Market manipulation by SEC itself?! So strange.
SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]
261–270 of 518 posts
Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]
#262Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
In my opinion, only the scammers OR people who truly believed in the promise of crypto and still are delusional to think it will materialize some day. Either way, it is terrible. I can't believe that a digital currency that cannot be used by most people is worth $xx,0000. But may be I am dumb.
People are delusional _or_ you don't get it _or_ the truth is somewhere in between
Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]
#263Never a dull moment with crypto. This may compel the SEC to delay. This is why you don't chase fomo.
Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]
#264Earlier 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.
Assuming the account was compromised due to errors committed by the SEC, and not the masterful engineering and security protocols of X Corp
Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]
#265Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks for the quote! Lol, I can't believe this is really what they ended up with: multicolored stars to indicate different things? I thought it was a joke at first, but no, that's really how it works now. What a strange world...
> I can't believe this is really what they ended up with: multicolored stars to indicate different things? I thought it was a joke at first What's the issue with it?
They used to have blue check marks which was this exclusive thing that meant that someone was important enough to have been verified. Then Elon decided to start selling blue check marks for money, so now there are apparently a bunch of different colored check marks that you need to keep track of and know the meaning of.
Whereas it used to be just. Blue check mark = this is probably the real person I think it is.
(But in this case it don’t matter anyway. They were hacked and even if we still had only blue check marks their account would have been hacked all the same.)
Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]
#266Earlier quoted context omitted.
Clicking on any blue check mark shows "this account is verified". But that isn't supposed to mean verified?
This is what it says when I click on it. > This account is verified because it is a government or multilateral organization account. Along with a link to "Learn More"[0] [0] https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/profile-label...
Right, but I think paxys’ point is that the message you get when you click a blue check also implies the account is verified (which is not true in any rigorous sense of the word “verified”). The average user can’t be expected to know that the white one is “more verified” when they both say “verified”.
Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]
#267[dead]
Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]
#268The price of BTC initially jumped 3% on the hacked tweet. That's $25bn+ of market cap. The irony is the SEC itself is probably now responsible for the largest crypto pump and dump in history.
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”…
> 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).
How do we know it's not an inside job? Pretty tempting to pull a twitter account takeover and make potentially millions if you a lonely cog in the SEC wheel.
Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]
#269Earlier quoted context omitted.
What does the grey check mean?
https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/profile-label... "The grey checkmark indicates that an account represents a government/multilateral organization or a government/multilateral official. Eligibility criteria to receive a complimentary grey checkmark are listed below. Additional government and multilateral accounts can receive grey checkmarks through Verified Organizations. Eligible government organization…
didn't see anything about "required hardware security key to post" huh
Twitter paywalls 2FA to premium users, and even then it's SMS only
not a serious company, anyone who trusts a tweet for official information should think twice before trading on it