Crypto Currency Thread (Vol.2)
Discussion
Blown2CV said:
this post right there is the exact reason why bitcoin will never be adopted as a mainstream currency by the vast majority of people. No one wants to have to decode all this drivel and argue the toss just to be able to turn their working week into breakfast cereal, childcare and netflix.
Don't worry dear you won't have to understand it.dimots said:
Blown2CV said:
this post right there is the exact reason why bitcoin will never be adopted as a mainstream currency by the vast majority of people. No one wants to have to decode all this drivel and argue the toss just to be able to turn their working week into breakfast cereal, childcare and netflix.
Don't worry dear you won't have to understand it.If you keep on saying you don't need them to get involved or be bought in, then it is very obvious to me that you really only just see this as an investment, and not a currency at all.
dimots said:
Blown2CV said:
this post right there is the exact reason why bitcoin will never be adopted as a mainstream currency by the vast majority of people. No one wants to have to decode all this drivel and argue the toss just to be able to turn their working week into breakfast cereal, childcare and netflix.
Many will argue that BTC is an asset, not a currency per se, and that seems fair enough - as it's been classified as an Asset by the SEC etc. And for sure the majority of folks that view it in that manner have little interest in parting with it.
Others talk about transacting using either BTC, or the btc network - the latter doesn't even need the particpants to be btc believers/holders, just that for that transaction they'll use the BTc network rails - for speed and cost.
The rest of the crypro space is a jumbled web, from which a few , ie/ a handful in comparative numbers - have and will have a proper use case for society. One thing is clear IMo, BTC shouldn't be lumped into the general crypto pool when it's being thought of & discussed.
I doubt that the likes of blackrock/fidelity etc in the US and others globally have skimped on their research. If they had any concerns about it's merits, i'd imagine that they'd have opted for safety in not pushing for the ETF approval - on the basis that they wouldn't want a BTC s
tshow to come and bite them in the backside from a PR perspective.On the contrary, they're promoting it as an asset class with recommended % allocations.
Ironically given the performance of BTC and it's proxies such as the miners & mstr, that seems an overlooked topic in these Finance pages. Hell, i'd have thought that even those that don't believe in it's long term fundamental useage would be happy playing with a % of their portfolio during this cycle.
greengreenwood7 said:
Ironically given the performance of BTC and its proxies such as the miners & mstr, that seems an overlooked topic in these Finance pages. Hell, i'd have thought that even those that don't believe in its long term fundamental useage would be happy playing with a % of their portfolio during this cycle.
Probably viewed by many as too risky and complicated. It’s not straightforward to buy Bitcoin- all this talk of hot wallets, cold wallets, “coinjoin”, “atomic swaps” is just baffling to most people. Then you run the risk of putting your hard earned in the next FTX…Most people are quite happy with index trackers wrapped in an ISA and/or SIPP. Simple, tax efficient and you’re dealing with reputable companies…
Then there’s the question of what is Bitcoin actually for - a “currency” that you can’t buy anything with. Every time this question gets asked it gets ignored or the questioner is insulted.
Plus there’s volatility- if a company had a share price that looks like this I wouldn’t touch it with a bargepole…
You’d be better off burying a kilo of gold in your back garden.
funinhounslow said:
greengreenwood7 said:
Ironically given the performance of BTC and its proxies such as the miners & mstr, that seems an overlooked topic in these Finance pages. Hell, i'd have thought that even those that don't believe in its long term fundamental useage would be happy playing with a % of their portfolio during this cycle.
Probably viewed by many as too risky and complicated. It’s not straightforward to buy Bitcoin- all this talk of hot wallets, cold wallets, “coinjoin”, “atomic swaps” is just baffling to most people. Then you run the risk of putting your hard earned in the next FTX…Most people are quite happy with index trackers wrapped in an ISA and/or SIPP. Simple, tax efficient and you’re dealing with reputable companies…
Then there’s the question of what is Bitcoin actually for - a “currency” that you can’t buy anything with. Every time this question gets asked it gets ignored or the questioner is insulted.
Plus there’s volatility- if a company had a share price that looks like this I wouldn’t touch it with a bargepole…
as for index trackers, that's what i 'don't get', i understand the rationale of having some monies in those funds, but the potential for above average gains is lost - whether that's via BTC or directly being in top performing assets.
For volatility, sure as buy and hold one would have to have absolute conviction and a long enough time horizon to smooth out the dips; But from a trading perspective, even if only held for a cple of years before rotating into 'whatever else' - it's the volatility that can provide exceptional gains. Which is why umpteen financial companies buy into the BTC miners - to reap the massive multiple gains during the bull markets.
as to the point about 'currency' - that comes back to what people label it - personally i think it's mislabeled.
We don't call fine art/collectibles a currency, nor gold etc - they're assets that can be traded - so's BTC; just depends on what ones goals & beliefs are.
greengreenwood7 said:
well it's as complicated as anyone wants to make it - the easy way is just to buy into one of the ETF's, and no, that can't be done via a taw wrapper - but can be done via a gen investment account.
as for index trackers, that's what i 'don't get', i understand the rationale of having some monies in those funds, but the potential for above average gains is lost - whether that's via BTC or directly being in top performing assets.
For volatility, sure as buy and hold one would have to have absolute conviction and a long enough time horizon to smooth out the dips; But from a trading perspective, even if only held for a cple of years before rotating into 'whatever else' - it's the volatility that can provide exceptional gains. Which is why umpteen financial companies buy into the BTC miners - to reap the massive multiple gains during the bull markets.
as to the point about 'currency' - that comes back to what people label it - personally i think it's mislabeled.
We don't call fine art/collectibles a currency, nor gold etc - they're assets that can be traded - so's BTC; just depends on what ones goals & beliefs are.
But with stocks and shares trying to 'time the market' is generally seen as a terrible idea - and isn't Bitcoin a 'zero sum game' so for every exceptional gain there's a balancing exceptional loss?as for index trackers, that's what i 'don't get', i understand the rationale of having some monies in those funds, but the potential for above average gains is lost - whether that's via BTC or directly being in top performing assets.
For volatility, sure as buy and hold one would have to have absolute conviction and a long enough time horizon to smooth out the dips; But from a trading perspective, even if only held for a cple of years before rotating into 'whatever else' - it's the volatility that can provide exceptional gains. Which is why umpteen financial companies buy into the BTC miners - to reap the massive multiple gains during the bull markets.
as to the point about 'currency' - that comes back to what people label it - personally i think it's mislabeled.
We don't call fine art/collectibles a currency, nor gold etc - they're assets that can be traded - so's BTC; just depends on what ones goals & beliefs are.
greengreenwood7 said:
well it's as complicated as anyone wants to make it - the easy way is just to buy into one of the ETF's, and no, that can't be done via a taw wrapper - but can be done via a gen investment account.
as for index trackers, that's what i 'don't get', i understand the rationale of having some monies in those funds, but the potential for above average gains is lost - whether that's via BTC or directly being in top performing assets.
For volatility, sure as buy and hold one would have to have absolute conviction and a long enough time horizon to smooth out the dips; But from a trading perspective, even if only held for a cple of years before rotating into 'whatever else' - it's the volatility that can provide exceptional gains. Which is why umpteen financial companies buy into the BTC miners - to reap the massive multiple gains during the bull markets.
as to the point about 'currency' - that comes back to what people label it - personally i think it's mislabeled.
We don't call fine art/collectibles a currency, nor gold etc - they're assets that can be traded - so's BTC; just depends on what ones goals & beliefs are.
Actually, it is complicated. ETFs don't come in 1 flavour, there are lots of different types - all with different risks. There are fully replicated / physically backed to leveraged. Furthermore, depends on what the underlying (and structure is) - there can be a mass of tail risks. And that's before you start the process of managing delta. That massive upside asset appreciation is great, but displaying that level of vol becomes a problem for leveraging it (as its stressed BOTH ways).as for index trackers, that's what i 'don't get', i understand the rationale of having some monies in those funds, but the potential for above average gains is lost - whether that's via BTC or directly being in top performing assets.
For volatility, sure as buy and hold one would have to have absolute conviction and a long enough time horizon to smooth out the dips; But from a trading perspective, even if only held for a cple of years before rotating into 'whatever else' - it's the volatility that can provide exceptional gains. Which is why umpteen financial companies buy into the BTC miners - to reap the massive multiple gains during the bull markets.
as to the point about 'currency' - that comes back to what people label it - personally i think it's mislabeled.
We don't call fine art/collectibles a currency, nor gold etc - they're assets that can be traded - so's BTC; just depends on what ones goals & beliefs are.
Accessing those sentiment gains via IBIT or other ETFs is far play, but I think the loss of principal might be a touch greater than Blackrock are presenting it (although again you picks you asset accoring to risk profile). Blackrock pitches the IBIT ETF as largely an access play and operationally less risky model to hold BTC - which in itself is interesting. Only at the end of the small print do they talk loss of principal.
And even if I'm not a fan of BTC, for most gaining exposure (or upside to not offend) - doing it via an ETF makes a lot of sense.
OoopsVoss said:
Blackrock pitches the IBIT ETF as largely an access play and operationally less risky model to hold BTC - which in itself is interesting. Only at the end of the small print do they talk loss of principal.
And even if I'm not a fan of BTC, for most gaining exposure (or upside to not offend) - doing it via an ETF makes a lot of sense.
ETF's aren't setup for us per se, sold to us as convenient ways to access a market and they 100% are but if some introduce leverage then you start to run the risk of a fractional system, you think you are buying it, you benefit from any price gains, and you can exit again but you don't always hold the 'asset' behind the ETF, so if the music stops (and this is a significant part of the original Bitcoin thesis - outside the system to an extent) you probably don't have/won't get it.And even if I'm not a fan of BTC, for most gaining exposure (or upside to not offend) - doing it via an ETF makes a lot of sense.
I see this everywhere, Blackrock, JP Morgan (silver particularly), they end up holding/owning the assets and we all buy in the ETF's (because they are convenient and the "real thing") which in normal times we get to track the price moves and see the gains/losses then they take a cut all this time, whilst also having the ultimate value in their possession, a win win.
Read these extracts from a Gold ETF
SPDR Gold Trust https://www.spdrgoldshares.com/media/GLD/file/SPDR...
"Proceeds received by the Trust from the issuance and sale of
Baskets consist of gold and, possibly from time to time, cash.
Pursuant to the Trust Indenture, during the life of the Trust the gold
and any cash will only be (1) held by the Trust, (2) distributed to
Authorized Participants in connection with the redemption of
Baskets or (3) sold or [b]disbursed as needed to pay the Trust’s
ongoing expenses.[/b]"
So some gold sold to fund the funds expenses, pay salaries etc etc......over time the Gold backing your gold "shares" diminishes.
Then there is a whole section on the fund being split into baskets of shares and the Gold in these baskets can only be added or redeemed by Authorized participants
"As of the
date of this prospectus, Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC,
Goldman, Sachs & Co., Goldman Sachs Execution & Clearing,
L.P., HSBC Securities (USA) Inc., J.P. Morgan Securities LLC,
Merrill Lynch Professional Clearing Corp., Morgan Stanley & Co.
LLC, RBC Capital Markets LLC, UBS Securities LLC and Virtu
Americas LLC are the only Authorized Participants"
So not little you!
"The custodian is HSBC Bank plc (the “Custodian”) and is responsible for the safekeeping of the Trust’s gold bars
transferred to it in connection with the creation of Baskets by Authorized Participants. The Custodian also
1
facilitates the transfer of gold in and out of the Trust through gold accounts it maintains for Authorized
Participants and the Trust. The Custodian is a market maker, clearer and approved weigher under the rules of the
LBMA"
Sounds ok but
"Gold bars may be held by one or more subcustodians appointed by the Custodian, or employed by the
subcustodians appointed by the Custodian, until it is transported to the Custodian’s London vault premises"
"The Trust may not have adequate sources of recovery if its gold is lost, damaged, stolen or destroyed and
recovery may be limited, even in the event of fraud, to the market value of the gold at the time the fraud is
discovered.
Shareholders’ recourse against the Trust, the Trustee and the Sponsor, under New York law, the Custodian, under
English law, and any subcustodians under the law governing their custody operations is limited. The Trust does
not insure its gold. The Custodian maintains insurance with regard to its business on such terms and conditions as
it considers appropriate which does not cover the full amount of gold. The Trust is not a beneficiary of any such
insurance and does not have the ability to dictate the existence, nature or amount of coverage. Therefore,
Shareholders cannot be assured that the Custodian will maintain adequate insurance or any insurance with respect
to the gold held by the Custodian on behalf of the Trust. In addition, the Custodian and the Trustee do not require
any direct or indirect subcustodians to be insured or bonded with respect to their custodial activities or in respect
of the gold held by them on behalf of the Trust. Consequently, a loss may be suffered with respect to the Trust’s
gold which is not covered by insurance and for which no person is liable in damages."
"If any subcustodian which holds gold on a temporary basis does not exercise due care in the safekeeping of the
Trust’s gold bars, the ability of the Trustee or the Custodian to recover damages against such subcustodian may
be limited to only such recourse, if any, as may be available under applicable English law or other applicable
law. If the Trustee’s or the Custodian’s recourse against the subcustodian is so limited, the Trust may not be
adequately compensated for the loss"
"Neither the Shareholders nor any Authorized Participant has a right under the Custody Agreements to assert a
claim of the Trustee against the Custodian or any subcustodian; claims under the Custody Agreements may only
be asserted by the Trustee on behalf of the Trust.
Because neither the Trustee nor the Custodian oversees or monitors the activities of subcustodians who
may temporarily hold the Trust’s gold bars until transported to the Custodian’s London vault, failure by
the subcustodians to exercise due care in the safekeeping of the Trust’s gold bars could result in a loss to
the Trust."
So ETF's are convenient and good to track price movements, but when did Wall Street truly do anything for you and not their gain.
Yes, there is a lot of divergent risk. Full replicating and physically backed ETFs are relatively low risk - with only underlying market liquidity and depth being the biggest risks. Even building those are tricky and you need to avoid tracking errors. Leveraged ETFs are not (IMHO) a retail product, the risks are far greater - but again we come back to the concepts of suitability and appropriateness - and just because an asset exists, doesn't mean its good for all.
Exactly, bitcoin via etf is just for their benefit.
They’ll see all these exchanges charging a spread and they can get in on it now.
Then leverage built into it.
Then manipulate the price (as per gold/silver) because it’s more ‘convenient’ to own the paper vs the real.
Bitcoin is screwed now it’s been adopted like this.
It was already a bit screwed because of greed, but now it’s got Wall Street enabling that greed to be tapped and used to influence its price.
Retailers just swap btc via stripe or whatever at point of sale.
BTC is just an abstraction now. It’s not its own thing.
The only appeal drawing people in is the fact you ‘could’ make £££
Who buys in now for the fundamental purpose of it?
Funny how people also now speak of bitcoin like the king, when a few years back it was all the hype coins and bitcoin was a dead duck… for ‘reasons’
Now bitcoin is awesome for ‘reasons’
I bet bitcoin will fork once the ETFs and WS start to fk it up.
Then the doors open for a better crypto that is protected from all the rubbish that WS is foisting upon it.
They’ll see all these exchanges charging a spread and they can get in on it now.
Then leverage built into it.
Then manipulate the price (as per gold/silver) because it’s more ‘convenient’ to own the paper vs the real.
Bitcoin is screwed now it’s been adopted like this.
It was already a bit screwed because of greed, but now it’s got Wall Street enabling that greed to be tapped and used to influence its price.
Retailers just swap btc via stripe or whatever at point of sale.
BTC is just an abstraction now. It’s not its own thing.
The only appeal drawing people in is the fact you ‘could’ make £££
Who buys in now for the fundamental purpose of it?
Funny how people also now speak of bitcoin like the king, when a few years back it was all the hype coins and bitcoin was a dead duck… for ‘reasons’
Now bitcoin is awesome for ‘reasons’
I bet bitcoin will fork once the ETFs and WS start to f
k it up.Then the doors open for a better crypto that is protected from all the rubbish that WS is foisting upon it.
funinhounslow said:
It’s not straightforward to buy Bitcoin- all this talk of hot wallets, cold wallets, “coinjoin”, “atomic swaps” is just baffling to most people. Then you run the risk of putting your hard earned in the next FTX…
I showed someone how to do it this morning. Very easy. If it wasn't for the ridiculous hoops to jump through added by the FCA it would be a lot easier! You have to do a quiz and wait for 24 hours before spending your own money...thanks FCA great work as usual 
Coinjoin, atomic swaps, etc nothing to do with buying bitcoin here and now.
How to buy bitcoin (FCA/KYC approved version):
1) Sign up at an exchange (Coinbase/Bitstamp/etc...)
2) Provide ID and personal details
3) Deposit money
4) Get bitcoin
Its interesting that Blackrock sets out specifically -
"Bitcoin ETFs help alleviate some of the challenges of investing directly in bitcoin, such as storage. Traditional forms of investing directly in bitcoin require deciding where to store the purchased bitcoin, which can be in a crypto wallet or on a crypto exchange. This approach gives the investor certain direct responsibilities in preventing security risks such as theft or loss of private keys, which are essentially passcodes to a crypto wallet. With a bitcoin ETF, investors own shares of the ETF, removing the need to determine where to store their bitcoin, as this is handled by the ETF's custodian. It’s important to note, however, that investing in a bitcoin ETF still involves risk, including possible loss of principal."
And really interestingly, its IBIT ETF, isn't governed by the same Mutual Fund and ETF rules as other products:
"The iShares Bitcoin Trust is not an investment company registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940, and therefore is not subject to the same regulatory requirements as mutual funds or ETFs registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940. The Trust is not a commodity pool for purposes of the Commodity Exchange Act. Before making an investment decision, you should carefully consider the risk factors and other information included in the prospectus."
Without spending time on the actual specifics and details, that "ETF" exposure isn't quite the same as other "ETF" exposures - perhaps for simple means - but why differentiate it (unless its a commodity thing).
"Bitcoin ETFs help alleviate some of the challenges of investing directly in bitcoin, such as storage. Traditional forms of investing directly in bitcoin require deciding where to store the purchased bitcoin, which can be in a crypto wallet or on a crypto exchange. This approach gives the investor certain direct responsibilities in preventing security risks such as theft or loss of private keys, which are essentially passcodes to a crypto wallet. With a bitcoin ETF, investors own shares of the ETF, removing the need to determine where to store their bitcoin, as this is handled by the ETF's custodian. It’s important to note, however, that investing in a bitcoin ETF still involves risk, including possible loss of principal."
And really interestingly, its IBIT ETF, isn't governed by the same Mutual Fund and ETF rules as other products:
"The iShares Bitcoin Trust is not an investment company registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940, and therefore is not subject to the same regulatory requirements as mutual funds or ETFs registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940. The Trust is not a commodity pool for purposes of the Commodity Exchange Act. Before making an investment decision, you should carefully consider the risk factors and other information included in the prospectus."
Without spending time on the actual specifics and details, that "ETF" exposure isn't quite the same as other "ETF" exposures - perhaps for simple means - but why differentiate it (unless its a commodity thing).
OoopsVoss said:
Its interesting that Blackrock sets out specifically -
"Bitcoin ETFs help alleviate some of the challenges of investing directly in bitcoin, such as storage. Traditional forms of investing directly in bitcoin require deciding where to store the purchased bitcoin, which can be in a crypto wallet or on a crypto exchange. This approach gives the investor certain direct responsibilities in preventing security risks such as theft or loss of private keys, which are essentially passcodes to a crypto wallet. With a bitcoin ETF, investors own shares of the ETF, removing the need to determine where to store their bitcoin, as this is handled by the ETF's custodian. It’s important to note, however, that investing in a bitcoin ETF still involves risk, including possible loss of principal."
And really interestingly, its IBIT ETF, isn't governed by the same Mutual Fund and ETF rules as other products:
"The iShares Bitcoin Trust is not an investment company registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940, and therefore is not subject to the same regulatory requirements as mutual funds or ETFs registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940. The Trust is not a commodity pool for purposes of the Commodity Exchange Act. Before making an investment decision, you should carefully consider the risk factors and other information included in the prospectus."
Without spending time on the actual specifics and details, that "ETF" exposure isn't quite the same as other "ETF" exposures - perhaps for simple means - but why differentiate it (unless its a commodity thing).
What is your question exactly? The Blackrock ETF uses Coinbase as custodian. How Coinbase actually secure their btc is up for speculation but you would expect offline wallets with multisig. Losing access to those bitcoin is a possibility. If you lose access to them there is no insurance, no way of finding access, they will be frozen on the blockchain for all time."Bitcoin ETFs help alleviate some of the challenges of investing directly in bitcoin, such as storage. Traditional forms of investing directly in bitcoin require deciding where to store the purchased bitcoin, which can be in a crypto wallet or on a crypto exchange. This approach gives the investor certain direct responsibilities in preventing security risks such as theft or loss of private keys, which are essentially passcodes to a crypto wallet. With a bitcoin ETF, investors own shares of the ETF, removing the need to determine where to store their bitcoin, as this is handled by the ETF's custodian. It’s important to note, however, that investing in a bitcoin ETF still involves risk, including possible loss of principal."
And really interestingly, its IBIT ETF, isn't governed by the same Mutual Fund and ETF rules as other products:
"The iShares Bitcoin Trust is not an investment company registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940, and therefore is not subject to the same regulatory requirements as mutual funds or ETFs registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940. The Trust is not a commodity pool for purposes of the Commodity Exchange Act. Before making an investment decision, you should carefully consider the risk factors and other information included in the prospectus."
Without spending time on the actual specifics and details, that "ETF" exposure isn't quite the same as other "ETF" exposures - perhaps for simple means - but why differentiate it (unless its a commodity thing).
Obviously that is a different type of exposure to an ETF that tracks the SP500 or whatever and has to be identified as such.
I think once really user friendly and effective defi multisig custodial solutions come to market (Unchained etc...) a lot of the ETF usp is lost. Also, these solutions will be in prime position to offer collateralised loans on the bitcoin they secure. It's gonna be big time when that kicks off.
To a cple pof the 'responders' i was of course referring purely to BTC etf's, and in that regard they're in my view a healthy way of newbies or institutions buying.
for one, because the blockchain is public, it's clearly possible to see the transactions and correlate that to 'shares' that have been bought/ sold. If folks want to own their slice of BTC and keep it on an exchange or wallet - that's no big drama either, it's just the faff of the FCA being a pain in the ass with the extra questions.
I don't agree that retail are now at a disadvantage with potential for manipulation, that's always been there and is so across all markets, whether equities or commodities. As for it being a zero sum gain, no, why should there automatically be losers? Those that sell do so at the price they determine is right for them....no one forces a seller. And that's what potentially could make the next year interesting - with limited supply the current ETF's have hoovered up way more than the daily issuance.
Throw other bigger buyers in to the mix as well as retail - whether 'shrimps or whales' and it has the making of a supply shock.
There will/may come a moment when the desire not to be the first but definitely not the last kicks in.....whether that's sovereign wealth/family offices, smaller nations, or quite possib;ly companies - now that atleast in the US the acounting rules have changed.
Whether it's pure speculation is a sep argument, although think it's fair to say that many have bought shares in companies that they know little about, or even if they do, have no real idea of the true prospects in the period ahead.
time in the market vs timing the market is indeed true, for the former anyone who bought and left things alone for a few years has done rather well, just the same as buying Goog or Amzn and leaving those alone for 4-5 years.
As to timing - perhaps it could be argued that's a little easier to do when multiples of returns are avail/on the table.
Personally i don't value BTC/proxies in pure $ terms, but more the purchasing power relative to stocks that interest me - so it's somewhat easier to have an idea when might be a fair time to switch horses.
for one, because the blockchain is public, it's clearly possible to see the transactions and correlate that to 'shares' that have been bought/ sold. If folks want to own their slice of BTC and keep it on an exchange or wallet - that's no big drama either, it's just the faff of the FCA being a pain in the ass with the extra questions.
I don't agree that retail are now at a disadvantage with potential for manipulation, that's always been there and is so across all markets, whether equities or commodities. As for it being a zero sum gain, no, why should there automatically be losers? Those that sell do so at the price they determine is right for them....no one forces a seller. And that's what potentially could make the next year interesting - with limited supply the current ETF's have hoovered up way more than the daily issuance.
Throw other bigger buyers in to the mix as well as retail - whether 'shrimps or whales' and it has the making of a supply shock.
There will/may come a moment when the desire not to be the first but definitely not the last kicks in.....whether that's sovereign wealth/family offices, smaller nations, or quite possib;ly companies - now that atleast in the US the acounting rules have changed.
Whether it's pure speculation is a sep argument, although think it's fair to say that many have bought shares in companies that they know little about, or even if they do, have no real idea of the true prospects in the period ahead.
time in the market vs timing the market is indeed true, for the former anyone who bought and left things alone for a few years has done rather well, just the same as buying Goog or Amzn and leaving those alone for 4-5 years.
As to timing - perhaps it could be argued that's a little easier to do when multiples of returns are avail/on the table.
Personally i don't value BTC/proxies in pure $ terms, but more the purchasing power relative to stocks that interest me - so it's somewhat easier to have an idea when might be a fair time to switch horses.
dimots said:
What is your question exactly? The Blackrock ETF uses Coinbase as custodian. How Coinbase actually secure their btc is up for speculation but you would expect offline wallets with multisig. Losing access to those bitcoin is a possibility. If you lose access to them there is no insurance, no way of finding access, they will be frozen on the blockchain for all time.
Obviously that is a different type of exposure to an ETF that tracks the SP500 or whatever and has to be identified as such.
I think once really user friendly and effective defi multisig custodial solutions come to market (Unchained etc...) a lot of the ETF usp is lost. Also, these solutions will be in prime position to offer collateralised loans on the bitcoin they secure. It's gonna be big time when that kicks off.
I didn't ask a question.Obviously that is a different type of exposure to an ETF that tracks the SP500 or whatever and has to be identified as such.
I think once really user friendly and effective defi multisig custodial solutions come to market (Unchained etc...) a lot of the ETF usp is lost. Also, these solutions will be in prime position to offer collateralised loans on the bitcoin they secure. It's gonna be big time when that kicks off.
I pointed out some interesting quirks on Blackrock's offering, particularly as its basically passive and doesn't use leverage etc. The strategy is lower risk (ignoring the characteristics of the reference asset) - but it has a different legal persona to other Ishare products.
OoopsVoss said:
I didn't ask a question.
OoopsVoss said:
but why differentiate it (unless its a commodity thing).
It's because the fund holds bitcoin and is secured by a third party. Gold ETF has the same terms if it's vaulted 'physical' gold.https://www.spdrgoldshares.com/media/GLD/file/ETF-...
dimots said:
OoopsVoss said:
I didn't ask a question.
OoopsVoss said:
but why differentiate it (unless its a commodity thing).
It's because the fund holds bitcoin and is secured by a third party. Gold ETF has the same terms if it's vaulted 'physical' gold.https://www.spdrgoldshares.com/media/GLD/file/ETF-...
You do not have a chance to ever get actual Gold from buying this ETF
The custodian is HSBC but they can give it to subcustodians, it's not insured, there are loads of "we are not liable if...." and "loss may be suffered if...."
Plus all the running costs come from users one way or another, it's not a charity. I can at least see with a Gold ETF the physical/logistical barriers to owning a lot, it is heavy and costly to move, with Bitcoin there are no such logistical issues, that someone won't do just the basic routine you describe and will just go ETF is crazy, I'm no Bitcoin fan but I think Bitcoiners absolutely should make sure they have custody. ETF's could be akin to the non personal wallets, like "not your keys, not your Bitcoin" ?
This is not a Bitcoin bash it's an ETF bash and you I think should be encouraging the non ETF routes and be wary of the ETF's, the phrase "possession is 9/10ths of the law" didn't come from nowhere and these days we are close to thinking we own a lot, when we could end up owning sweet fa.
Is this the correct IBIT prospectus?
https://www.ishares.com/us/literature/prospectus/p...
if so Page 5 Prospectus summary
The Trust is governed by the provisions of the Second Amended and Restated Trust Agreement (the “Trust Agreement”) executed as of December 28,
2023 by the Sponsor, the Trustee and the Delaware Trustee.
The Trust issues and redeems Shares only in Baskets of 40,000 or integral multiples thereof, based on the quantity of bitcoin attributable to each Share
(net of accrued but unpaid Sponsor’s Fee and any accrued but unpaid expenses or liabilities). Baskets may be redeemed by the Trust in exchange for
the cash proceeds from selling the amount of bitcoin corresponding to their redemption value. These transactions take place in exchange for cash.
[b]Subject to the In-Kind Regulatory Approval, these transactions may also take place in exchange for bitcoin. The timing of the In-Kind Regulatory
Approval is unknown, and there is no guarantee that NASDAQ will receive the In-Kind Regulatory Approval at any point in the future.[/b] If NASDAQ receives
the In-Kind Regulatory Approval and if the Sponsor chooses to allow in-kind creations and redemptions, the Trust will notify Shareholders in a
prospectus supplement, in its periodic Exchange Act reports and on the Trust's website. Individual Shares will not be redeemed by the Trust but will be
listed and traded on NASDAQ under the ticker symbol “IBIT.” The Trust seeks to reflect generally the performance of the price of bitcoin
Not sure why the formatting doesn't work on the above but I wanted to highlight this Subject to the In-Kind Regulatory Approval, these transactions may also take place in exchange for bitcoin. The timing of the In-Kind Regulatory Approval is unknown, and there is no guarantee that NASDAQ will receive the In-Kind Regulatory Approval at any point in the future
https://www.ishares.com/us/literature/prospectus/p...
if so Page 5 Prospectus summary
The Trust is governed by the provisions of the Second Amended and Restated Trust Agreement (the “Trust Agreement”) executed as of December 28,
2023 by the Sponsor, the Trustee and the Delaware Trustee.
The Trust issues and redeems Shares only in Baskets of 40,000 or integral multiples thereof, based on the quantity of bitcoin attributable to each Share
(net of accrued but unpaid Sponsor’s Fee and any accrued but unpaid expenses or liabilities). Baskets may be redeemed by the Trust in exchange for
the cash proceeds from selling the amount of bitcoin corresponding to their redemption value. These transactions take place in exchange for cash.
[b]Subject to the In-Kind Regulatory Approval, these transactions may also take place in exchange for bitcoin. The timing of the In-Kind Regulatory
Approval is unknown, and there is no guarantee that NASDAQ will receive the In-Kind Regulatory Approval at any point in the future.[/b] If NASDAQ receives
the In-Kind Regulatory Approval and if the Sponsor chooses to allow in-kind creations and redemptions, the Trust will notify Shareholders in a
prospectus supplement, in its periodic Exchange Act reports and on the Trust's website. Individual Shares will not be redeemed by the Trust but will be
listed and traded on NASDAQ under the ticker symbol “IBIT.” The Trust seeks to reflect generally the performance of the price of bitcoin
Not sure why the formatting doesn't work on the above but I wanted to highlight this Subject to the In-Kind Regulatory Approval, these transactions may also take place in exchange for bitcoin. The timing of the In-Kind Regulatory Approval is unknown, and there is no guarantee that NASDAQ will receive the In-Kind Regulatory Approval at any point in the future
Edited by Scootersp on Tuesday 23 April 14:52
Edited by Scootersp on Tuesday 23 April 14:54
Edited by Scootersp on Tuesday 23 April 14:56
" Subject to the In-Kind Regulatory Approval, these transactions may also take place in exchange for bitcoin. The timing of the In-Kind Regulatory Approval is unknown, and there is no guarantee that NASDAQ will receive the In-Kind Regulatory Approval at any point in the future "
yes basically the BTC etf's ( as approved by the SEC) are cash settlement, it's not possible under the current rules/guise to take self custody of an amount of BTC equal to the share value....
unless i'm mistaken, what that clause says is that if such regulations changed, then they'd be in a position to offer BTc as settlement to the 'share holder'.....
yes basically the BTC etf's ( as approved by the SEC) are cash settlement, it's not possible under the current rules/guise to take self custody of an amount of BTC equal to the share value....
unless i'm mistaken, what that clause says is that if such regulations changed, then they'd be in a position to offer BTc as settlement to the 'share holder'.....
Gassing Station | Finance | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff