51–60 of 118 posts
> In fact, the Bloomberg system is a blockchain, just instead of having the users control it, we control it, but it has all the attributes of that. Thus proving that whatever he thinks about Bitcoin, Michael Bloomberg is clueless about the blockchain.
Why can't they run an internal blockchain?
I wonder what Jamie Dimon thinks about this! Funnily enough, my sources tell me JP will be in on the futures contracts as well. What hypocrisy!
It's not really hypocrisy. There's money to made by clearing futures and some of the banks want that money. What's being traded doesn't really matter.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s smart because holding BTC in a Tulip-bulb crisis is insanely risky. This current crisis is due to elastic demand based on short-lived, fashionable attention of a tiny currency, whereas common currencies are more inelastic because their usage and scale lends themselves to more stability. The value will collapse when people lose interest or when large institutions get over the mania of New Relationship Energy. Dur…
I can't see shorting it outright without being wheeled out on a stretcher. Options will be the best play to safely express a bearish position with asymmetric risk/reward assuming they aren't priced to insanely due to IV. Still at least you know your risk.
There will be some slippage, but it'll be relatively bound.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you do an "Explain it like I'm 5" of this? I don't doubt you but I'm struggling to make the connection. Will futures affect the pricing of the underlying asset? (I don't think so?) I think you are saying "futures reduce volatility for the trader" but I'm not sure.
It allows participants to short and therefore should allow more balanced flows. However one needs some pretty steel-made cojones to short a bubble....
With futures, however, you can put together positions that will provide a known limit on your downside for short positions. This provides a more appealing avenue for shorts to get in with much less risk.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It allows participants to short and therefore should allow more balanced flows. However one needs some pretty steel-made cojones to short a bubble....
More specifically, it allows one to short with limited downside. There are some exchanges that provide naked short positions in Bitcoin, but those have theoretic infinite downside and your broker will force you to liquidate at a loss at a certain point. With futures, however, you can put together positions that will provide a known limit on your downside for short positions. This provides a more appealing avenue for…
>"The decision to clear client trades will be made on a case-by-case basis, the person said." Could someone say what "clearing the trades" mean here?
It's where Goldman would net off trades between their own clients, effectively acting as an exchange for their clients using the prices on the official exchange. They say in the article they won't act as market-makers or hold their own positions. That means they won't perform their usual capacity for clients, where they act as middleman between the exchange and their own clients. ie they won't make a price for their…
Where even though this net transfer happened, all of A, B, C, and D think that it was fair and what they wanted? (I call them "pretend bitcoins" because they don't need to be reflected in the blockchain - the transaction of 25 million pretend bitcoins in motion aren't reflected in the blockchain.)
feel free to correct me if I'm very wrong.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He was talking about market making, not clearing. The bank doesn’t really take a principal risk on clearing. It does on market making.
The way I saw it, he was condemning bitcoin in general, not market making on bitcoin specifically. Even clearing has risk - admittedly not market risk, but significant amounts of credit risk (that's why people pay for it).
> In fact, the Bloomberg system is a blockchain, just instead of having the users control it, we control it, but it has all the attributes of that. Thus proving that whatever he thinks about Bitcoin, Michael Bloomberg is clueless about the blockchain.
Why can't they run an internal blockchain?
> In fact, the Bloomberg system is a blockchain, just instead of having the users control it, we control it, but it has all the attributes of that. Thus proving that whatever he thinks about Bitcoin, Michael Bloomberg is clueless about the blockchain.
Why can't they run an internal blockchain?
A blockchain is a solution to the problem of establishing consensus without relying on an authority. If your systems relies on trust in an authority, adding a blockchain is good for one thing: marketing.
bitcoiners in 2012: "Bitcoin will eliminate the wall street banksters!" Bitcoiners right now: "OMG Goldman is getting in, who's ready for their moon rocket?"
Not necessarily my POV that it'll happen, I'm just arguing that those two views aren't contradictory. (Even if they were, it is not unusual for a community of humans to hold diverse, and even incompatible, views.)