Pages:
Author

Topic: GBTC Bitcoin Investment Trust Observer - page 72. (Read 262357 times)

hero member
Activity: 910
Merit: 1003
November 10, 2014, 01:08:25 AM
I'm sorry, but "If our data is inaccurrate, then don't use it" isn't a justifiable defense.  If your data is meaningless or misleading, you shouldn't be posting it.  This thread is starting to become the "boy who cried wolf", it is inaccurate so often nowadays, you don't even believe it when you see it.  It's become a joke.  And to continue to post bogus data is dangerous and immoral. 

The thread owner is doing his best to interpret scant data that SMBIT publishes.  If that data is inaccurate or misleading, blame SMBIT.  I don't recall he ever presented this site as anything else, in particular as a trading guide. 

And, by the way, SMBIT is supposed to buy or sell 0.1 BTC whenever the public buys or liquidates one of the fund's shares.  Thus, them buying or selling is independent of what they think the price will do, it only reflects what their customers think.  They are no more likely to have "insider info" than the traders at the exchanges.

This data is very valuable as an indication of the public acceptance of bitcoin funds like SMBIT.  I wish there was similar data for PBP and other funds.  I hope the thread owner continues to post it.
legendary
Activity: 1624
Merit: 1008
November 09, 2014, 11:59:06 PM
Maybe you should use the data directly from secondmarket.
newbie
Activity: 49
Merit: 0
November 09, 2014, 11:45:40 PM
People are literally losing money on these frequent discrepancies, if you can't get it right....stop.

Then don't use the data. Simple.

I'm sorry, but "If our data is inaccurrate, then don't use it" isn't a justifiable defense.  If your data is meaningless or misleading, you shouldn't be posting it.  This thread is starting to become the "boy who cried wolf", it is inaccurate so often nowadays, you don't even believe it when you see it.  It's become a joke.  And to continue to post bogus data is dangerous and immoral. 
legendary
Activity: 1321
Merit: 1007
November 09, 2014, 11:42:51 PM
People are literally losing money on these frequent discrepancies, if you can't get it right....stop.

Then don't use the data. Simple.
newbie
Activity: 49
Merit: 0
November 09, 2014, 11:42:01 PM
If this 7629   buy on November 4th ends up being a dud, this thread needs to quit being updated.  People believe Second Market has insider tips, and therefore buy/sell when they see Second Market doing the same.  

People are literally losing money on these frequent discrepancies, if you can't get it right....STOP.
legendary
Activity: 1792
Merit: 1111
November 05, 2014, 09:36:01 PM
To what extent is their NAV calculation change skewing the data?  It seems the timing matches up with the 7k buy, making me think it's probably not accurate.

Source: https://twitter.com/BitcoinTrust/status/529390214897102848

It seems that the 7k change was not an error.

For the change in NAV calculation, I guess it won't affect my estimation since the change in NAV will also proportionally affect the amount of Total Asset. Anyway, we can't confirm until they announce the actual BTC holding amount again.
hero member
Activity: 910
Merit: 1003
November 05, 2014, 08:46:45 PM
Has anyone checked for correllation between secondmarket published data and market movements? If a correllation exists, does the market tend to lead or follow the publication time?

Back in april I made the following plot, using the data from this thread:



The bitcoin price is 10 times the nominal share value (top red line).  The the pink circles are the actual BTC holdings, as published by SMBIT every now and then.  The blue ascending curve that interpolates those circles is their BTC holdings day by day, as estimated by the Original Poster.  The steps and jerks in that line may be artifacts of the interpolation method. 

I don't think it is viable to correlate their buys with the market movements: the data is too coarse and uncertain for that.
newbie
Activity: 11
Merit: 0
November 05, 2014, 05:30:07 PM
To what extent is their NAV calculation change skewing the data?  It seems the timing matches up with the 7k buy, making me think it's probably not accurate.

Source: https://twitter.com/BitcoinTrust/status/529390214897102848
legendary
Activity: 2324
Merit: 1125
November 05, 2014, 05:02:41 PM
+7716XBT. Mistake again? We will see tomorrow

Has anyone checked for correllation between secondmarket published data and market movements? If a correllation exists, does the market tend to lead or follow the publication time?

Good point and probably it. I have no time to cross reference this now so I'm just going to curiously check back here tomorrow Wink
legendary
Activity: 1615
Merit: 1000
November 05, 2014, 12:46:40 PM
+7716XBT. Mistake again? We will see tomorrow

Has anyone checked for correllation between secondmarket published data and market movements? If a correllation exists, does the market tend to lead or follow the publication time?
legendary
Activity: 1148
Merit: 1001
November 05, 2014, 12:26:35 PM
Interesting. Seems like it could be true considering all the large buys yesterday.

Hopefully they don't change their minds and sell. Wink

legendary
Activity: 896
Merit: 1000
November 05, 2014, 12:19:12 PM
Interesting. Seems like it could be true considering all the large buys yesterday.
legendary
Activity: 1190
Merit: 1001
November 05, 2014, 12:03:29 PM
+7716XBT. Mistake again? We will see tomorrow

Would be nice if true.
sr. member
Activity: 248
Merit: 250
November 05, 2014, 11:29:50 AM
If you take the sum of the changes in estimated BTX Sep 24 to Nov 3, the total change is 418 BTX.  Out of the Nov 3 total of 106840, that is 0.39%.

Also, leaving aside the big errors that appear to be reversed the next day, there is only one change, on Oct 3, that is more than 100.  That one was for 356, and thus comprises most of the total change.

So in addition to the big errors that appear to be reversed the next day, I would posit that everything else is just minor factors in their calculations that aren't visible to us, or small errors.  And that the fund has been closed for both purchases and sales due to an SEC quiet period commencing after Sep 23.
FNG
hero member
Activity: 588
Merit: 500
November 05, 2014, 11:20:38 AM
+7716XBT. Mistake again? We will see tomorrow

wtf...
legendary
Activity: 1792
Merit: 1111
November 05, 2014, 11:04:11 AM
+7716XBT. Mistake again? We will see tomorrow

Thanks for the update.

The +X, followed by -X position changes start to look like a pattern... could you explain what causes those errors? Something in the trust's presentation of the data, or something about your method to calculate their position that leads to it?

The +X is probably just a typo, then the -X is just back to normal

But it's on their side, right?

I'm trying to wrap my head around this: a fund currently sitting on the equivalent of 37M USD is releasing the occasional brochure that contains a typo to the tune of a million or two?

We are in the wild west of finance, aren't we? Tongue

I always double check when I see something strange. So it must be their problem
legendary
Activity: 1470
Merit: 1007
November 05, 2014, 10:42:25 AM
+7716XBT. Mistake again? We will see tomorrow

Thanks for the update.

The +X, followed by -X position changes start to look like a pattern... could you explain what causes those errors? Something in the trust's presentation of the data, or something about your method to calculate their position that leads to it?

The +X is probably just a typo, then the -X is just back to normal

But it's on their side, right?

I'm trying to wrap my head around this: a fund currently sitting on the equivalent of 37M USD is releasing the occasional brochure that contains a typo to the tune of a million or two?

We are in the wild west of finance, aren't we? Tongue
legendary
Activity: 1792
Merit: 1111
November 05, 2014, 09:09:56 AM
+7716XBT. Mistake again? We will see tomorrow

Thanks for the update.

The +X, followed by -X position changes start to look like a pattern... could you explain what causes those errors? Something in the trust's presentation of the data, or something about your method to calculate their position that leads to it?

The +X is probably just a typo, then the -X is just back to normal
legendary
Activity: 1792
Merit: 1111
November 05, 2014, 09:03:19 AM
Figures since May 2014 updated with latest actual holding figure
legendary
Activity: 1470
Merit: 1007
November 05, 2014, 08:54:14 AM
+7716XBT. Mistake again? We will see tomorrow

Thanks for the update.

The +X, followed by -X position changes start to look like a pattern... could you explain what causes those errors? Something in the trust's presentation of the data, or something about your method to calculate their position that leads to it?
Pages:
Jump to: