141–150 of 346 posts
Seems dishonest to not use a linear scale on this graph: https://am.coinbase.com/index Also, the minimum investment and management fee found here don't look too appealing: Minimum Investment: $10,000 2% annual management fee https://am.coinbase.com/#invest
Seems dishonest to not use a linear scale on this graph: https://am.coinbase.com/index Also, the minimum investment and management fee found here don't look too appealing: Minimum Investment: $10,000 2% annual management fee https://am.coinbase.com/#invest
why is it dishonest to not use a linear scale? When you're investing, you're generally looking for relative-yield-over-timescale, which is appropriately charted as logarithmic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If gold and silver aren't treated "like kind", and facebook and google stocks aren't treated "like kind", why would bitcoin and ethereum be treated like kind? For the same reason that, say, transferring your wealth from an Irish bank account to a German bank account doesn’t trigger a capital-gains event in the US? I.e., those other things you listed exist “within” the US financial system. Cryptocurrencies exist out…
"I.e., those other things you listed exist “within” the US financial system. Cryptocurrencies exist outside of it" No, they don't. They're no more "outside it" than gold or silver are.
Gold and silver mined within the US exist within the US financial system, because it's US companies doing the mining, who sell the resulting commodities to other US companies, who then list them on US exchanges, etc. The US government can boss around all of these US companies—because it's the one giving them a right to exist. The US government can also, through this regulation of US companies, also enforce regulations on the activity of private citizens to some extent.
Gold and silver that never existed within the US at all, were never possessed by US corporations, and were otherwise never part of the US economy, are not regulated by US law.
Crucially, if an exchange of gold for silver occurs entirely outside of US jurisdiction—i.e. no interested parties in the transfer have anything to do with the US—then there is no US capital-gains event.
Consider, for example, if your great uncle is a UK citizen, while you are a US citizen. You are the recipient of his legal estate upon his death per his will. He exchanges silver for gold, and then immediately dies. Do you have to report the exchange to the IRS? Of course not. You didn't do it. You didn't even cause it. It just happened, somewhere outside the US, by non-US parties, and then eventually the money generated by this exchange made its way to you.
Now, consider another example: I buy BTC from a crypto exchange in Bermuda. This exchange is scared of the volatility of BTC, and so actually operates by holding ETH, and then using ETH to buy BTC the moment someone sends them e.g. USD. You send USD to the exchange, and receive BTC. Do you need to pay capital gains on the exchange of BTC (which you temporarily "owned", in the "what you'd get as a creditor if they went bankrupt that instant" sense) for ETH? Of course not, for the same reason as above. You never held any ETH, despite being temporarily owed ETH.
Now, let's say you go to an exchange and "buy in" to their trading system by buying some random crypto-token of theirs. You own this token. You then ask the system to allocate a portfolio of other things to you, temporarily, in exchange for loaning the system back this token. If those things do well, you get paid... in more of this token. The system might rebalance your virtual portfolio, but you never hold any of the portfolio assets.
You know what I'm describing?
Why, it's an investment savings account! The "random crypto-token" is "USD held in a TFSA."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If gold and silver aren't treated "like kind", and facebook and google stocks aren't treated "like kind", why would bitcoin and ethereum be treated like kind? For the same reason that, say, transferring your wealth from an Irish bank account to a German bank account doesn’t trigger a capital-gains event in the US? I.e., those other things you listed exist “within” the US financial system. Cryptocurrencies exist out…
>>For the same reason that, say, transferring your wealth from an Irish bank account to a German bank account doesn’t trigger a capital-gains event in the US? If there's a currency change, it absolutely does trigger a capital-gains event, unless you have a truly terrible accountant. Just like when any other asset is disposed of, the value is calculated at that point. If you move USD from one bank to another that's di…
If it wasn't possible for a US entity to move money between (at least a few) countries that aren't the US without paying US capital-gains, US corporations wouldn't love holding money in Ireland nearly as much as they do. :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, this is an index of 4 securities and is rebalanced annually. Coinbase is charging a 2% fee for what amounts to automating a max of 4 transactions a year. I get that people are excited about cryptocurrencies becoming available in more traditional investment vehicles, but this particular index fund seems almost completely unnecessary.
> Coinbase is charging a 2% fee for what amounts to automating a max of 4 transactions a year. I came up with some more they do for 2%/y: * Buy more coins when their fund expands * Secure the shit out of those private keys
Are they insured for 100% of the value of the coins on those private keys?
If not, you are paying 2% YoY + X%, where X% is your counterparty risk - the odds that someone at Coinbase fucks up, and your money is irreversibly gone.
Seems dishonest to not use a linear scale on this graph: https://am.coinbase.com/index Also, the minimum investment and management fee found here don't look too appealing: Minimum Investment: $10,000 2% annual management fee https://am.coinbase.com/#invest
Yikes, that management fee is terrible. Not for me, no siree. (Google how annual fees can drag a portfolio if you are unsure).
I have attempted to duplicate this index fund manually by purchasing the top 25 cryptocurrencies (market-cap weighted) over the past year or so. I'll say that it was hardly worth the enormous work involved, and these index funds cannot come soon enough to non-accredited investors. In some cases it's not possible to do perfectly alone: NEO has a minimum unit of 1 coin, and so if you wanted it to not be overweighted, y…
>since they [Coinbase] are not a neutral player Why do you say this? (The part I added in bracket part is unambiguous in your sentence.) Coinbase doesn't have its own coin, for example. (That is the main thing that I would think would make someone "not neutral".) Can you explain your thinking, or tell me what facts I'm missing?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This whole regulation is unneeded. You can bring your money to a casino and put it all on zero. Or buy a thousand lottery tickets. But investing in risky businesses needs to be walled off to the wealthy. What we really need is the real consequences for fraud / false financial claims.
At the casino your risks are known, and well-defined. In blackjack with basic strategy your expected value is, what, 49%? Craps, it's similar. Just look it up. Nobody at the table playing, or even running the show, can manipulate the outcome except by changing the parameters of the game as posted in the (I assume) regulated odds boards. Investing in an unregulated market is absolutely nothing like that. Your outcome…
Sorry, but if cryptocurrency is prone to manipulation and fraud (it is), casinos are tens times worse because not only do they do that, as the House must win as a business strategy, but they appeal to people who have addiction issues.
I'm not against casinos but to defend them against cryptocurrency trading and suggest average Joe is better off playing Roulette is in my opinion a misplaced attempt at morality.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why was there enormous work involved? Were you rebalancing very often? Note that Coinbase's fund will be made up of only four cryptocurrencies, not 25 like yours.
Yeah, this is an index of 4 securities and is rebalanced annually. Coinbase is charging a 2% fee for what amounts to automating a max of 4 transactions a year. I get that people are excited about cryptocurrencies becoming available in more traditional investment vehicles, but this particular index fund seems almost completely unnecessary.
"Available to US accredited investors." It seems a little ironic that any Joe Blow with a credit card can buy cryptocurrency, at presumably higher risk since he's managing the assets himself, but he can't invest in this fund.
This whole regulation is unneeded. You can bring your money to a casino and put it all on zero. Or buy a thousand lottery tickets. But investing in risky businesses needs to be walled off to the wealthy. What we really need is the real consequences for fraud / false financial claims.
If given the opportunity to invest in something with potentially extreme returns and poorly represented risks, many people will take it either because they don't understand the risk involved or are not very good at internalizing the probability that they lose money. Just look at the ICO scams that abound today or the 2008 financial crisis.
While massive deregulation is nice in spirit and would theoretically allow people more financial freedom, I can't imagine it being viable (at least without a ton more compulsory financial education).