181–190 of 518 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Barely makes an impression in the parade of crime that is web3isgoinggreat.com/
Can you explain how web3 is responsible for all the crypto nonsense for a layman?
It secondarily has connotations of decentralization with stuff like Mastodon, but relatively few people care about that stuff.
Yeah this is really bad for BTC longs. now it will probably be delayed. it's obvious that there is too much fraud and manipulation.. The SEC cannot in good conscious allow an ETF to protect investors (yes, ETFs which have lost all value like UVXY have been approved). Whoever did this furcked over wall street and these funds. Wow. never a dull moment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is quite literally not a pump and dump by the SEC. A pump and dump would require the same entity to be doing the buying, pumping up, and then dumping the asset. The SEC didn’t buy, nor did it sell, nor did it pump up the price (someone pretending to be the SEC pumped up the price). Even assuming that the “largest pump and dump” claim is correct, at most, the SEC was used for that purpose and isn’t “responsible”…
Even if the hacking entity did the pump and dump, then their statement is valid: the SEC’s incaution made this possible.
@EricBalchunas "On TV right on talking about this.. and yes, I think someone prepped a planned tweet and put wrong date, bc the tweet would have made PERFECT sense tomorrow at this time. The language sounds legit SEC-ish IMO vs a crypto knucklehead pulling a prank but I guess we'll see.."
https://twitter.com/EricBalchunas/status/1744835562643595652
Earlier quoted context omitted.
ETF's are so pervasive because they're so easy. VIX futures can be held, but people still buy VIXY and similar products. You can buy literal physical gold, but people still buy GLD et al. And it hardly matters that wrapping it in an ETF makes it potentially really weird (like how GLD and other gold ETFs are only barely nominally like holding gold, and VIX ETFs often hold cash-settled futures based on the value of a f…
It's the "it makes it easier" part that I am debating. Yes buying into a gold ETF is obviously easier because going out and buying physical gold takes more effort. But for a bitcoin ETF you are trading two clicks on one site vs two clicks on another. And in the ETF case you don't actually get to own any Bitcoin. So where's the advantage?
From a Slack of market observers I frequent: "Right now, someone is explaining to the BlackRock board, 'you got rugged, it happens all the time in crypto.' "
Yeah this is really bad for BTC longs. now it will probably be delayed. it's obvious that there is too much fraud and manipulation.. The SEC cannot in good conscious allow an ETF to protect investors (yes, ETFs which have lost all value like UVXY have been approved). Whoever did this furcked over wall street and these funds. Wow. never a dull moment.
Who in the world is still long on crypto? In the past few years we've seen ample evidence that crypto is largely a complete scam, and likewise strong evidence that none of crypto's hoped for value will come to fruition (we didn't see it useful for fighting inflation, it's not being used to avoid sanctions, it certainly isn't being used as a currency, etc). The fact that crypto still has any market value, and that com…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We really really really need some legislation about governmental agencies using privately owned companies to announce things. There was already some for radio/early news, but the landscape has changed so much, and it bothers me a ton that these platforms are being used.
The government has always used privately owned companies (newspapers, news channels, news websites) to make announcements. Social media is just the latest iteration of that. The government operating its own websites is in fact the aberration, and I'd wager the vast majority of people don't even know they exist or visit them. So not sure what such a law would accomplish.
The big issue is you can't be banned from newspapers, radio, and news channels. And there was still some question about "can you just announce this on the news or is that going to be unfair to people who don't own TV's". You can absolutely be banned from twitter.
There's also the standard of keeping records. The government is supposed to have immaculate records of these sorts of things with a whole shitload of legal nonsense involved in it. Twitter has complied with this under recent presidents but it's a big question of "do they need to?" and "what happens if they don't?".
For starters it like violates the FOIA, which is a serious thing.