Christine Lagarde, head of the International Monetary Fund, has stated that international regulatory action on cryptocurrencies is "inevitable."
https://www.coindesk.com/imf-chief-lagarde-global-cryptocurrency-regulation-is-inevitable/
Topic: Nights Watch by Afrikoin - page 5. (Read 303329 times)
Looking at the comment section under that ZeroHedge article, I must say that the situation is improving. Cryptocurrencies are slowly getting into the minds of people. Even at ZeroHedge.
The report has some interesting tidbits as well but that’s a story for another time. Let me state that I am wondering how JP Morgan thinks that Central Banks/governments can retain dominance of their fiat systems with seniorage if there’s a viable alternative right now. No, suppression is not the right answer
The report has some interesting tidbits as well but that’s a story for another time. Let me state that I am wondering how JP Morgan thinks that Central Banks/governments can retain dominance of their fiat systems with seniorage if there’s a viable alternative right now. No, suppression is not the right answer
yeah,
i like looking at patterns like this. How sentiment changes over time. I remember 4 years ago 90% of comments on zerohedge would crucify bitcoin
remember in 2014 when Christine Lagarde said crypto was trash? 2017, she's all over IMF conferences touting crypto as disruptive
What we shall get is a compromise - a trojan horse of sorts
I dont think crypto fully obliterates central banks, but they defo will lose some control they have now.
Looking at the comment section under that ZeroHedge article, I must say that the situation is improving. Cryptocurrencies are slowly getting into the minds of people. Even at ZeroHedge.
The report has some interesting tidbits as well but that’s a story for another time. Let me state that I am wondering how JP Morgan thinks that Central Banks/governments can retain dominance of their fiat systems with seniorage if there’s a viable alternative right now. No, suppression is not the right answer
The report has some interesting tidbits as well but that’s a story for another time. Let me state that I am wondering how JP Morgan thinks that Central Banks/governments can retain dominance of their fiat systems with seniorage if there’s a viable alternative right now. No, suppression is not the right answer
JPMorgan Publishes The "Bitcoin Bible" | Zero Hedge https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-02-11/jpmorgan-publishes-bitcoin-bible
https://twitter.com/hashdeus/status/962783628928475138https://twitter.com/hashdeus/status/962783628928475138
People thought that Bitanic is unsinkable. It was, until he met the ice block(stream). Change your ship before it is too late
People thought that Bitanic is unsinkable. It was, until he met the ice block(stream). Change your ship before it is too late
60 Minutes takes us inside an ICO whitepaper mill
https://twitter.com/NeerajKA/status/962786781145042944
https://twitter.com/NeerajKA/status/962786781145042944
My 1D bitstamp chart looks like this ...
Drop below bearish channel with high volume looks like probable capitulation and therefore likely reverse back to bullish from here. Strong rebound occurred where would be expected on bottom of the bullish channel marked with dashed lines and also on a horizontal line with the last smaller correction before the run to the peak.
RSI also most oversold its been for several months. This correction has been bigger than I expected which is good and was needed. Better base for the next big bull moves later in the year.
The run up to the peak corresponded to when futures markets were due to start trading. I wonder wether theres been an element of wall st types buying up bitcoin intending to and then slamming back down. (trying to shake out weak hands) Which at the end of it all has left us still in the dashed bull channel.
Drop below bearish channel with high volume looks like probable capitulation and therefore likely reverse back to bullish from here. Strong rebound occurred where would be expected on bottom of the bullish channel marked with dashed lines and also on a horizontal line with the last smaller correction before the run to the peak.
RSI also most oversold its been for several months. This correction has been bigger than I expected which is good and was needed. Better base for the next big bull moves later in the year.
The run up to the peak corresponded to when futures markets were due to start trading. I wonder wether theres been an element of wall st types buying up bitcoin intending to and then slamming back down. (trying to shake out weak hands) Which at the end of it all has left us still in the dashed bull channel.
https://twitter.com/bbands/status/961259796035858433
The evidence suggests the $BTCUSD & most other cryptos have bottomed, most at logical places. Looking for confirmation.
Okay, here is the link for the hearing tomorrow. Note the two PDF documents that have their testimony pre-written out.
https://www.banking.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2018/2/virtual-currencies-the-oversight-role-of-the-u-s-securities-and-exchange-commission-and-the-u-s-commodity-futures-trading-commission
https://www.banking.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/d6c0f0b6-757d-4916-80fd-a43315228060/A2A6C1D8DDBB7AD33EBE63254D80E9E3.giancarlo-testimony-2-6-18b.pdf
https://www.banking.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/a5e72ac6-4f8a-473f-9c9c-e2894573d57d/BF62433A09A9B95A269A29E1FF13D2BA.clayton-testimony-2-6-18.pdf
They basically say, hey ICO's need to be watched so people don't get scammed, but cryptos are spurring technilogical growth and must be protected. In short, it's good news and no crazy regulations!
https://www.banking.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2018/2/virtual-currencies-the-oversight-role-of-the-u-s-securities-and-exchange-commission-and-the-u-s-commodity-futures-trading-commission
https://www.banking.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/d6c0f0b6-757d-4916-80fd-a43315228060/A2A6C1D8DDBB7AD33EBE63254D80E9E3.giancarlo-testimony-2-6-18b.pdf
https://www.banking.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/a5e72ac6-4f8a-473f-9c9c-e2894573d57d/BF62433A09A9B95A269A29E1FF13D2BA.clayton-testimony-2-6-18.pdf
They basically say, hey ICO's need to be watched so people don't get scammed, but cryptos are spurring technilogical growth and must be protected. In short, it's good news and no crazy regulations!
Testimony on “Virtual Currencies: The Oversight Role of the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission and the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission”
by
Jay Clayton
Chairman, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission https://www.banking.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/a5e72ac6-4f8a-473f-9c9c-e2894573d57d/BF62433A09A9B95A269A29E1FF13D2BA.clayton-testimony-2-6-18.pdf
Commission and the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission”
by
Jay Clayton
Chairman, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission https://www.banking.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/a5e72ac6-4f8a-473f-9c9c-e2894573d57d/BF62433A09A9B95A269A29E1FF13D2BA.clayton-testimony-2-6-18.pdf
Digital cash is the ‘killer feature’ in Satoshi white paper, says Bitcoin ABC’s Amaury Sechet
https://coingeek.com/digital-cash-killer-feature-satoshi-white-paper-says-bitcoin-abcs-amaury-sechet-video/
https://coingeek.com/digital-cash-killer-feature-satoshi-white-paper-says-bitcoin-abcs-amaury-sechet-video/
JayJuanGee:
Thanks for the interesting comments.
'Lost dominance' just means that alts have a larger share of market cap, therefore the capital flows that used to drive BTC price are changed in a meaningful way from the driving force they used to be (they have alternative places to go)....... That might or might not be a positive , but it could alter the repeating pattern of the long term chart in some way.
So I just used it as a caveat to say that the fractal nature of the long term chart could be interrupted now (either way)
The term dominance has always been used by Coinmarketcap so should not carry any bias.
I try to choose neutral terms, and it is always interesting to see how they are interpreted : a kind of a straw poll of sentiment.
You are quibbling I guess, but good quibbling often leads to novel ideas. I read your post as finding negatives about BTC in my 'neutral' comments.
These are just semantics. There are always different ways to see price moves. Most people start with a fixed view and interpret charts the way they need to.
Thanks for the interesting comments.
'Lost dominance' just means that alts have a larger share of market cap, therefore the capital flows that used to drive BTC price are changed in a meaningful way from the driving force they used to be (they have alternative places to go)....... That might or might not be a positive , but it could alter the repeating pattern of the long term chart in some way.
So I just used it as a caveat to say that the fractal nature of the long term chart could be interrupted now (either way)
The term dominance has always been used by Coinmarketcap so should not carry any bias.
I try to choose neutral terms, and it is always interesting to see how they are interpreted : a kind of a straw poll of sentiment.
You are quibbling I guess, but good quibbling often leads to novel ideas. I read your post as finding negatives about BTC in my 'neutral' comments.
These are just semantics. There are always different ways to see price moves. Most people start with a fixed view and interpret charts the way they need to.
Majormax: You seem to be assuming that we are in an early 2014 type price dynamics scenario rather than in a early 2013 type scenario... accordingly, you seem to be assuming the beginning of a bear market and we are less than two months into a correction (max retracement currently at 61% from $19,666 to $7625).
There are a lot of folks who are grappling with a prediction in that regard, yet not too many folks are going to assume the beginning of a bear market based on both sparce evidence and less than two month passage of time from our most recent ATH. It seems that you are taking the less likely scenario and assuming it to be the absolute correct one - especially when you are labelling our current status as a "bear market".
In other words, I don't think that it is fair to automatically assume either one scenario over another or even to assume the seemingly less likely scenario of a supposed bear market without a certain degree of evidence to support your seemingly presumptive, at best, labelling.
Agree. Difficult to call which one is correct without further price action.
The lost dominance (over alts) of BTC this time around also clouds the picture, but we have to make some educated guesses, and watch for confirmation.
I understand that I am quibbling here and there with your representations, yet I would like to assert that your framing "BTC's lost dominance over alts" as if it were a negative picture about BTC.. maybe you are not saying that, but your word choice causes those kinds of inferences for me.
Do you recall throughout most of 2017, and perhaps even starting in 2016, there were a shitload of claims attempting to describe negative inferences towards bitcoin regarding the domination index, yet the fact of the matter remains that bitcoin went up a good 20x during these many claims about bitcoin supposedly experiencing meaningful competition. Sure there are dynamics there that show that a lot of money has been pouring into the crypto space, yet I think that frequently there are erroneous claims being made about bitcoin's supposed weakness relative to the price movement of several other coin market cap coins - which frequently are just a bunch a distracting and misleading information - and if Ripple does not demonstrate that fact as an extreme, then there are a lot of misleading aspects regarding dominance and BTC's relative dominance.
Even though money moving around into various coins can have both its good and its bad aspects, I think that there are various bullish scenarios in which the total amount of money in the space shows some additional ability of bitcoin's market cap and price to go up - even while sometimes the implosions and explosions of alts can have short term price impacts on bitcoin, too.
Majormax: I am not arguing that you are oblivious about these confusing, contradictory and even "clouding" as you proclaimed, dynamics, yet I am still quibbling a bit with both your word choice and the fact that you wanted to reiterate it as a possible influential BTC price dynamics factor.
Majormax: You seem to be assuming that we are in an early 2014 type price dynamics scenario rather than in a early 2013 type scenario... accordingly, you seem to be assuming the beginning of a bear market and we are less than two months into a correction (max retracement currently at 61% from $19,666 to $7625).
There are a lot of folks who are grappling with a prediction in that regard, yet not too many folks are going to assume the beginning of a bear market based on both sparce evidence and less than two month passage of time from our most recent ATH. It seems that you are taking the less likely scenario and assuming it to be the absolute correct one - especially when you are labelling our current status as a "bear market".
In other words, I don't think that it is fair to automatically assume either one scenario over another or even to assume the seemingly less likely scenario of a supposed bear market without a certain degree of evidence to support your seemingly presumptive, at best, labelling.
Agree. Difficult to call which one is correct without further price action.
The lost dominance (over alts) of BTC this time around also clouds the picture, but we have to make some educated guesses, and watch for confirmation.
Hey Afrikoin thanks for the updates and what do you think is going to be the local top
Jump to: