241–250 of 518 posts
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.' "
Blackrock is huge. This is a rounding error to it. The people who got rugged were retail who bought into the hype since October.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The old crypto chants were that crypto would lead us away from the ills of traditional markets/finance. Glad to see that it's been watered down to "just as bad as" arguments.
Tomorrow your bank could cut you off from your own money because you protested the government[1], and what could you possibly do? Having the freedom to truly own your own money and investments is valuable in and of itself, no matter how much crypto "devolves" towards traditional finance in other regards. [1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/22/world/americas/canada-pro...
Even if crypto becomes 100% ubiquitous, the end game isn't "now the government can't control finance" the end game is "now the government will find a new way to control the new finance". Eventually, the government will intervene because people will be begging them to, because they don't actually want to live in a world where theft and fraud are irreversible and their entire financial life is tied to a set of cryptographic keys that they barely understand.
You're trying to push a technological solution to authoritarianism, and it's not going to work for the masses. Canada doesn't need crypto, Canada needs voters to hold the government accountable for its abuses.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Twitter/X is not an authoritative source of news, regardless of whether it is an "official" account doing the Tweeting or not. Anyone can get a blue check by paying $8/mo.
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.
After reading said announcement on Twitter, the first thing I’d do (if I cared about it) would be to head on over to sec.gov or use a search engine to find the official SEC site, then from navigate to find the official announcement. Any reputable news source should include a link in their announcement to the official announcement to save you this verification step.
At some point there may be so much targeted disinformation/misinformation out there that we need legislation to help protect against it but I don’t think we’re there yet.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It'd be funny if it wasn't a $45k to $45.7k change for a +$700 delta.
I have a hard time seeing the SEC not delaying until at least March after that fiasco (or even pushing back against the tweet itself if they were intending to approve anyway), but I guess tomorrow will tell the tale. It's fees BlackRock cares about, not the Bitcoin price.
Is this fabled Bitcoin ETF really going to be the "to the moon" moment that everyone in the ecosystem seems to be expecting? From personal experience, I can't think of anyone who wants to buy Bitcoin but hasn't been able to by now. It takes a few clicks on Coinbase/Robinhood or a similar exchange. Plenty of 401k/IRA managers (including Fidelity) offer it as an option. So what exactly changes once this ETF is live?
There are two kinds of people who declare a crypto is going "to the moon": - The ones who don't believe it, and sell off their inflated coins after the price jumps - The ones who do believe it, and are the rubes the first group is counting on
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’ll admit it has been deeply entertaining watching the crypto community speed-run 200 years of “finding out the hard way why modern financial regulations exist” and “how to recognize a blisteringly obvious ponzi scheme” in the span of 15 years. I say this as someone who got his first 0.05 btc for signing up for a newsletter in 2009 or 2010.
0.05? You probably misremember the amount. For reference, in 2010 the Bitcoin faucet gave away 5 BTC just for visiting a web page. A decent incentive for subscribing to a newsletter, more involved than visiting a web page, would have to have been higher than 5 BTC.
Is this fabled Bitcoin ETF really going to be the "to the moon" moment that everyone in the ecosystem seems to be expecting? From personal experience, I can't think of anyone who wants to buy Bitcoin but hasn't been able to by now. It takes a few clicks on Coinbase/Robinhood or a similar exchange. Plenty of 401k/IRA managers (including Fidelity) offer it as an option. So what exactly changes once this ETF is live?
But approval is an opportunity to create hype and buzz around cryptocurrency.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From this forum we shall organize the great retaking of “Web3” for the 3D paradigm it was always meant to be. It’s in the name!! It’s sad that blockchain went the way it did, because it’s probably a great technology when you don’t expect it to revolutionize the entire internet.
> it’s probably a great technology It really isn't. There's nothing legal it can do that something else can't do better. It's not even that good at the illegal stuff.
Eh, Treasuries should probably be traded on a blockchain. Cryptocurrency is nonsense. But the tech has legs. It just needs to, ironically, clear its way of the crypto/web3 crowd first.
Why do government agencies even have accounts on proprietary walled-garden online platforms? Those are for purposes like celebrity publicists, influencer brand promotion, disreputable mob behavior, and astroturfing. The SEC doesn't need brand promotion, nor to be caught up in nastiness like pervades X/Twitter. The SEC already has the authority, they do their job with it, and presumably they value respectability. Earl…
While your point is perhaps valid for publishing information , it doesn’t (for me) extend to not even having an account. Companies have cited that their Twitter account is an official source of company comms and that gives the SEC a reason to have an account and access that information as part of enforcing securities laws.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apart from some edge cases, Western democracies have quite solid property rights upheld also by the judicial system. But yes if you’re in Russia or China then this argument is moot. They have much less property rights. However, Bitcoin is also not a solution because there is no point in owning Bitcoin if you fell trice out of a Russian window or are sentenced to a labour camp or to the death penalty in China for "fra…
I certainly wouldn't call being Canadian an "edge case." Protesting ought to be something you can do in any Western democracy without fear of losing access to your accounts.