Hueristic that = 0 
LOL. Just saying.
Topic: r0ach's Cryptomarkets Watch & Scamcoin Observer - page 8. (Read 47262 times)
Hueristic that = 0
Trades on exchanges do not result in coins moving on the blockchain. The exchange just credits a different account with the IOU for that coin.
Never said they did.
But a coin with that much trading volume should have some utility use, which the low transactions indicates it does not.
Which means the Trading Volume is being faked.
Or that people are leaving the coins on Polo as a wallet because they don't want to deal with A CLI.
Then how much "utility" are Monero's having if they are sitting on Poloniex ?
As much utility as any other coin as long as polo is up.
...They seem like such a scam , I have been ignoring them....
I'm with you there, whenever I see all the kiddies flock to a coin I stay away.
It would probably be better if the developers were the manipulators if you trusted them to only use manipulation to support the price and not to wreck the coin.
I explained at the following link that if your developers don't manipulate, then a whale can buy cheap as the token flounders:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.15400907
So who is the manipulator of NEM? Who acquired most of the tokens?
I explained at the following link that if your developers don't manipulate, then a whale can buy cheap as the token flounders:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.15400907
So who is the manipulator of NEM? Who acquired most of the tokens?
They seem like such a scam , I have been ignoring them.
But if anyone knows the 1st exchange to increase in Price it might point toward someone.
Example:
BTC38 XEM/CNY $ 2,303,970 $ 0.012163
If it started on BTC38 , then the Chinese are behind the Pump.
If it started on Poloniex , then the American Pumpers, possibility Goldman Sachs.
Cant wait until the pump team decides to dump on everyones ass - this is going to be the biggest knife drop ive seen in a while.
There just isnt enough liquidity in the order books to get their profit target yet....
There just isnt enough liquidity in the order books to get their profit target yet....
It would probably be better if the developers were the manipulators if you trusted them to only use manipulation to support the price and not to wreck the coin.
I explained at the following link that if your developers don't manipulate, then a whale can buy cheap as the token flounders:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.15400907
So who is the manipulator of NEM? Who acquired most of the tokens?
Trades on exchanges do not result in coins moving on the blockchain. The exchange just credits a different account with the IOU for that coin.
Never said they did.
But a coin with that much trading volume should have some utility use, which the low transactions indicates it does not.
Which means the Trading Volume is being faked.
Or that people are leaving the coins on Polo as a wallet because they don't want to deal with A CLI.
Then how much "utility" are Monero's having if they are sitting on Poloniex ?
Trades on exchanges do not result in coins moving on the blockchain. The exchange just credits a different account with the IOU for that coin.
Never said they did.
But a coin with that much trading volume should have some utility use, which the low transactions indicates it does not.
Which means the Trading Volume is being faked.
Or that people are leaving the coins on Polo as a wallet because they don't want to deal with A CLI.
Trades on exchanges do not result in coins moving on the blockchain. The exchange just credits a different account with the IOU for that coin.
Never said they did.
But a coin with that much trading volume should have some utility use, which the low transactions indicates it does not.
Which means the Trading Volume is being faked.
2. Thus we might as well as accept that manipulation is really just trading. When speculators play, they must understand the rules. And that is there are no rules preventing manipulation. Thus to be competitive, manipulation is part of the game.
Considering that out of 22 Monero markets , 17 of those Markets are on Poloniex.
I would speculate that Poloniex itself is manipulating Monero to their Trading Advantage.
Especially considering the average transactions per block on Monero is not usually over 4.
I expect to see a much higher transactions count for a coin truly trading $ 174,571 of volume per day.
Trades on exchanges do not result in coins moving on the blockchain. The exchange just credits a different account with the IOU for that coin.
2. Thus we might as well as accept that manipulation is really just trading. When speculators play, they must understand the rules. And that is there are no rules preventing manipulation. Thus to be competitive, manipulation is part of the game.
Considering that out of 22 Monero markets , 17 of those Markets are on Poloniex.
I would speculate that Poloniex itself is manipulating Monero to their Trading Advantage.
Especially considering the average transactions per block on Monero is not usually over 4.
I expect to see a much higher transactions count for a coin truly trading $ 174,571 of volume per day.
Request for comments?
Wow! So manipulation or die in your opinion?
I am thinking tokeweed is correct:
It is obvious that the high volume are the insiders buying from themselves in order to control the market price.
The way this works is that if you flood the exchange with high bids and high asks, then the small volume of actually lower asks is insignificant and minor cost for the insider. For example let's say the insider is 99% of the volume (using Sybil identities on the exchange), then the 1% that wants to sell is an insignificant cost to the insider, because the manipulation of the price drives more speculator demand on the bid side than on the ask side.
So in this way, the insider is actually unloading tokens at higher and higher prices. This games goes on until the insiders have unloaded their tokens at nosebleed prices. Then it collapses.
In Ethereum's case, it was alleged by the Dao attacker that the insiders are using their tokens as margin to do margin trades to provide more upside price leverage manipulation. So first you use your tokens buying from yourself to pump up the price, then you use your ETH to short the ETH price, and start selling tokens rapidly to cause a crash in price. You cover your shorts, and repeat the process again driving the price up. But you don't crash the price too far, so as to keep the dream alive. Having very good marketing also helps.
This is why we often see a huge decline in the price after the initial ICO pump, as this enables the insiders to accumulate tokens very cheaply and then the upward price manipulation begins.
Note the insiders need to make sure they are the only large holders, so no one can compete with them and for example sell into their pump.
It seems if you don't do this manipulation, then your token will be scorned by speculators and your reputation as altcoin developers will be tarnished.
The developers if they are honest, will take their funding and continue to work hard. The market manipulators are going to come in and buy up any good coin and pump it. The only way to stop that would be for the developer (and/or the community) to hold the coins tight fisted, but then this creates a dead market such as Monero which has never seen more than 4X gain after the initial pump by rpietila.
So what can an honest developer do
He has no choice but to let the speculators have what they want. The important thing is the developer is funded and able to drive the ecosystem to success. If so, then the downside price crash will be limited or at least a great buying opportunity. Fundamental development (coding) and marketing matters.
But alas, DEX is going to be scorned because the manipulators can't operate there. Or can they? Speculators will go where the (manipulated) volume is.
Speculators learn to play the game.
Wow! So manipulation or die in your opinion?
Nope, I'm neutral. But that's reality. It's all I'm saying.
I had sort of religious transformation of sorts and come out of my dogmatic cave to see the light of day.
1. When no whale is supporting the volume and price by manipulating with his tokens, then the price will decline and thus a whale will be able to accumulate low and then begin manipulating. So preventing manipulation is really difficult. Monero seems to have been able to do it, by selling "holier than thou" Jim Jones koolaid locking their supporters into a perpetually underperforming token but most other tokens aren't able to achieve this Zen masochism:
http://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/monero/
Note XMR has good volume though. So it has apparently some savvy traders who employ leverage.
2. Thus we might as well as accept that manipulation is really just trading. When speculators play, they must understand the rules. And that is there are no rules preventing manipulation. Thus to be competitive, manipulation is part of the game.
3. A coin developer has the choice of letting someone else do the manipulation for him (e.g. Bobsurplus and destroy the token such as Bitbay), or do it themselves so as to more beneficially maximize the long-term value of the token and project.
I do not exactly know what goes on behind the scenes when a coin/token gets listed but you'll know that a team behind a platform knows what their doing because the maintained volume for their coins is always high right from the beginning. A prime example of this is Ethereum.
It would be naive to think that the market activity will just come without some kind of manipulation going on to jump start trading.
It would be naive to think that the market activity will just come without some kind of manipulation going on to jump start trading.
Wow! So manipulation or die in your opinion?
I am thinking tokeweed is correct:
Thanks for the links and discussion. I still can not for the life of me wrap my head around the "volume" of alt coins traded recently. With no transparency into these exchanges, we have no idea what is going on behind the scenes. I'll put dollars to doughnuts there is more then meets the eye.
It is obvious that the high volume are the insiders buying from themselves in order to control the market price.
The way this works is that if you flood the exchange with high bids and high asks, then the small volume of actually lower asks is insignificant and minor cost for the insider. For example let's say the insider is 99% of the volume (using Sybil identities on the exchange), then the 1% that wants to sell is an insignificant cost to the insider, because the manipulation of the price drives more speculator demand on the bid side than on the ask side.
So in this way, the insider is actually unloading tokens at higher and higher prices. This games goes on until the insiders have unloaded their tokens at nosebleed prices. Then it collapses.
In Ethereum's case, it was alleged by the Dao attacker that the insiders are using their tokens as margin to do margin trades to provide more upside price leverage manipulation. So first you use your tokens buying from yourself to pump up the price, then you use your ETH to short the ETH price, and start selling tokens rapidly to cause a crash in price. You cover your shorts, and repeat the process again driving the price up. But you don't crash the price too far, so as to keep the dream alive. Having very good marketing also helps.
This is why we often see a huge decline in the price after the initial ICO pump, as this enables the insiders to accumulate tokens very cheaply and then the upward price manipulation begins.
Note the insiders need to make sure they are the only large holders, so no one can compete with them and for example sell into their pump.
It seems if you don't do this manipulation, then your token will be scorned by speculators and your reputation as altcoin developers will be tarnished.
The developers if they are honest, will take their funding and continue to work hard. The market manipulators are going to come in and buy up any good coin and pump it. The only way to stop that would be for the developer (and/or the community) to hold the coins tight fisted, but then this creates a dead market such as Monero which has never seen more than 4X gain after the initial pump by rpietila.
So what can an honest developer do
He has no choice but to let the speculators have what they want. The important thing is the developer is funded and able to drive the ecosystem to success. If so, then the downside price crash will be limited or at least a great buying opportunity. Fundamental development (coding) and marketing matters.But alas, DEX is going to be scorned because the manipulators can't operate there. Or can they? Speculators will go where the (manipulated) volume is.
Speculators learn to play the game.
I do not exactly know what goes on behind the scenes when a coin/token gets listed but you'll know that a team behind a platform knows what their doing because the maintained volume for their coins is always high right from the beginning. A prime example of this is Ethereum.
It would be naive to think that the market activity will just come without some kind of manipulation going on to jump start trading.
It would be naive to think that the market activity will just come without some kind of manipulation going on to jump start trading.
Wow! So manipulation or die in your opinion?
Nope, I'm neutral. But that's reality. It's all I'm saying.
I had sort of religious transformation of sorts and come out of my dogmatic cave to see the light of day.
1. When no whale is supporting the volume and price by manipulating with his tokens, then the price will decline and thus a whale will be able to accumulate low and then begin manipulating. So preventing manipulation is really difficult. Monero seems to have been able to do it, by selling "holier than thou" Jim Jones koolaid locking their supporters into a perpetually underperforming token but most other tokens aren't able to achieve this Zen masochism:
http://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/monero/
Note XMR has good volume though. So it has apparently some savvy traders who employ leverage.
2. Thus we might as well as accept that manipulation is really just trading. When speculators play, they must understand the rules. And that is there are no rules preventing manipulation. Thus to be competitive, manipulation is part of the game.
3. A coin developer has the choice of letting someone else do the manipulation for him (e.g. Bobsurplus and destroy the token such as Bitbay), or do it themselves so as to more beneficially maximize the long-term value of the token and project.
My opinion of NEM (since this is supposed to be a watch thread per the new thread title):
Chillax. No worries, as altcoins are always manipulated pumps (otherwise they are scorned market failures):
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.15390617
It is not particular criticism of NEM. It is just the way altcoin speculation is. Fundamental developments don't matter as much as price manipulation. Gold fever. Get rich quick.
So it really doesn't matter if Proof-of-Importance is just technobabble obfuscation of Proof-of-stake. Technology isn't really the #1 important factor. Manipulated upward price is.
Giving away stake is a good way of insuring the tokens end up concentrated with a manipulator. Either they are given directly to the manipulator, or those who received them free then dump them and the manipulator buys them for peanuts.
The manipulator was accumulating when NEM was below $1m mcap for 1 year:
http://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/nem/
Except that it is all fluff and not substance. For example, Proof-of-Importance is just a way of repacking Proof-of-stake to fool investors:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.15400658
Also they claim mass adoption goal, but can't explain why technically they should reach that goal:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.15401240
So we must trust you.
So just like how Mark Karpeles was our hero until he wasn't?
Why didn't you make a WoT to codify the level of decentralized trust in the system, so the decentralized trust is more verifiable.
What are the names of all these people I am asked to trust? Who trusts whom within that? What are their backgrounds and past performances? Etc...
Again I am not making accusations. I am just suggesting that if you want the market to trust you, you should be able to show information that helps to establish the trust.
i never asked for anyone to trust myself or anyone else. i just gave my opinion on the matter. you can trust my opinion if you wish or your can do your home work. either way, you will find nem is quite a lot different to any other crypto in many many ways. it really does buck the trend. what you take from my post is entirely up to you.
I am just making the point that trust has nothing to do with it. Your "Proof-of-importance" (don't tell anyone it is really just proof-of-stake) technology has nothing to do with it.
The price is moving up because someone is manipulating the price.
wrt PoI, Here is the formula.
The importance score, ψ, is calculated as follows:
ψ = (normalize1(max(0, ν + σwo)) + ˆπwi)χ
where:
normalize1(v) is: vkvk
ν is the vested amount of XEM
σ is the weighted, net outlinking XEM
πˆis the NCDawareRank score
χ is a weighting vector that considers the structural topology of the graph
wo, wi are suitable constants
as you can see, "v" which could be considered the proof of stake part of the algorithm, is a part, but not the only part, nor is it the majority. so no it is not proof of stake, but it is a component in the overall algorithm.
"The price is moving up because someone is manipulating the price." -> is any buy on any market anything less than intentional or unintentional market manipulation? i have no interest with disputing whether it is market manipulation or not. if that is your opinion then so be it. its not my loss.
The reputation/rank aspect is just proof-of-stake in transactions. It has the same properties of proof-of-stake wherein your stake determines how much rank you realistically have (and not just lose it all to transaction fees).
Yes everything is a "manipulation" (i.e. a trade), but the difference is that in order to move a price up vertically like that requires significant concentration of the tokens into one manipulator's control. That isn't necessarily bad or good, depending on your perspective of good and bad. It carries certain risks, which include that the manipulator can crash the price when he is ready to short.
I am just advocating honesty:
1. NEM doesn't have any new technology. It is a rehash of same old technology.
2. NEM's price is being manipulated to the upside as of this moment by someone with control over most of the float.
You don't need to take that as an insult or criticism. Just take it as a being fair and factual.
1. Yeah it might have some minor features that other coins don't have. Please explain why these are really important and justify a $133m mcap.
2. The chart of a non-manipulated coin looks like the following with never getting more than 4X gain off any low (note rpietila caused the spike at the start):
http://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/monero/
Ask for proof also. Words are meaningless.
Well, I very well undertand the concept of proof, but an "official" number from a trusted team member would be satisfying for me at the moment.
How do we know they aren't Sybils for the same entity? How do we know they didn't sell cheap to the manipulator?
See I think the bottom line value will be the actual technology of the project. The price will rise high and then crash to the true value in the project.
Please explain how NEM can scale to 1000s or millions of transactions per second?
What features does NEM have which make it the coin for the masses?
1 was wrong
2 was uncertain
1. I was correct.
2. I'm certain. See the 16,000 BTC volume on a $123m mcap, versus say for example 276 BTC for Monero on a $17m mcap. That is the manipulator buying from himself.
People getting mad because they put down NEM and now look at the results of hard work and patience.
Chillax. No worries, as altcoins are always manipulated pumps (otherwise they are scorned market failures):
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.15390617
It is not particular criticism of NEM. It is just the way altcoin speculation is. Fundamental developments don't matter as much as price manipulation. Gold fever. Get rich quick.
So it really doesn't matter if Proof-of-Importance is just technobabble obfuscation of Proof-of-stake. Technology isn't really the #1 important factor. Manipulated upward price is.
Giving away stake is a good way of insuring the tokens end up concentrated with a manipulator. Either they are given directly to the manipulator, or those who received them free then dump them and the manipulator buys them for peanuts.
The manipulator was accumulating when NEM was below $1m mcap for 1 year:
http://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/nem/
Whitepaper is very well written. Finished reading it today. See here: http://nem.io/NEM_techRef.pdf
Except that it is all fluff and not substance. For example, Proof-of-Importance is just a way of repacking Proof-of-stake to fool investors:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.15400658
Also they claim mass adoption goal, but can't explain why technically they should reach that goal:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.15401240
i know its very easy to assume that there MUST be some kind of deviousness involved somewhere along the line, but that has never been the case with nem. its a major reason why i supported nem wholeheartedly from the beginning and will continue to do so for years to come.
So we must trust you.
So just like how Mark Karpeles was our hero until he wasn't?
Why didn't you make a WoT to codify the level of decentralized trust in the system, so the decentralized trust is more verifiable.
What are the names of all these people I am asked to trust? Who trusts whom within that? What are their backgrounds and past performances? Etc...
Again I am not making accusations. I am just suggesting that if you want the market to trust you, you should be able to show information that helps to establish the trust.
i never asked for anyone to trust myself or anyone else. i just gave my opinion on the matter. you can trust my opinion if you wish or your can do your home work. either way, you will find nem is quite a lot different to any other crypto in many many ways. it really does buck the trend. what you take from my post is entirely up to you.
I am just making the point that trust has nothing to do with it. Your "Proof-of-importance" (don't tell anyone it is really just proof-of-stake) technology has nothing to do with it.
The price is moving up because someone is manipulating the price.
wrt PoI, Here is the formula.
The importance score, ψ, is calculated as follows:
ψ = (normalize1(max(0, ν + σwo)) + ˆπwi)χ
where:
normalize1(v) is: vkvk
ν is the vested amount of XEM
σ is the weighted, net outlinking XEM
πˆis the NCDawareRank score
χ is a weighting vector that considers the structural topology of the graph
wo, wi are suitable constants
as you can see, "v" which could be considered the proof of stake part of the algorithm, is a part, but not the only part, nor is it the majority. so no it is not proof of stake, but it is a component in the overall algorithm.
"The price is moving up because someone is manipulating the price." -> is any buy on any market anything less than intentional or unintentional market manipulation? i have no interest with disputing whether it is market manipulation or not. if that is your opinion then so be it. its not my loss.
The reputation/rank aspect is just proof-of-stake in transactions. It has the same properties of proof-of-stake wherein your stake determines how much rank you realistically have (and not just lose it all to transaction fees).
Yes everything is a "manipulation" (i.e. a trade), but the difference is that in order to move a price up vertically like that requires significant concentration of the tokens into one manipulator's control. That isn't necessarily bad or good, depending on your perspective of good and bad. It carries certain risks, which include that the manipulator can crash the price when he is ready to short.
I am just advocating honesty:
1. NEM doesn't have any new technology. It is a rehash of same old technology.
2. NEM's price is being manipulated to the upside as of this moment by someone with control over most of the float.
You don't need to take that as an insult or criticism. Just take it as a being fair and factual.
I must correct you:
1) NEM has some unique features. As an example the only multisig implementation where you can add and remove cosigners.
2) how can you be sure of manipulation? You are just supposing it.
1) NEM has some unique features. As an example the only multisig implementation where you can add and remove cosigners.
2) how can you be sure of manipulation? You are just supposing it.
1. Yeah it might have some minor features that other coins don't have. Please explain why these are really important and justify a $133m mcap.
2. The chart of a non-manipulated coin looks like the following with never getting more than 4X gain off any low (note rpietila caused the spike at the start):
http://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/monero/
How many NEM coin are in circulation and not hold by the NEM team? I am not sure if the total marketcap is fake. Thanks for giving an accurate answer.
Ask for proof also. Words are meaningless.
Well, I very well undertand the concept of proof, but an "official" number from a trusted team member would be satisfying for me at the moment.
If I remember rightly distribution to regular humanoids was somewhere around the 71% mark.
https://forum.nem.io/t/nem-distribution-stats/811
https://forum.nem.io/t/nem-distribution-stats/811
How do we know they aren't Sybils for the same entity? How do we know they didn't sell cheap to the manipulator?
See I think the bottom line value will be the actual technology of the project. The price will rise high and then crash to the true value in the project.
NEM is for the masses, not just those who roam in these boards.
Please explain how NEM can scale to 1000s or millions of transactions per second?
What features does NEM have which make it the coin for the masses?
1. NEM doesn't have any new technology. It is a rehash of same old technology.
2. NEM's price is being manipulated to the upside as of this moment by someone with control over most of the float.
2. NEM's price is being manipulated to the upside as of this moment by someone with control over most of the float.
1 was wrong
2 was uncertain
1. I was correct.
2. I'm certain. See the 16,000 BTC volume on a $123m mcap, versus say for example 276 BTC for Monero on a $17m mcap. That is the manipulator buying from himself.
Dollar rally still ahead (Q4 2016?), and possible lower lows in gold and corrections in crypto-currencies:
Ehmm, did you notice the XEM mega rally?SC strong rally?
NXT went more than x4 (900 -> 4200)
My point is that when BTC consolidates, ALTs make party.
That will not change soon I think....
I still see more upside for all CCs for another few months. Again I think the upside for BTC for this run is $1200ish (the prior top should be resistance).
All I am saying is that Q4ish we have the threat of the dollar rally igniting...
TPTB_needswar: That's not to say it will continue but unless there is some miraculous central bank inspired magic trick coming, how does gold plummet after this?
Strong dollar = crashing gold (at least initially)
Trump victory will also support a strong dollar.
Dollar rally still ahead (Q4 2016?), and possible lower lows in gold and corrections in crypto-currencies:
Ehmm, did you notice the XEM mega rally?SC strong rally?
NXT went more than x4 (900 -> 4200)
My point is that when BTC consolidates, ALTs make party.
That will not change soon I think....
I still see more upside for all CCs for another few months. Again I think the upside for BTC for this run is $1200ish (the prior top should be resistance and perhaps we get a retest of the this cup handle as support before blasting through $1200 later next year).
Some are diversifying BTC and ETH gains now. And the manipulators/bottraders are out in full force to capitalize on the opportunity.
All I am saying is that Q4ish we have the threat of the dollar rally igniting...
TPTB_needswar: That's not to say it will continue but unless there is some miraculous central bank inspired magic trick coming, how does gold plummet after this?
Strong dollar = crashing gold (at least initially)
Trump victory will also support a strong dollar.
Recap..
Bitcoin rockets up in value.
What happens ?
We can't know.. it's 50/50
Anyone who says otherwise is full o shit and an idiot.. or deceitful. (or both)
Bitcoin rockets up in value.
What happens ?
We can't know.. it's 50/50
Anyone who says otherwise is full o shit and an idiot.. or deceitful. (or both)
I give you the 1st quote in this forum.
At any second between now and August there's going to be a nuclear explosion of alts cratering:
Point of Clarification: So by conclusion You are saying:
r0ach is full o shit and an idiot.. or deceitful. (or both)
Dollar rally still ahead (Q4 2016?), and possible lower lows in gold and corrections in crypto-currencies:
Ehmm, did you notice the XEM mega rally?SC strong rally?
NXT went more than x4 (900 -> 4200)
My point is that when BTC consolidates, ALTs make party.
That will not change soon I think....
This is no rule.
I have witnessed LOTS over the years when BTC went up in price a lot
every single altcoin tanked hard in price.
I think they reason why this happens and other times it don't
is because the markets have become far more manipulated than they were 3 years ago.
These days the coins are controlled by rich whales who manipulate the prices at will.
..where as in 2013 it was by the combined power of the little guys.
So i disagree with your comment and seen it play out on Cryptsy etc for years.
I was there day trading 24/7 while it went down so i know.
Recap..
Bitcoin rockets up in value.
What happens ?
We can't know.. it's 50/50
Anyone who says otherwise is full o shit and an idiot.. or deceitful. (or both)
Dollar rally still ahead (Q4 2016?), and possible lower lows in gold and corrections in crypto-currencies:
Ehmm, did you notice the XEM mega rally?SC strong rally?
NXT went more than x4 (900 -> 4200)
My point is that when BTC consolidates, ALTs make party.
That will not change soon I think....
Dollar rally still ahead (Q4 2016?), and possible lower lows in gold and corrections in crypto-currencies:
I'm not sure if anyone has posted this, but this is what he wrote on June 17th in his private blog @ ask-socrates.com:
"The Dow reacted strong back from the brink, but it was not quite strong enough just yet. The Weekly Bullish now stands at 17915 and the Weekly Bearish is 17580 on our minor model. The Daily Bullish Reversal stands at 17900 and the Daily Bearish Reversal lies at 17437.
We do have a Minor Monthly Bearish at 17579 and a June closing beneath 17790 will indicate the market is still positioned neutrally. This is the same number showing up on indicators for the Quarterly timing level. A June closing beneath 17037 will signal a break to retest the support perhaps creating a September low.
To imply a breakout requires a June closing above 18137.50 to hint that we may run into a September high crossing the 20,000 level."
For me the way I interpreted this was to short the market under the assumption that we would either elect those reversals or come very near to electing them (basically viewing them as a target), and hold over the weekend if it looked like the numbers were going to be elected as Friday came to a close. On late Friday afternoon we were still well below his weekly reversal of 17580, so I held UVXY and sold it today over 16$. That's over a 40% profit.
The reason I sold is because I expect the DOW to rise back up to test his Minor Monthly Bearish reversals @ 17579 by Thursday, and because common sense simply tells me that markets tend to consolidate after big swings like that. Holding over the weekend was somewhat risky (I hate holding over the weekend), but according to his 1% rule (which basically says the narrower you elect the reversal by, the stronger the signal) I was relatively safe to assume there would be a little bit more energy pushing the market slightly lower on Monday's opening.
This worked perfectly for me, so I'm really having trouble understanding all the scepticism here. Martin's reversal system seems to work.
Quote
"The Dow reacted strong back from the brink, but it was not quite strong enough just yet. The Weekly Bullish now stands at 17915 and the Weekly Bearish is 17580 on our minor model. The Daily Bullish Reversal stands at 17900 and the Daily Bearish Reversal lies at 17437.
We do have a Minor Monthly Bearish at 17579 and a June closing beneath 17790 will indicate the market is still positioned neutrally. This is the same number showing up on indicators for the Quarterly timing level. A June closing beneath 17037 will signal a break to retest the support perhaps creating a September low.
To imply a breakout requires a June closing above 18137.50 to hint that we may run into a September high crossing the 20,000 level."
For me the way I interpreted this was to short the market under the assumption that we would either elect those reversals or come very near to electing them (basically viewing them as a target), and hold over the weekend if it looked like the numbers were going to be elected as Friday came to a close. On late Friday afternoon we were still well below his weekly reversal of 17580, so I held UVXY and sold it today over 16$. That's over a 40% profit.
The reason I sold is because I expect the DOW to rise back up to test his Minor Monthly Bearish reversals @ 17579 by Thursday, and because common sense simply tells me that markets tend to consolidate after big swings like that. Holding over the weekend was somewhat risky (I hate holding over the weekend), but according to his 1% rule (which basically says the narrower you elect the reversal by, the stronger the signal) I was relatively safe to assume there would be a little bit more energy pushing the market slightly lower on Monday's opening.
This worked perfectly for me, so I'm really having trouble understanding all the scepticism here. Martin's reversal system seems to work.
i think there are many tricks. you can smash down the buy book and trigger stop loss and get back in cheaper. bots by back up the price with low volume
r0ach what do you think? I say tokeweed is correct:
It is obvious that the high volume are the insiders buying from themselves in order to control the market price.
The way this works is that if you flood the exchange with high bids and high asks, then the small volume of actually lower asks is insignificant and minor cost for the insider. For example let's say the insider is 99% of the volume (using Sybil identities on the exchange), then the 1% that wants to sell is an insignificant cost to the insider, because the manipulation of the price drives more speculator demand on the bid side than on the ask side.
So in this way, the insider is actually unloading tokens at higher and higher prices. This games goes on until the insiders have unloaded their tokens at nosebleed prices. Then it collapses.
In Ethereum's case, it was alleged by the Dao attacker that the insiders are using their tokens as margin to do margin trades to provide more upside price leverage manipulation. So first you use your tokens buying from yourself to pump up the price, then you use your ETH to short the ETH price, and start selling tokens rapidly to cause a crash in price. You cover your shorts, and repeat the process again driving the price up. But you don't crash the price too far, so as to keep the dream alive. Having very good marketing also helps.
This is why we often see a huge decline in the price after the initial ICO pump, as this enables the insiders to accumulate tokens very cheaply and then the upward price manipulation begins.
Note the insiders need to make sure they are the only large holders, so no one can compete with them and for example sell into their pump.
It seems if you don't do this manipulation, then your token will be scorned by speculators and your reputation as altcoin developers will be tarnished.
The developers if they are honest, will take their funding and continue to work hard. The market manipulators are going to come in and buy up any good coin and pump it. The only way to stop that would be for the developer (and/or the community) to hold the coins tight fisted, but then this creates a dead market such as Monero which has never seen more than 4X gain after the initial pump by rpietila.
So what can an honest developer do He has no choice but to let the speculators have what they want. The important thing is the developer is funded and able to drive the ecosystem to success. If so, then the downside price crash will be limited or at least a great buying opportunity. Fundamental development (coding) and marketing matters.
But alas, DEX is going to be scorned because the manipulators can't operate there. Or can they? Speculators will go where the (manipulated) volume is.
Speculators learn to play the game.
Thanks for the links and discussion. I still can not for the life of me wrap my head around the "volume" of alt coins traded recently. With no transparency into these exchanges, we have no idea what is going on behind the scenes. I'll put dollars to doughnuts there is more then meets the eye.
It is obvious that the high volume are the insiders buying from themselves in order to control the market price.
The way this works is that if you flood the exchange with high bids and high asks, then the small volume of actually lower asks is insignificant and minor cost for the insider. For example let's say the insider is 99% of the volume (using Sybil identities on the exchange), then the 1% that wants to sell is an insignificant cost to the insider, because the manipulation of the price drives more speculator demand on the bid side than on the ask side.
So in this way, the insider is actually unloading tokens at higher and higher prices. This games goes on until the insiders have unloaded their tokens at nosebleed prices. Then it collapses.
In Ethereum's case, it was alleged by the Dao attacker that the insiders are using their tokens as margin to do margin trades to provide more upside price leverage manipulation. So first you use your tokens buying from yourself to pump up the price, then you use your ETH to short the ETH price, and start selling tokens rapidly to cause a crash in price. You cover your shorts, and repeat the process again driving the price up. But you don't crash the price too far, so as to keep the dream alive. Having very good marketing also helps.
This is why we often see a huge decline in the price after the initial ICO pump, as this enables the insiders to accumulate tokens very cheaply and then the upward price manipulation begins.
Note the insiders need to make sure they are the only large holders, so no one can compete with them and for example sell into their pump.
It seems if you don't do this manipulation, then your token will be scorned by speculators and your reputation as altcoin developers will be tarnished.
The developers if they are honest, will take their funding and continue to work hard. The market manipulators are going to come in and buy up any good coin and pump it. The only way to stop that would be for the developer (and/or the community) to hold the coins tight fisted, but then this creates a dead market such as Monero which has never seen more than 4X gain after the initial pump by rpietila.
So what can an honest developer do
He has no choice but to let the speculators have what they want. The important thing is the developer is funded and able to drive the ecosystem to success. If so, then the downside price crash will be limited or at least a great buying opportunity. Fundamental development (coding) and marketing matters.But alas, DEX is going to be scorned because the manipulators can't operate there. Or can they? Speculators will go where the (manipulated) volume is.
Speculators learn to play the game.
Jump to: