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

Binance banned from doing business in UK

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–286 of 286 posts

Re: Binance banned from doing business in UK

#281

Post by BLKNSLVR »

WalterSear wrote: post #266
BLKNSLVR wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tether is associated with the Bitfinex exchange, not Binance. Binance has its own stablecoin: BUSD USDC is associated with Coinbase, the exchange that recently went public, so I'd assume it's far more trustworthy than Tether.

This Binance? https://wallet.tether.to/richlist

Binance has holdings in all sorts of cryptocurrencies that it has no involvement in the creation or minting of.

As a cryptocurrency exchange, Binance must hold Tether to operate.

As the most popular cryptocurrency exchange on the planet, they're likely to be on the larger end of Tether (and various other cryptocurrencies) holdings.

I'm not defending Binance here, I think there's fair potential that they're doing shady stuff, but they're not responsible, in any way, for the minting of billions of dollars of Tether, or involved in any of the dodgy accounting around Tether's backing.

Same goes for Huobi, who are second on that list. They're an exchange. Holding Tether is an essential part of being in that business.

Re: Binance banned from doing business in UK

#282

Post by hurril »

davidebaldini wrote: post #276
hurril wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Holding stock in a company (for instance via en index fund) is not a fiat holding. The fact that it is commonly priced in terms of fiat currency is not any different that the fact that BTC is too. Neither of them have to be. All exchanges take place in pairs; one holding is exchanged for another. Buying BTC with dollars is (USD, BTC); buying Microsoft is (MSFT, USD); buying EUR with dollars is (EUR, USD). Nothing pre…

I believe the perception of this dichotomy is something of your own imagination. Anecdotally the term fiat is used exclusively in the context of crypto, but to the best of my understanding its usage doesn't imply that the sole alternative to fiat is BTC, or crypto. Rather, I believe the term solely carries a prejudice against money that is declared valuable as such by political authority rather than by its market ado…

How could that be of my imagination when it's used and liked in the parent to my comment? Everyone is a fiat holder but holding (not crypto) does not constitute being a fiat holder.

But yes, I agree with you about where fiat is used. It's almost always used by people that don't quite undersand the concept of value or that of money for that matter.

Money is not declared valuable by political authority. That is just not how it works. Crypto is what's declared valuable by fiat, ironically. Its value is described as derived in terms of a limited supply (it's just like Gold!)

Fiat currency derives its value from network effects, debts and the feeling of safety (or the lack thereof.)

Re: Binance banned from doing business in UK

#283

Post by hurril »

colordrops wrote: post #170
hurril wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fiat holder is a ridiculous term in a false dichotomy. A holding of BTC is a security holding just as holding stocks (despite the fact that they are not legally referred to as such.) Nobody chooses between holding dollars or holding BTC. Nobody. The fact that this parent has a number of children that don't seem to pick up on this is problematic to say the least.

> Nobody There is plenty of evidence to the contrary.

So show me someone that either saves cash or BTC.

Re: Binance banned from doing business in UK

#284

Post by arthurcolle »

kgraves wrote: post #214
zepolen wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So the source is you then? If so, that is an anecdote and that isn't a reputable source, try again. What is your definition of a reputable source then? You have four different people saying the same thing and still you ask for a 'source'.

If I said I cracked bitcoin's cryptography would you just believe me because the source is me with no evidence?

No I wouldn't. But the claim that most drug dealers don't accept anything other than greenbacks has less significant (even if just in pure dollar terms) than the claim that you've broken the fundamental threat model related to the largest crypto-asset system that currently has a market cap (as of this moment) of more than half a billion USD

Re: Binance banned from doing business in UK

#285

Post by kgraves »

sellyme wrote: post #223
kgraves wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Am I? or is an anecdote a valid source?

You seem to be under the impression that anyone here has an obligation to make sure that you're adequately convinced. You clearly won't believe that most drug transactions are done in cash unless you see incontrovertible evidence. That's fine. But no-one cares, so I don't know why you expect demands for a source to be met. If this was an even remotely controversial or decisive topic, it's worth providing sources, bec…

> You seem to be under the impression that anyone here has an obligation to make sure that you're adequately convinced.

All I'm just asking for clear evidence to a claim, like someone asked me for evidence of a claim I made, I provided a source and evidence. Not hard, seems you and others have an issue with it.

> You clearly won't believe that most drug transactions are done in cash unless you see incontrovertible evidence. That's fine. But no-one cares, so I don't know why you expect demands for a source to be met.

Do you expect me or anyone else to believe a random person like you making a bold claim at first glance?

So unless you have a source to a bold claim, I can dismiss it.

> But in this case, it's such a well-known and obvious fact that there's no such benefit.

Then the refutation should be quick and easy right? Again, I see none so far.

Re: Binance banned from doing business in UK

#286

Post by grey-area »

davidebaldini wrote: post #276
hurril wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Holding stock in a company (for instance via en index fund) is not a fiat holding. The fact that it is commonly priced in terms of fiat currency is not any different that the fact that BTC is too. Neither of them have to be. All exchanges take place in pairs; one holding is exchanged for another. Buying BTC with dollars is (USD, BTC); buying Microsoft is (MSFT, USD); buying EUR with dollars is (EUR, USD). Nothing pre…

I believe the perception of this dichotomy is something of your own imagination. Anecdotally the term fiat is used exclusively in the context of crypto, but to the best of my understanding its usage doesn't imply that the sole alternative to fiat is BTC, or crypto. Rather, I believe the term solely carries a prejudice against money that is declared valuable as such by political authority rather than by its market ado…

If BTC was valued based on actual real-world usage (as opposed to wash trading on exchanges and speculation), the value would be near 0.
Post reply on HN