, often because there is no other option than to limit the losses.

In any case, hashprice is plummeting, and this system is self correcting, as the price to mine is extremely elastic.

> The value at minimum in my opinion has to be what it costs to mine each coin.

Why so? If it costs me 100k to make a ball of lint, does the cost to make give that lint a minimum value of 100k?

Or if I mined bitcoon for $X, the whole market is crashing and I have a way out that let's me recoup 85% of $X instead of losing everything why wouldn't anyone take that?

I am merely proposing a ballpark ideal price for a coin, to justify it being 100k if you will, does that make sense? I think I didn't word it rightly.

Honestly, crypto might just be a measure of excess liquidity in the financial system. If people could get their guaranteed 7% returns in bonds, that might suffice for enough folks. Central banking policy has vacuumed up the safe asset classes during quantitative easing, pushing investors to riskier asset classes for returns. QT will change that and the market is responding appropriately.

Reading your sentences in reverse order was entertaining

You can't. You trade a crypto coin on the market and you have a price.

The price is hugely affected by how many people in the whole world believe it's a decent currency.

Accurate estimation is a contradiction.

The government must have printed too many Bitcoin.

Let's be serious. Not even a gold standard is immune from CPI inflation. When people save more than there are goods in the real economy prices denominated in that currency will go up. Inflation happens because of a disconnect between the value of money and the value of goods in the real economy. To avoid that fate the currency must follow the economy instead of making the economy follow the currency. During deflationary periods this means that the real interest rate should stay at 0% which of course means that the nominal interest rate falls below zero. If it doesn't, then people will save too much, leading to inflation in the future as there are more savings than physical goods.

Time to buy more

Did HN have upvoted posts like this when Bitcoin pumped by 13% or whatever? There seems to be a big asymmetry of interest regarding crypto doing well and doing bad.

I think the general opinion people on HN show is that the crypto community make many claims about cryptocurrencies that are true in theory, but false in practice. And then there's the blatant scams and Ponzi schemes.

I think the apettite for cryptos failure is understandable.

> pumped

That's a good word for it.

From what I've seen, there's a largely negative sentiment towards BTC. That would lead to better reactions when a massive sell-off happens as compared to the opposite.

Some top arguments I've seen are: pyramid scheme; "tulip mania"; wasting electricity / bad for the environment; fosters some amount of crime; doesn't help core use cases that much (anonymity, flexibility, actual decentralized payments).

> Did HN have upvoted posts like this when Bitcoin pumped by 13% or whatever?

Yes, in earlier days...

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7043919

The second top level comment is hilarious. Saying they feel sorry for anyone who purchased at $1000 and it’s only going down from there.

Makes one wonder how much the naysayers of today have read from those days for anchoring.

As a naysayer, anchoring is part of the problem because that's the only way to decide a price. There isn't any intrinsic value, all you've got is a thing that cost you $X and the value of that thing to you is based on that price.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com