Topic: ㅤ - page 2. (Read 481 times)

This is good comparison but it doesn't prove that bitcoin is negligible currency. Lets not forget that crypto currency and specifically BTC landed in our hands just a decade ago. In that also half of the world did not believe in it for the first 2-3 years. Considering its gradual incrimination in the parts it has achieved trillion dollar industry already.

This is the case where we are comparing hundreds of years old monetary system with the new born baby!

For example, it is the same case as today's $5 were close to $500 bucks in 18's etc.

It's tiny fish for now, it wouldn't be same forever. 

That's what I wanted to say. Of course, we should be happy about such news. However, the volume of investment is still very, very small.


They could have bought Bitcoins on the OTC market. This is usually done by large buyers. This method of purchase does not directly affect the price of Bitcoin. On the contrary, the price may fall, because the one who sold such a large amount of Bitcoins will manipulate the market to buy back the previously sold amount of Bitcoins cheaper.
Perhaps this is the reason why we are now seeing a slight drop in the price of Bitcoin.

I would fully support any request for more transparency and accountability from custodial organizations. But is there any route with which institutional investors can evade the technicalities and get Bitcoin directly, without having to go through Grayscale and the likes?

Looking at this list that claims to expose the top holders of Bitcoin through Grayscale, it is dominated by various Trust, advisory and management firms, I would assume for them to aquire and hold Bitcoin directly, there would be lots of hurdles buying/selling on an exchange, as well as the legalities of storing it as a bankable asset.

Probably part of the reason that Grayscale is incentivized to be less than transparent is in order that they can work some good deals behind the scenes, and surely it is difficult to know (without being an actual insider with them) whether part of their tactic to get good deals behind the scenes is to attempt to play around with the price with their own holdings... Do they do that at all, and if they do, it probably would be a bit of an addictive drug to see that they would be capable in a decent number of circumstances of using a large number of coins to move the market, if they were to chose to attempt to accomplish such.

Of course such numbers published are a good advertising for what they do and I hope that some of the bigger investors do ask for a proof of such claims from Grayscale. Else everything is a (bad) joke.
I'm curious how tough they played on the market to buy at a good price (how much did they also sell!)   
All in all, if everything is nice and fair, it's quite an advertising also for Bitcoin.


PS. In the same way we had rumors in the past about MtGox money being prepared to be sold, I expect "Graycale is preparing to sell" rumors will be used in the (not too far) future to shake the weak hands.

I am not really clear the extent to which these various companies are required to be transparent with their BTC holdings, and of course, if they are registered or licensed in various jurisdictions, then they may have certain kinds of anti-fraud requirements, and I am NOT completely confident that various state actors are incentivized to require various BTC custodians to keep 100% reserves.

Of course, the BTC community would both prefer BTC custodians to keep 100% reserves and to have some kind of way to be audited in order to make sure that they are not engaging in fractional reserves (or rehypothication) practices.

Frequently, BTC custodians will have some amount of incentive to engage in fractional reserves, and even though BTC HODLers overall would like to make them hold 100% reserves, for quite some time, I have been suspecting that one of the governmental (and traditional financial institutional) attacks on bitcoin would be to allow these fucktwat custodians to engage in the same kinds of behaviors that traditional financial institutions have increasingly been able to get away with committing various kinds of frauds on the public - even recently, there has been additional loosening and even completely removing any kind of requirement whatsoever for banks to have to hold any kind of reserve before they can just create money out of thin air - so in that regard, I foresee that the main ways that BTC HODLers can fight these kinds of corrupt fractional reserve systems is to continue to require audits, transparency and even remove their coins out of those systems - which may well cause those large non transparent custodian systems to have a lesser value for their BTC than those BTC that are directly held - and sure, what I am saying seems to be a kind of pie in the sky thinking, but one of the powers of bitcoin remains the ability to directly take possession on very short notice - but another part would be to denigrate custodians and to discourage people from using them much if at all unless they are actually engaging in a certain amount of transparency in terms of their holdings - some kinds of credible and real time audits - which surely are possible systems to set up within BTC (programable money).

From what I heard, this has done very little to move the price upward so far because they mostly buy Bitcoin OTC directly from miners and not from spot exchanges. Probably too much slippage for them on spot trading for those amounts.

Oh, so basically they are just looking for HODLers then buy for them to somehow evade fees yet offer HODLers an additional amount for their BTC? Well then, if they hold huge amount of BTC, what purpose would they be having with the amount they hold? We all know that it is a risk once a huge percentage of Bitcoin is being held by a single company, they can control the price and dump it or just simply make multiple sell orders at a lower price in which many would buy and break the BTC or even all crypto market.

How could they not have public address btw?

I think I answered a lot of those answer on my t he was here:

Everything you wanted to know about Grayscale BTC Trust but were afraid to ask!

When you read “GBTC bought xxx bitcoin” you have to consider two things:

• Of course they are not buying coins from miners, so checking this amount versus newly minted coins is appalling, but ultimately näive. They are buying in the vast inverse of HODLers.
• When you read “buying”, you have to actually think “added to their AUM” as there are two main ways to add BTC to GBTC: give them USD, so that they actually buy BTC, of acquire GBTC shares “in kind” giving them actual BTC. This is by far the most interesting statistic in their report, and make you understand how much this instrument is actually playing with whale money.

I am going to update my thread with this reference and I will try to crunch some number in the accompanying
spreadsheet.
Last, no, contrary to the BTCE ETP there is no public address to check. You have to trust their numbers.

I am glad that institutional investors are gradually increasing their investment in the crypto market. However, I can't call this a serious investment. The largest investment funds have monetary volumes in the trillions of dollars (for example, Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, Morgan Stanley). They can afford to invest much more in the crypto market, but they are not doing so yet.
Let's hope that over time they will stop considering cryptocurrencies as high-risk assets and the volume of their investments will increase significantly.

That's quite a huge number.
What I am curious here is how we can know if those numbers are legit or after they buying such Bitcoin, do they not selling it after some move of the price?
I am also curious about what happened if Grayscale will dump those Bitcoin in the future?

ㅤ