211–220 of 381 posts
How on earth is it possible they can cover a 1.5B loss? Are they really sitting on that much profit, or is the goal to ponzi it out from here, MtGox style?
Easy! They give Binance an IOU in exchange for 1.5 billion BUSD which is just "minted" out of fresh new electrons. Neither of them has really lost anything. Everyone can carry on as if it never happened.
In the bizarro world of crypto, this is business as usual.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bybit trading volume is in tens billions of dollars daily. Their comission rate for the retail traders is up to 10bp (0.1%). Even considering a huge part of that volume is coming from institutional players who enjoy significantly reduced commission rates, I think they're surely making few million dollars daily on comissions alone, maybe tens of millions in a good day. And besides comissions, they also have other sour…
I'm nowhere near expert on any of the things below, but: My gut tells me if an exchange makes as much money as you suggest, people involved in that exchange are making even more profit from the said exchange, otherwise they wouldn't engage. The whole thing being literally money out of thin air, it feels like a huge bubble that should inevitably burst bringing down _ a lot _ of collaterals with it.
Just last quarter, Coinbase had:
Revenue: $2.2B
Net Income: $1.3B
https://s27.q4cdn.com/397450999/files/doc_financials/2024/q4...
How on earth is it possible they can cover a 1.5B loss? Are they really sitting on that much profit, or is the goal to ponzi it out from here, MtGox style?
How on earth is it possible they can cover a 1.5B loss? Easy! They give Binance an IOU in exchange for 1.5 billion BUSD which is just "minted" out of fresh new electrons. Neither of them has really lost anything. Everyone can carry on as if it never happened. In the bizarro world of crypto, this is business as usual.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bybit trading volume is in tens billions of dollars daily. Their comission rate for the retail traders is up to 10bp (0.1%). Even considering a huge part of that volume is coming from institutional players who enjoy significantly reduced commission rates, I think they're surely making few million dollars daily on comissions alone, maybe tens of millions in a good day. And besides comissions, they also have other sour…
I'm nowhere near expert on any of the things below, but: My gut tells me if an exchange makes as much money as you suggest, people involved in that exchange are making even more profit from the said exchange, otherwise they wouldn't engage. The whole thing being literally money out of thin air, it feels like a huge bubble that should inevitably burst bringing down _ a lot _ of collaterals with it.
No, what is likely happening with all the convertible bond issues is that MicroStrategy prices the bonds in a manner to attract market neutral hedge fonds, meaning arbitrageurs. Saylor has briefly mentioned these firms, as opposed to firms seeking actual Bitcoin exposure. For issue after issue, they can be spotted as the largest bond holders by anyone with a Bloomberg terminal. By buying the bonds, even when conversion price is at a large premium, and by simultaneously shorting the shares, these arbitrage funds can lock in close to risk-free profits. Due to the convex nature of the value of the convertible bonds, the hedge funds attempt to profit no matter whether MicroStrategy shares rise or decline
Like, a broker profiting off PFOF in the stock market makes sense because there's an underlying asset generating real cashflow that people are buying into. But where is the money in crypto actually coming from? You have to pay miners, brokers, rugpulls/thefts/etc and there's barely any cashflow from the underlying assets (dApps?). But if it really is ~just a casino, with retail gamblers as the only real source of cash, it can still be profitable for smart money to pour billions in and use their PhDs to trade the vol. It goes up, it goes down, overall retail is bleeding huge amounts of cash on a sort of 5 dimensional pyramid scheme but enough gamblers go viral winning the slots/blackjack that the casino doesn't run out of customers.
Can this continue indefinitely? Maybe / probably? Seems similar to sports betting, Polymarket, retail now ~70% of options trading. The west and especially America becoming a gambling culture. The "bubble" may burst and reinflate over and over.
https://medium.com/@bdratings/all-your-models-are-destroyed-...
There's some info and speculation in these two (distinct) articles, but I'd love to know technical details of where the gaffs were. eg. Was client software compromised? Did the multisig keyholders succumb to social engineering? Were the signers using airgapped machines / hardware devices? https://archive.ph/YMZrq https://blockworks.co/news/bybit-hack-raises-security-questi...
Here is what the CEO wrote on X: "Bybit ETH multisig cold wallet just made a transfer to our warm wallet about 1 hr ago. It appears that this specific transaction was musked, all the signers saw the musked UI which showed the correct address and the URL was from @safe . However the signing message was to change the smart contract logic of our ETH cold wallet. This resulted Hacker took control of the specific ETH cold…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How on earth is it possible they can cover a 1.5B loss? Easy! They give Binance an IOU in exchange for 1.5 billion BUSD which is just "minted" out of fresh new electrons. Neither of them has really lost anything. Everyone can carry on as if it never happened. In the bizarro world of crypto, this is business as usual.
How it it different from what banks do? (Except for a central regulator.)
There should be something like a "finalizing transaction", which both the sender and receiver need to sign after the first transaction has been mined, i.e. like an in-built escrow. If it's not signed by both, then funds are returned. This wouldn't protect against key leakage, but in this case, the tx was signed by accident. This would also protect against sending to wrong address.
There are cryptocurrencies in which transactions must be signed by both sender and receiver, such as those implementing the pure Mimblewimble protocol. > Both the sender and receiver need to sign after the first transaction has been mined That makes no sense; miners don't mine transactions unless they're guaranteed to be valid. All signing must be done before transactions are even published. Otherwise one could DoD-a…