Crypto Currency Thread (Vol.2)

[White-Noise]

Blown2CV said:

White-Noise said:

halo34 said:

And you show them a little statement, coming from the platform that shows how much you invested, what the gains were and the transactions.

All the platforms also now insist on ID verification as per FCA rules....

Not that hard, once you step off the whole - people who invest in crypto must be idiots

Invest anything anywhere and you have to show proof of funds. If you cant show where your ORGINAL money came from, that's not the fault of the platform.

If you have dodgy transactions showing income in a UK bank account - your just as likely to hit problem.

https://coinledger.io/agencies/does-binance-report...

Noting of course that they do report to HMRC anyway and there are APIs/Apps you can use to generate tax statements for HMRC.

Edited by halo34 on Monday 25th March 16:37

I was thinking about this. If someone had Swiss or offshore accounts there could be things going on that the government can't trace as well. Both have opportunity for misuse. But that's why it's as you state!

but if you showed 'proof of funds' that was just a massive transfer from a Swiss account then would that satisfy the law? I'm not sure.

I presume it wouldn't and that's exactly my point

[Scootersp]

RichTT said:

They are still required to hold the underlying asset in the case of the 'cryptoasset' ETFs for the LSE.

But they'll soon find out that due to volatility, leverage and bitcoin doesn't tend to work out well.

They may have to, but you always have just a claim on the asset, which in certain times conditions (not decided by you) may not mean you can get the asset, you are stuck with the claim, in a sort of limbo potentially.

Venezuela have been after reclaiming their Gold from a London vault for years now, via the high court and can't get it, this is not even an ETF type buy?

Again, I'm merely pointing out this from my position of looking into the metal ETF's and smoke and mirrors around it, with Crypto there is even less reason to use an ETF and I can't see these being setup are for the end users benefit somewhere someone is going to make some money out of providing these and that money has to come from the end users who could just buy crypto as you and others have done for years.

You can get excited about the ETF inflows but I just think if they later setup 'futures' ones and allow the leverage shorts etc then the big players can influence the prices.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/former-jp-morgan-pr...

Meanwhile JP Morgan also gather the largest physical holdings (with all that hassle from holding it) and don't just buy ETF's?

So we have bank balances (that we can't actually all get at the same time), we have ETF's for things that when push comes to shove we can't get (we can only get a settlement in fiat), meanwhile the actual banks quietly do the crackpot thing (how it would be considered if we did it) of owning the physical stuff and rake in interest on money we've given them, that they can lend out, but that remember they can't even give us back?

Smoke and mirrors.............

[RichTT]

Scootersp said:

They may have to, but you always have just a claim on the asset, which in certain times conditions (not decided by you) may not mean you can get the asset, you are stuck with the claim, in a sort of limbo potentially.

Venezuela have been after reclaiming their Gold from a London vault for years now, via the high court and can't get it, this is not even an ETF type buy?

Again, I'm merely pointing out this from my position of looking into the metal ETF's and smoke and mirrors around it, with Crypto there is even less reason to use an ETF and I can't see these being setup are for the end users benefit somewhere someone is going to make some money out of providing these and that money has to come from the end users who could just buy crypto as you and others have done for years.

You can get excited about the ETF inflows but I just think if they later setup 'futures' ones and allow the leverage shorts etc then the big players can influence the prices.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/former-jp-morgan-pr...

Meanwhile JP Morgan also gather the largest physical holdings (with all that hassle from holding it) and don't just buy ETF's?

So we have bank balances (that we can't actually all get at the same time), we have ETF's for things that when push comes to shove we can't get (we can only get a settlement in fiat), meanwhile the actual banks quietly do the crackpot thing (how it would be considered if we did it) of owning the physical stuff and rake in interest on money we've given them, that they can lend out, but that remember they can't even give us back?

Smoke and mirrors.............

Indeed. Wasn't stating otherwise. Neither cheering for, nor against the regulated markets for Bitcoin. It is what it is, and was somewhat inevitable. It's also a far less onerous vehicle to get access to the price action for those unable or unwilling to learn how to custody their own bitcoin.

The ETF's in the US don't hold the Bitcoin themselves, they have Coinbase custody the BTC on their behalf, which is probably worse. Fidelity do manage their own custody, but the've been involved in Bitcoin and mining for over a decade and have the infrastructure in place to deal with it.

Interestingly it appears that HK will be listing Bitcoin ETFs soon that allow in kind redemption of holdings.

[Scootersp]

Yeah I get you, I just feel reasonable strongly about the general issue.

It's all kind of setup to be easy/convenient and it never really matters to anyone that you are detached/at arms length from the actual thing you are 'buying'.

If it ever does, and I agree that it would be in an extreme situation, and that is when you find out you perhaps don't or do on paper but that does you no good!

The tin foil hatted'ness in the metals world is that all the claims on metals couldn't be met if ever people wanted them and so in essence many people that think they own something don't/can't really. I don't see why this won't happen in crypto, despite the claims/promises of 1 to 1 backing.

It comes down to either being a link in a chain and accepting the counter party risk, or being your own chain where the risk is then on you for the security/custodianship of what you have bought.

If we all examine your life and finances, lots of your wealth you are relying on for your future security is in the first category.

[bloomen]

Scootersp said:

The tin foil hatted'ness in the metals world is that all the claims on metals couldn't be met if ever people wanted them and so in essence many people that think they own something don't/can't really. I don't see why this won't happen in crypto, despite the claims/promises of 1 to 1 backing.

The ETF providers are established top tier operations who'll have all of this heavily scrutinised. It isn't some melon-headed tosser on a bean bag pumping out nothing tokens.

Coinbase deleting everything by mistake or the government freezing your access to it is an actual risk.

[RichTT]

bloomen said:

The ETF providers are established top tier operations who'll have all of this heavily scrutinised. It isn't some melon-headed tosser on a bean bag pumping out nothing tokens.

Coinbase deleting everything by mistake or the government freezing your access to it is an actual risk.

It's also fully auditable. Some ETFs have published their wallet addresses. El Salvador published its wallet address a week or so ago.

Gold in a vault is hard to assay. The US Federal reserve has never been audited. Bitcoin is audited every ±10 minutes.

[RichTT]

Worth a watch.

[dimots]

RichTT said:

It's also fully auditable. Some ETFs have published their wallet addresses. El Salvador published its wallet address a week or so ago.

Gold in a vault is hard to assay. The US Federal reserve has never been audited. Bitcoin is audited every ±10 minutes.

This is an important point to recognise. All value in Bitcoin is on the blockchain in public.

[Scootersp]

dimots said:

RichTT said:

It's also fully auditable. Some ETFs have published their wallet addresses. El Salvador published its wallet address a week or so ago.

Gold in a vault is hard to assay. The US Federal reserve has never been audited. Bitcoin is audited every ±10 minutes.

This is an important point to recognise. All value in Bitcoin is on the blockchain in public.

Gold in your hand is easy to assay, Bitcoin in your wallet the same?

ALL I am saying is the minute you put part of the process into the hands of others, ETF's or otherwise, not matter how big or how apparently auditable they are you are putting your ownership in more risk.

I don't mind it being called paranoid, I know largely it is, but similarly I would I say it's naivety to think that ETF's etc have no risk/potential downside.

How do you crypto guys view Fiat vs Bitcoin ETF vs Bitcoin on a risk/validity scale ie if you had Fiat at nil confidence and Bitcoin at 100% what percentage would the ETF be at?

[RichTT]

Scootersp said:

Gold in your hand is easy to assay, Bitcoin in your wallet the same?

Is it? I don't have to trust anyone that the Bitcoin I hold is authentic because it's a trustless protocol.

Scootersp said:

ALL I am saying is the minute you put part of the process into the hands of others, ETF's or otherwise, not matter how big or how apparently auditable they are you are putting your ownership in more risk.

I don't mind it being called paranoid, I know largely it is, but similarly I would I say it's naivety to think that ETF's etc have no risk/potential downside.

How do you crypto guys view Fiat vs Bitcoin ETF vs Bitcoin on a risk/validity scale ie if you had Fiat at nil confidence and Bitcoin at 100% what percentage would the ETF be at?

On a scale of FTX to self custody the ETF's are in the middle. The chance of being rugged by Coinbase are slim, the US gov 6102'ing Bitcoin is a slim outside change. So, validity high, risk low. It's still just a claim on an asset redeemable in fiat. Exposure to price action on bitcoin isn't bitcoin. But if you are an octegenarian with shaky hands and bad eyesight and has been dealing with a custodial broker for your wealth its probably the only safe way to go.

The only reason I could see for anyone to want to hold the ETF over self custody is in tax advantaged accounts. Same reason I hold MSTR and a bunch of bitcoin miners in my ISA. It's leveraged price exposure in a tax advantaged account. But it's not bitcoin.

If you're young and technically proficient, or if you expect to do some jurisdictional arbitrage and leave your country, self custody is a million times better.

Edit: to answer your question fully my liquid investable assets as follows

Bitcoin 75%
MSTR + Miners 10%
Cash holdings (some dollars some GBP) 15%

That, as a total percentage of net worth including main property and pension/locked shares is about 25%

Edited by RichTT on Wednesday 27th March 15:03

[bloomen]

Scootersp said:

How do you crypto guys view Fiat vs Bitcoin ETF vs Bitcoin on a risk/validity scale ie if you had Fiat at nil confidence and Bitcoin at 100% what percentage would the ETF be at?

Not doubtful about any ETF being exactly what they claim to be. They wouldn't be permitted to exist if they weren't.

One's access to them depends on multiple other parties. That's the bit I wouldn't be too keen on myself, for others it's a reassurance.

Insurance only goes so far, I think it's $500,000 per individual and I think Coinbase's cold storage isn't insured at all, though there is 320 million overall for active wallets.

For someone not on the ball the risk of self management is a lot higher, but it's not negligible if you buy through an ETF either.

[dimots]

Scootersp said:

ALL I am saying is the minute you put part of the process into the hands of others, ETF's or otherwise, not matter how big or how apparently auditable they are you are putting your ownership in more risk.

Yes I totally agree. Well...maybe not totally...it's a different risk, not necessarily more risk in all cases.

EDIT: Yeah what RichTT said.

Edited by dimots on Wednesday 27th March 16:23

[Scootersp]

bloomen said:

Not doubtful about any ETF being exactly what they claim to be. They wouldn't be permitted to exist if they weren't.

As the UK is introducing ETN's is the following (from investopedia) of any concern?

"ETFs vs. ETNs
Because they look similar on the page, ETFs and exchange-traded notes (ETNs) are often confused with each other. However, investors should remember that these are very different investment vehicles. ETNs may also have a stated strategy, track an underlying index of commodities or stocks, and require fees, among other features.

Nonetheless, ETNs tend to have a different set of risks from ETFs. ETNs face the risk of the solvency of an issuing company. If an issuing bank for an ETN defaults, or worse, declares bankruptcy, then investors are often out of luck. It’s a different risk from those associated with ETFs, and it’s something that investors eager to jump on board the ETF trend may not be aware of."

[bloomen]

Scootersp said:

As the UK is introducing ETN's is the following (from investopedia) of any concern?

Bitcoin ETNs have been around for ages already elsewhere. I think the first was about 4-5 years ago.

Almost no one in the UK will be permitted to play with these other than fellow lizards.

Hope they have fun with them.

Edited by bloomen on Wednesday 27th March 19:12

[greengreenwood7]

Scootersp said:

bloomen said:

Not doubtful about any ETF being exactly what they claim to be. They wouldn't be permitted to exist if they weren't.

As the UK is introducing ETN's is the following (from investopedia) of any concern?

"ETFs vs. ETNs
Because they look similar on the page, ETFs and exchange-traded notes (ETNs) are often confused with each other. However, investors should remember that these are very different investment vehicles. ETNs may also have a stated strategy, track an underlying index of commodities or stocks, and require fees, among other features.

Nonetheless, ETNs tend to have a different set of risks from ETFs. ETNs face the risk of the solvency of an issuing company. If an issuing bank for an ETN defaults, or worse, declares bankruptcy, then investors are often out of luck. It’s a different risk from those associated with ETFs, and it’s something that investors eager to jump on board the ETF trend may not be aware of."

Like RichTT i have some 'pure' BTc, but as the Uk Gov are asswipes and want to nanny us - i've loaded my isa/sipp with proxies; mstr & a couple of select miners. I DO however also have btc via the IBIT ETF;
a/ if blackrock are fooked, can safely say that the global economy will be more than fooked
b/ far easier to manage within a gen investment account
c/ marginable as with other stocks/shares
d/ i consider that my 'not married to life' pot - so easy to trade between that and miners or tsla or whatever else.

will be interesting to see what happens when the HK etf's come on stream and finally the GBTC 'dumpage' runs out.....and when the US etf's actually start taking money in or being able to be accessed by many more intermediateries which haven't been able to do so - yet; that should happen in the coming weeks.

[halo34]

My little Ai coin investments doing well, 30% up in a month or two - seems to track BTC quite closely and has some interesting use cases as an aside.

[Hilts]

SBF gets a 25 stretch. Ouch.

Gives him a release date sometime in 2045 if he keeps his nose clean.

[CraigyMc]

Hilts said:

SBF gets a 25 stretch. Ouch.

Gives him a release date sometime in 2045 if he keeps his nose clean.

He could have avoided that by not being a tool. Oh well.

[bloomen]

Hilts said:

Gives him a release date sometime in 2045 if he keeps his nose clean.

Is there a specific minimum release date?

I would fully expect him to be out nauseatingly sooner than that but I dunno the ins and outs of it. I think there's less wiggle room for federal stuff.

It's not as if he'll join the Aryan Brotherhood or owt. He'll spend his time curled in a ball doing crochet or something.

Considering the near total lack of remorse there is definitely something fundamentally not there with him and he should've gotten longer.

Edited by bloomen on Thursday 28th March 16:20

[Hilts]

bloomen said:

Hilts said:

Gives him a release date sometime in 2045 if he keeps his nose clean.

Is there a specific minimum release date?

I would fully expect him to be out nauseatingly sooner than that but I dunno the ins and outs of it. I think there's less wiggle room for federal stuff.

It's not as if he'll join the Aryan Brotherhood or owt. He'll spend his time curled in a ball doing crochet or something.

Considering the near total lack of remorse there is definitely something fundamentally not there with him and he should've gotten longer.

Edited by bloomen on Thursday 28th March 16:20

Once they process it he will get an exact release date which can go up if he gets write-ups (loss of days).

Federal case so 54 days good time per year so that makes 85.20547945205479 % of 25, call it 85.2% in round figures.

25 x 85.2%= 21 years 4 months.

On the upside he will get credit for the time already served, around 6 months or so could be out in 2044.