Topic: If you own 3000 or more Bitcoin, Wall Street wants your advice - page 3. (Read 9891 times)

No.  Again, not true.

He is asking for some criticism on an idea that he cannot tell you about.
The only part he can let you in on is that it will make him a lot of money but he needs to use your assets first.

No -- not soliciting....if I was I am well aware of sources of capital....
I was asking advice on this forum on the viability of something....which is not even an offering at all....I could not and would not even be close to accepting anyone's Bitcoin and never requested to.

Also soliciting roughly $25 million in Bitcoin capital without having a clue where to start? Really?

For some there is no point.  For some there is value in having BTC in a widely recognized format.  Right now the teenage girls clothing store The Limited has more value than all bitcoins on planet earth.   

It's blocks of 50,000 shares of the ETF to basket holders which is a certain category of investors such as broker dealers who become members of that category.

Anyone who thinks this is simple to solve can probably make some easy money by calling the Winkelvoss bros and the regulators and straightening them out-- good bet they'd be glad for the advice .....fact it's, it's not that simple.... it's a major hurdle and I will bet that if the ETF ever is launched it will not be with the same S-1 we see.

Not sure why people are so convinced that there is no possibility anyone has come up with a better model than the ETF ...when clearly it is not working so far.

You are completely and totally incorrect.

"Just" delivering What could be tens of thousands of BTC based on a huge number of transactions, collecting and reconciling which public keys to send the BTC to and matching those keys with account holders is a massive undertaking ....but it's irrelevant because you are totally incorrect anyway.

Redemptions can only be done in blocks of 10000 BTC.  To one entity.

....
Do you think you can buy 1 share of SLV and demand they deliver an ounce to you?

You are completely and totally incorrect.

"Just" delivering What could be tens of thousands of BTC based on a huge number of transactions, collecting and reconciling which public keys to send the BTC to and matching those keys with account holders is a massive undertaking ....but it's irrelevant because you are totally incorrect anyway.

You are completely and totally incorrect.

"Just" delivering What could be tens of thousands of BTC based on a huge number of transactions, collecting and reconciling which public keys to send the BTC to and matching those keys with account holders is a massive undertaking ....but it's irrelevant because you are totally incorrect anyway.

No one has to sell because of ETF redemptions. They just need to deliver BTC to the redeemers.

You really have no fucking idea what you are talking about.

There is more than one way to skin a cat.

There are hundreds if not thousands of ways to create public offerings.

The Winkelvoss are smart guys but as far as I know they have never successfully raised funds for an offering, never been registered or even worked in the investment business and are fairly new to the space.


There are many major disadvantages of an ETF which someone who understands both spaces well can see:

Regulatory-   Despite whatever advice Winkelvoss received from the lawyers they paid to set up the vehicle, ETFs have several regulatory hurdles that other vehicles do not....they are learning this now as they are stuck in regulatory limbo.

Trading redemptions:  ETFs are required to allow DAILY redemptions.....this means that if there is a panic sell/ crash in the market and BTC is down 25% at 1pm ....then, because of that,  $50,000,000 worth of ETF shares are sold by holders of the ETF....then at market close the Winkelvoss would need to sell ANOTHER $50 mm in BTC on the market to meet those redemptions....therefor causing the price to spin further lower....they would not have the luxury of time because the redemptions must be met..this of course causes more of a panic sell, more volatility and is also a logistical nightmare.

Security/ logistics:  because of daily purchases and redemptions the security and logistics issues are significant.   Someone can literally buy $100 mm of the ETF on the market then sell it again the next day.  An EFT would need ready easy access to all those BTC for redemptions totally all holdings backed by public investors because theoretically all those investors could sell.   Securing the private keys AND having easy daily access to them is challenging.   They cannot simply be locked in a safe offsite....every single day there are net redemptions, someone (actually several people) would need to access those keys.  This brings up many other questions of logistics etc.

Volatilty:  because of daily purchases and redemptions, volatility would increase and panic sells would be worsened.

I thought of an ETF a long time ago, long before the Winkelvoss announcement and determined that these flaws and the accounting of private keys for tens of millions of dollars daily would be a logistical hassle -- it's possible the regulators agreed and this is why the ETF is now stuck in limbo.

It's a great idea but I believe there is a better way.

For the vehicle I'm researching it would employ some of the features similar to a REIT, Real Estate investment Trust and could trade daily on the open market but not be subject to daily redemptions (because holders would sell shares to other investors, not the fund as is the case with an ETF).



EDIT / added :  I'm confident there are better options than EFT --  however, the Winkelvoss bros might very well have solved these issues in some way I'm not aware of and their vehicle may not have the need for them to do daily redemptions ---  I won't negatively judge the details without knowing more than what has been listed in their documents because I don't think it's prudent to judge things unless one has facts

As I said earlier, you are making a CEF for bitcoin?

I guess this is the part where you say you can't say what you are doing

There's a lengthy discussion about this from half a year ago available in the Economics section:

I won't bother to pick out all the other quotes illustrating the full range of utter baloney here, but clearly I stand corrected: to rescue your credibility, you'll need to spend a few minutes not just reading up about how the Bitcoin protocol works, but you'll also need to revisit the basics of ETFs and in particular the distinction between Authorized Participants, normal investors, and the fund itself. It would also be worth considering actually reading the Winkelvii's S-1 filing before prognosticating about how you imagine redemptions might work.

There's a lengthy discussion about this from half a year ago available in the Economics section:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.2688380

As I have no involvement in your particular scheme, it doesn't matter a jot to me whether you actually want to rescue your credibility, but I've offered the suggestion -- twice now -- that you're not helping yourself in the least in the eyes of the people you claim to want to reach, and to whom you claim to be able to offer something of value. So just take it as a friendly observation of you shooting yourself in the foot, and if you believe I'm simply wrong about that and want to disregard it or dismiss it entirely, that's your call, and I'll leave it to you to keep shooting.

By now, most or all of the large Bitcoin holders who grok finance will have left this thread, but best of luck with it all anyway. Anything that genuinely improves access and transparency for the wider community is bound to be a good thing.

Trading redemptions:  ETFs are required to allow DAILY redemptions.....this means that if there is a panic sell/ crash in the market and BTC is down 25% at 1pm ....then, because of that,  $50,000,000 worth of ETF shares are sold by holders of the ETF....then at market close the Winkelvoss would need to sell ANOTHER $50 mm in BTC on the market to meet those redemptions....