Topic: GBTC Bitcoin Investment Trust Observer - page 64. (Read 262371 times)

in your socialist, monopolist addled academic mind maybe ... the guy on the street has more wisdom than you ivory tower pontificators and they know good money when they see it ... but hey, keep pumping your rotten statist pyramid schemes onto the masses and let your conscience follow you to the grave.

I agree.  I don't know what the actual number is since there are various places saying various things.


His tweet says:

It isn't clear to me the number as compared the the article I had quoted from above.  Anyway, if USMS had 11 registered bidders this time vs 45 in June, it is down.  If Second Market had only 8, that would be 18 bidders (8 + 11 minus Second Market since they were representing the , so 40% of the number of bidders since June. 

Either way, interesting.

get rich schemas like the hyperinflationary Brazilian govt. issued reals you mean?

how many lives have they destroyed comparatively to all the little cons? the big fiat socialist con is the one you studiously (academically) avoid ...

Free speech is the right to tell your own honest opinion.  It does not cover intentionally deceiving people, in particular misleading investors about the value of bonds and such -- which can take people to jail, in many jurisdictions.

If those people with money to spare really believe that Bitcoin will be worth 10000$ next year, why don't they buy those coins that are being offered for sale on the exchanges at 370$ now?

This is not my hidden agenda, it is the very reason why I started following bitcoin -- and I have been clear about that from the beginning.  We already had here a MLM that sucked all the worth -- over a billion dollars -- of millions of Brazilians wo did not know any better.   Now bitcoiners are pushing BTC in Latin America as a hedge against inflation, a miraculous get-rich schema, etc.; hoping that suckers here will lift the price and buy the coins that they want to sell.  You cannot ask me to be silent about it.

EDIT: And bitcoin funds are part of that too, so that was quite on-topic.  Too bad that you will never see criticisms of those funds in the bitcoin media (which is uspported by enterprises like SMBIT).

Nobody is claiming you should (put more than a fraction of your retirement funds in bitcoin), but that is exactly what he tries to make you believe.
And even if so, you have your own brains to figure out that would not be a smart move. Jorge stating that people should be put in jail because of their free speech, is beyond suppression.

I know this is off topic, but it really isn't all that evil of a statement. No1 should be investing the entirety of their retirement plan in bitcoins...that is just silly and I love bitcoin.

Yes, that would be the average. Something about these numbers just seems off to me. Perhaps some of those 8 bidders were also syndicates/individuals who grouped together under one name and then registered with Silbert as a single bidder.
It's just wierd ... I don't get it.

And I am now done trying to figure it out 

This is just so painful to read, so biased and off topic. I really have a hard time taking you serious when revealing your hidden agenda like this.
Please stick to analyzing the blockchain, recent news or the BIT.

OK, but each bid by a syndicate member must have been for less than 2000 BTC.  Otherwise there would be no reason to enter the syndicate, right?

They also said that the bids added to ~120 kBTC, so the average bid was about 1200 BTC.

You are misreading it Jorge, you are confusing number of bids with number of bidders as I pointed out above.
But I don't disagree with your conclusion


There were 18 blocks, so 104 bids from 8 bidders is entirely possible if they bid on individual blocks or staggered their bids

Whichever way you paint it, TBH I can't see anything to get excited about ...
I stand by my original opinion that anyone entering via a syndicate is likely to be bidding lower than an an individual who wanted all/the majority of the coins, who would be IMO highly unlikely to join a syndicate

Indeed.  Perhaps those 8 bidders were themselves syndicates.  

In order to enter the SecondMarket syndicate, a bidder had to send them the full amount of their bid in advance.  So, there might have been a "banker" who collected several bids from other people, on credit, and entered the SM syndicate under his name, with his own money, for a fee.

Alternatiely, such sub-syndicates could be a way to avoid the KYC/AML requirements that USMS imposed on SecondMarket.  SecondMarket would not risk getting in trouble with the law, but the sub-syndicate organizer may not care about that.

SecondMarket had 186 small bidders in their syndicate for the June auction.
https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/secondmarkets-bitcoin-investment-trust-syndicate-won-48000-btc-in-latest-silk-road-bitcoin-auction/
So that statistic droped too.

And they won't say what price they paid.  Not even say "we paid above market for some of the lots", or "we paid very close to market".

Perhaps they don't want the world to think that key players in the bitcoin space are optimistic about bitcoin. Right, that must be it.

This is in direct contradiction to a previous article :

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/12/05/venture-capitalist-tim-draper-wins-small-piece-of-bitcoin-auction/?module=ArrowsNav&contentCollection=Business%20Day&action=keypress®ion=FixedLeft&pgtype=Blogs&_r=0


I think the Silbert consortium had bids for about 125K BTC in total, so 104 people in the syndicate seems extremely unlikely. It would mean that a huge number of them were bidding for less than 1k coins and certainly would not be bidding high.

Just checked ... Silbert tweeted that they had 104 bids, not bidders, for a total of 124,127BTC

https://twitter.com/barrysilbert

OTOH 104 bids seems a lot for 8 people ... perhaps someone should ask him to clarify this

Why would it matter where the bidder (syndicate) got the money, or if the bidder represents many people?

I think the "drop in auction participation" is also inaccurate (not your statement, but the reports of it in the news).  Second Market had a syndicate of 104 people (http://www.coindesk.com/secondmarket-syndicate-bidders-real-winners-bitcoin-auction/) so since they count that as one buyer, it changes the statistics dramatically.

Good to hear that.

No.


Yes, it was a bad presentation.


Me too. This is the latest tweets from Barry regarding the BIT:

https://twitter.com/barrysilbert/status/530175117939056640
https://twitter.com/barrysilbert/status/532381475900227584

Thanks!  

Note that the first article was written in March, when the BTC price chart did not look as bad as it does now.

"This summer" is already gone. Did they open that bitcoin exchange?

According to the first article, only those SMBIT customers who have held shares for more than 12 months will be allowed to offer them for sale on OTCQX.  As people buy those shares, SMBIT will NOT buy more BTC.  

At best, I see the following effects of the OTCQX offering on the BTC market:

(1) when those old clients opt to sell their SMBIT shares on OTCQX instead of liquidating them, SMBIT will not have to sell the corresponding BTC.  It is not clear whether the people who buy at OTCQX will be able to liquidate them at SMBIT immediately, or whether they too will have to wait for one year before doing so.

(2) if the general public rushes to buy SMBIT shares on OTCQX, so that the shares sell at a premium over their face value, other large investors will want to buy shares from SMBIT (which will cause them to buy BTC) in order to sell them on OTCQX.  However those big investors will have to wait for one year before doing so.

I cannot imagine why someone would want to put their money into such a trap. But I cannot imagine why someone would invest in bitcoin either.  Oh well.

The Winkles presented a talk at the Money 20/20 conference recently.  Did you see the reviews?

And I sill would like to know whether that alleged letter from the SEC to SMBIT indeed exists, and what it says.

He had some very competitive bidders to compete with according to this article.

http://www.coindesk.com/secondmarket-syndicate-bidders-real-winners-bitcoin-auction/

O’Connor said the drop in auction participation is no indication of more bearish attitudes, as bidders needed to place competitive bids to edge out the competition.

He concluded:

“I think you had a lot of very serious folks come to the table that had a strong interest in participating and are very bullish on bitcoin in general. That I think is a very serious statement to say.”