Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Block loses 20% of value as Hindenburg Research alleges fraud

finance.yahoo.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 136 posts

Re: Block loses 20% of value as Hindenburg Research alleges fraud

#121

Post by red-iron-pine »

pavlov wrote: post #19
phnofive wrote: post #11

> Dorsey [...] told investors about the large number of songs named after Cash App and described how music had become a way to share with others how valuable the app is to them personally, providing them with “so much utility.” > A review of songs mentioning Cash App shows that the artists are not generally rapping about Cash App’s smooth user interface and robust software integration toolkit. > Instead, lyrics descr…

Dorsey is a big Bitcoin fan, so that’s the kind of utility he appreciates. Coming soon: the CashApp ransomware API.

You joke but given the amount of Botnet as a Service and similar malware-for-pay options, I wouldn't be surprised if someone is working hard on that.

Re: Block loses 20% of value as Hindenburg Research alleges fraud

#122

Post by red-iron-pine »

polygamous_bat wrote: post #101
dboreham wrote: post #29

I missed the memo, which led to a few minutes trying to remember which blockchain company was named "block" but: why not cube? Or Hypercube?

My impression: because Jack Dorsey is a cryptobro and the rebranding was done in December 2021 when Blockchain was all the hype. Of course, then came Terra Luna, FTX, and all that shebang, and Block wasn't the hot name it was anymore.

Might be time to rope in Jennifer Lopez for a marketing push

Re: Block loses 20% of value as Hindenburg Research alleges fraud

#123

Post by cnity »

b112 wrote: post #107
cnity wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the attack is biased towards only the non-wealthy subset of criminals (par for the course), ipso facto it is an attack on the non-wealthy.

But the attack is biased towards only the non-wealthy subset of criminals Oh no! Please, oh please, let's protect these fiscally impoverished criminals. What horrible social injustice! Good grief. Just give it a rest please? Ridiculous.

I think you misunderstand my comment as an appraisal of crime, or something. My point is that wealthy financial criminals get off the hook way too freely, and that this is the injustice (relax, I'm not the justice warrior you think I am).

Re: Block loses 20% of value as Hindenburg Research alleges fraud

#124

Post by jevgeni »

blitzar wrote: post #93
jevgeni wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought maybe it's something like that, but that's still not KYC. Or maybe it's software engineer's "know-your-client" in a way, where if you have a consistent internal ID for the client that's enough. :D

But does anyone really "know" their customer? I wonder how far you could get, if they provide a bank like statement you might be able to get phone servce / utilities (in parts of the world where your SS number isnt your password). Likely never able to get an actual bank account through however.

I am not too aware how it is in the U.S. In continental Europe you usually need to provide verifiable form of official identification, like a driver's license, a national ID card, a passport, or any of that in digital form (like the Estonian ID program for example). I never got this thing with utility bills.

The point here is to prevent money laundering and KYC is one instrument out of many for this.

Now come to think of it, in Germany for example, if it can be shown that if a bank employee, even after a good KYC had reasons to doubt that the account holder is the ultimate recipient of the funds or if the client is involved in money laundering, they might be personally criminally liable. Wonder how that is in the U.S.

Re: Block loses 20% of value as Hindenburg Research alleges fraud

#125

Post by hellomyguys »

astrange wrote: post #69
posharma wrote: post #34

I know this is going to be controversial, but I think it has to be said. Jack ruined Twitter first [1] (by over-hiring and then selling it to Elon) and now it's Block's turn. He still made billions, while thousands got laid off and are still suffering under Elon's questionable so called leadership. Are these the entrepreneurs we should be looking up to? The tech industry is already facing the brunt because of the mis…

Parag sold to Elon, and he got a great return for shareholders by selling at far above market value. Jack doesn't do anything but meditate and grow a beard like he's young Steve Jobs. Why the board let him be CEO when he didn't do any apparent work is a different question.

Jack is 46 years old... not really young at this point.

Re: Block loses 20% of value as Hindenburg Research alleges fraud

#126

Post by nradov »

mschuster91 wrote: post #118
jhugo wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do these differ from shills who pump a stock price far above the net value of the company without any indicators backing that?

Simple: short sellers can, if they manage to drive the underlying stock price too low, trigger automated "stop loss" orders, which can (and do) send the stock towards complete collapse. And that in turn can cause a cascade of stop-loss orders e.g. for stocks in indices where the flash-crashing stock has a sizable exposure. Yes, market regulators can issue halt orders to stop all trade regarding affected stocks, but t…

That is not an actual problem. And in the real world, institutional investors with capital reserves sufficient to really move markets don't generally use such simplistic "stop loss" orders. They have more sophisticated trading and hedging strategies.

There is no need to keep a tight leash on short sellers.

Re: Block loses 20% of value as Hindenburg Research alleges fraud

#127

Post by lowkey »

KingOfCoders wrote: post #23
Bilal_io wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Dorsey is a big Bitcoin fan, so that’s the kind of utility he appreciates. This sounds disingenuous. Not every fan of Bitcoin supports fraud, drug trafficking.. etc. The dollar is used for such bad activities, should we label everyone that loves the dollar as a supporter of fraud and drugs?

I would be interested in the percentage of 1. Bitcoin (crypto) users who (only) have BC because they hate fiat money 2. Users who have BC because they need it for illegal gains 3. Opportunistic investors 4. Web3ers I have the unsubstantiated feeling that 1 is overstated.

1. Bitcoin users who hate the fractional reserve model of banking with fiat or the ability for the Fed to print fiat arbitrarily is probably a majority

2. Hold Bitcoin for illegal uses, probably a small minority as there are better options such as Monero for illegal uses

3. Probably a majority of Bitcoiners are opportunistic investors. Why is that bad?

4. Web3ers, a minority of Bitcoiners. You are thinking of altcoins. (Yes Ordinals on Bitcoin are now a thing and are controversial in the Bitcoin community, but most Bitcoiners are hard money proponents who are not interested in NFTs)

Re: Block loses 20% of value as Hindenburg Research alleges fraud

#128

Post by burnished »

jhugo wrote: post #92
burnished wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are you getting at?

There is no fundamental reason to be upset with short sellers; they can be honest or dishonest about their motives just as holders of long positions can be. When they are honest and open, they provide a service to the community in the same way that honest & open holders of long positions do.

The short position is fundamentally the belief a venture will fail and historically there is three ways for that to be a successful bet; 1) be lucky 2) do your research thoroughly and then be lucky or 3) cause that venture to fail.

So in this case your defense is limp wristed, you ask only 'well what about' without ever answering the core qualm.

Re: Block loses 20% of value as Hindenburg Research alleges fraud

#129

Post by lowkey »

meltedcapacitor wrote: post #70
KingOfCoders wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would be interested in the percentage of 1. Bitcoin (crypto) users who (only) have BC because they hate fiat money 2. Users who have BC because they need it for illegal gains 3. Opportunistic investors 4. Web3ers I have the unsubstantiated feeling that 1 is overstated.

All these categories are like about 5% each, the 80% is normal hard working people who don't like hard working — it is literally hard work! — and to whom crypto gives hope as a magic box in which one throws pennies and dollars come back. It's a bit creepy (the game is in fact zero/negative sum) but then gambling is not generally illegal.

Notably Block, the company in the article enables Bitcoin only, not crypto in general.

> the 80% is normal hard working people who don't like hard working

Another way to look at it is that 80% of Bitcoiners don’t like the value of their hard work to be continuously debased at a rate of 2-8+% year after year or being subjected to the whims of the Fed’s money printer which recently expanded the entire money supply by over 40% then claimed it wouldn’t drive inflation before claiming that inflation was temporary.

Re: Block loses 20% of value as Hindenburg Research alleges fraud

#130

Post by lowkey »

ano88888 wrote: post #33
KingOfCoders wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would be interested in the percentage of 1. Bitcoin (crypto) users who (only) have BC because they hate fiat money 2. Users who have BC because they need it for illegal gains 3. Opportunistic investors 4. Web3ers I have the unsubstantiated feeling that 1 is overstated.

internationally, 2 using cypto for illegal or unofficial means to transfer money is definitely more than 90%. The rest can share the remaining 10%.

Do you have a source for this figure? It doesn’t align with my experience.
Post reply on HN