Barrys pink sheets penny stocks, with not a single trade so far, was the maximum BTC can reach in the world of real money.
You didn't get the memo?
http://www.coindesk.com/swedens-nasdaq-exchange-approves-bitcoin-based-etn/
Topic: GBTC Bitcoin Investment Trust Observer - page 42. (Read 262371 times)
You didn't get the memo?
http://www.coindesk.com/swedens-nasdaq-exchange-approves-bitcoin-based-etn/
I´m betting 100$ bucks that you will never see a winkli COIN ETF listed on nasdaq. Barrys pink sheets penny stocks, with not a single trade so far, was the maximum BTC can reach in the world of real money. Have fun on BTC-E and China in the meanwhile. 
It would be useful to know what percentage of requests for ETFs are denied by the SEC. Their approval is not a mere formality, and COIN surely is not the only wannabe ETF with heavyweight attorneys. I gather that it is not a good sign that COIN has been sitting on SEC's desks for ~2 years, and already went through 5 amended re-filings.
I doubt that loading up in bitcoin would improve the image of any investment fund. Wall Street is not very fond of instruments that lose value every quarter for five consecutive quarters, and whose Captains of Industry cannot even explain why the price is now 220, much less why it should rise again in the future. "Because Wall Street will buy lots of it" is not a convincing argument to Wall Street, I suspect.
I doubt that loading up in bitcoin would improve the image of any investment fund. Wall Street is not very fond of instruments that lose value every quarter for five consecutive quarters, and whose Captains of Industry cannot even explain why the price is now 220, much less why it should rise again in the future. "Because Wall Street will buy lots of it" is not a convincing argument to Wall Street, I suspect.
What What What What What evidence do you have What What
Like, for example, actually reading the 5th amended COIN filing?
Quote
What is the purpose of using the phrase "Captains of industry" other than as a pejorative to advance nothing but innuendo?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VzmzQja7a2M
It's kind of hilarious that you know absolutely fuckall about any of this, and this is the immature way you react when challenged to provide any substantiation of anything you're saying whatsoever.
Looks like Barry talked about it at InsideBitcoins.
@barrysilbert says trading of $GBTC should start today or tomorrow at @InsideBitcoins #BitcoinConf #bitcoin
@barrysilbert says trading of $GBTC should start today or tomorrow at @InsideBitcoins #BitcoinConf #bitcoin
Is it now time to change 'in two weeks™" to "today or tomorrow™"
Looks like Barry talked about it at InsideBitcoins.
@barrysilbert says trading of $GBTC should start today or tomorrow at @InsideBitcoins #BitcoinConf #bitcoin
@barrysilbert says trading of $GBTC should start today or tomorrow at @InsideBitcoins #BitcoinConf #bitcoin
And you believe that?
It is not what I believe or not... it is about what he said. Sure thing is he can place few bids/ask by himself.
Also it matches right with this:
based on what you read / your understanding of the documents, what do you expect turn around time to be?
They don't indicate timeframes per se but I am guessing it might take 5 business days or even more until I can actually post a sell. I did not see any obvious ways to take advantage of the techniques to speed things up, e.g. pay for wire transfers, etc. 5 business days or more from April 27 sounds like Monday March 3rd.
Looks like Barry talked about it at InsideBitcoins.
@barrysilbert says trading of $GBTC should start today or tomorrow at @InsideBitcoins #BitcoinConf #bitcoin
@barrysilbert says trading of $GBTC should start today or tomorrow at @InsideBitcoins #BitcoinConf #bitcoin
And you believe that?
It is not what I believe or not... it is about what he said. Sure thing is he can place few bids/ask by himself.
Also it matches right with this:
based on what you read / your understanding of the documents, what do you expect turn around time to be?
They don't indicate timeframes per se but I am guessing it might take 5 business days or even more until I can actually post a sell. I did not see any obvious ways to take advantage of the techniques to speed things up, e.g. pay for wire transfers, etc. Looks like Barry talked about it at InsideBitcoins.
@barrysilbert says trading of $GBTC should start today or tomorrow at @InsideBitcoins #BitcoinConf #bitcoin
@barrysilbert says trading of $GBTC should start today or tomorrow at @InsideBitcoins #BitcoinConf #bitcoin
And you believe that?
Well one of these times he will have to be right.
Looks like Barry talked about it at InsideBitcoins.
@barrysilbert says trading of $GBTC should start today or tomorrow at @InsideBitcoins #BitcoinConf #bitcoin
@barrysilbert says trading of $GBTC should start today or tomorrow at @InsideBitcoins #BitcoinConf #bitcoin
And you believe that?
Looks like Barry talked about it at InsideBitcoins.
@barrysilbert says trading of $GBTC should start today or tomorrow at @InsideBitcoins #BitcoinConf #bitcoin
@barrysilbert says trading of $GBTC should start today or tomorrow at @InsideBitcoins #BitcoinConf #bitcoin
[...]
The losses suffered by those who bought too high are not just "acceptable collateral damage", but the very reason for the existence of those funds: because the profits of lucky speculators can only come from those losses.
The losses suffered by those who bought too high are not just "acceptable collateral damage", but the very reason for the existence of those funds: because the profits of lucky speculators can only come from those losses.
Not nessecary, assuming that bitcoin will be a true competition or successor for the traditional banking system the profit will arise from a much lower transaction cost.
Also i dont believe Bitcoin will stay static like now - i'm pretty sure it can/will evolve to a plattform which enables you to do a lot more things than just sending money (i.e. smart contracts etc.).
So GLD has fallen 30% from its all time high, NOT from the time it was approved and began trading. Those are two completely different points in time.
I did not mean to say that it devalued 30% from the value it had at the time of approval, athough my use of "after it was approved" could be read that way. Sorry for that.
Quote
Anyway, gold gained over 400% after GLD began trading because it could finally work somewhat as a store of value in a digital world, but it doesn't solve the problem of third party risk and GLD can't be used as a currency, so it still doesn't work very well.
And it did not work well as a store of value, either. That was my point.
Quote
Quote
But the [ gold ] bubble has already deflated 30%, which must have ruined many people
The Euro has lost over 20% of its value in just the past year. Has that ruined many people?It would have been a severe hit to anyone who invested in euros; but no sane investor should invest in a currency.
The drop may cause hardship to those who have pensions or salaries fixed in euros; but it will take some time for the exchange rate drop to be translated into a drop of local purchasing power.
While the price is above the hard floor, GLD and COIN will be ultimately zero-sum games. The losses suffered by those who bought too high are not just "acceptable collateral damage", but the very reason for the existence of those funds: because the profits of lucky speculators can only come from those losses.
Before gold's 10 year bull market, it had a 20+ year bear market. I don't think the ETF caused the bull market. It triggered what was primed to happen. Gold was severely undervalued since the 1980s.
The same thing may happen with bitcoin and the Winklevoss ETF (which has a tighter, less-limited relationship with other exchanges).
The same thing may happen with bitcoin and the Winklevoss ETF (which has a tighter, less-limited relationship with other exchanges).
GLD gained over 400% after approval and trading began, and this is after gold had already traded for centuries.
Yes, gold had a speculative bubble after GLD was approved -- thanks in part, it seems, to an intensive FUD-based marketing campaign about the impending collapse of everything else, a la Max Keyser and Zerohedge. But the bubble has already deflated 30%, which must have ruined many people who believed those "specialists" and did not realize that the price was holding itself by its own bootstraps.
I understand that, in the moral value system of the financial industry, anything that may result in fat profits for smart and/or lucky speculators is by definition "good". Well, sorry, I am not of that religion myself.
So GLD has fallen 30% from its all time high, NOT from the time it was approved and began trading. Those are two completely different points in time.
Anyway, gold gained over 400% after GLD began trading because it could finally work somewhat as a store of value in a digital world, but it doesn't solve the problem of third party risk and GLD can't be used as a currency, so it still doesn't work very well.
Quote
But the bubble has already deflated 30%, which must have ruined many people
The Euro has lost over 20% of its value in just the past year. Has that ruined many people?
And GLD (like gold) lost 1/3 of its value after it was approved by the SEC. Would that fact influence SEC's decision about COIN?
You have eaten too many FUD sandwiches. GLD gained over 400% after approval and trading began, and this is after gold had already traded for centuries.
I have been quite agnostic about the ETF coming online, I thought that it would make little difference that people have yet another way to invest in Bitcoin.
I now see that may well be wrong, it will be interesting with 401ks, as that is a lot of money sloshing around in an ATH stock market with bonds yielding almost nothing, it could really flood in.
Interesting times ahead.
GLD gained over 400% after approval and trading began, and this is after gold had already traded for centuries.
Yes, gold had a speculative bubble after GLD was approved -- thanks in part, it seems, to an intensive FUD-based marketing campaign about the impending collapse of everything else, a la Max Keyser and Zerohedge. But the bubble has already deflated 30%, which must have ruined many people who believed those "specialists" and did not realize that the price was holding itself by its own bootstraps.
I understand that, in the moral value system of the financial industry, anything that may result in fat profits for smart and/or lucky speculators is by definition "good". Well, sorry, I am not of that religion myself.
Well, you said it yourself - the intrinsic value of Gold is much lower than its market value - therefore its price is also mostly based on speculation (as per definition!). Losing 1/3 of its price doesn't really make all funds based on similar assets as failure, as well, does it?
It makes investing in such assets a gamble with unknown and unknowable odds and prizes. Gold at least has a hard price floor, based on its industrial and decorative uses. Bitcoin doesn't.
I understand that the SEC will not block risky instruments, as long as the potential investors are clearly informed about the risks. The question is, can one really do that with bitcoin, without scaring the investors away?
I think that it is totally immoral, if not worse, to try to sell bitcoin -- whether bare or wrapped in fund shares -- to people who do not have the necessary knowledge to really understand the risks, and may be taken in by the glowing predictions of Anotonopoulos, the Winkles, and other "bitcoin evangelists". But, unfortunately, the expected market for those funds is precisely that kind of investor...
And GLD (like gold) lost 1/3 of its value after it was approved by the SEC. Would that fact influence SEC's decision about COIN?
You have eaten too many FUD sandwiches. GLD gained over 400% after approval and trading began, and this is after gold had already traded for centuries.
Stop spreading unfounded FUD.
You can see the early history of the GLD ETF here:
http://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?action=getcompany&CIK=0001222333&type=&dateb=20050101&owner=include&count=100
The application was submitted on 2003-05-13, after 5 amendments, it was approved on 2004-11-17.
I'm not sure if COIN will be approved, but for something as innovative as bitcoin, I don't think it is significantly slower than GLD.
You can see the early history of the GLD ETF here:
http://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?action=getcompany&CIK=0001222333&type=&dateb=20050101&owner=include&count=100
The application was submitted on 2003-05-13, after 5 amendments, it was approved on 2004-11-17.
I'm not sure if COIN will be approved, but for something as innovative as bitcoin, I don't think it is significantly slower than GLD.
Why is doubting the approval and asking for data on SEC performance "spreading FUD"?
I am not sure COIN will be approved either. It has certainly the same problem as GLD, namely being based on an asset whose price is almost entirely speculative, not grounded on concrete fundamentals.
Actually, gold does have some fundamentals, only that they account for only a small fraction of the current market price. And GLD (like gold) lost 1/3 of its value after it was approved by the SEC. Would that fact influence SEC's decision about COIN?
Well, you said it yourself - the intrinsic value of Gold is much lower than its market value - therefore its price is also mostly based on speculation (as per definition!). Losing 1/3 of its price doesn't really make all funds based on similar assets as failure, as well, does it?
Looks like maxims bid is back to 100 shares. Maybe they got some bad info that asks were going to be up yesterday?
Stop spreading unfounded FUD.
You can see the early history of the GLD ETF here:
http://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?action=getcompany&CIK=0001222333&type=&dateb=20050101&owner=include&count=100
The application was submitted on 2003-05-13, after 5 amendments, it was approved on 2004-11-17.
I'm not sure if COIN will be approved, but for something as innovative as bitcoin, I don't think it is significantly slower than GLD.
You can see the early history of the GLD ETF here:
http://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?action=getcompany&CIK=0001222333&type=&dateb=20050101&owner=include&count=100
The application was submitted on 2003-05-13, after 5 amendments, it was approved on 2004-11-17.
I'm not sure if COIN will be approved, but for something as innovative as bitcoin, I don't think it is significantly slower than GLD.
Why is doubting the approval and asking for data on SEC performance "spreading FUD"?
I am not sure COIN will be approved either. It has certainly the same problem as GLD, namely being based on an asset whose price is almost entirely speculative, not grounded on concrete fundamentals.
Actually, gold does have some fundamentals, only that they account for only a small fraction of the current market price. And GLD (like gold) lost 1/3 of its value after it was approved by the SEC. Would that fact influence SEC's decision about COIN?
Jump to: