Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 13661. (Read 26714974 times)

I read through the Tether manipulation paper. IMO it made two convincing points:

#1 Someone has a habit of doing this:
 - Issuing new USDT
 - Within days, moving that USDT to BitFinex, Bittrex, and/or Poloniex
 - Using that USDT to buy crypto (seemingly a portfolio of BTC & others). They especially like to buy crypto when the price is just below whole numbers.
 - Moving the resulting crypto back to BitFinex
 - Rarely or never selling the crypto for USDT again
 
The authors argue that this is Tether/BitFinex themselves, and I think that this is in fact the most likely explanation. But the authors didn't address the alternative possibility of this being a particularly ham-fisted whale who is a close partner of Tether.

#2 Due to end-of-month trading, Tether has probably always been trading with USD deposited with them (fractional-reserve), though at least until March 2017, USDT was probably not complete monopoly money, since they did go to the effort of achieving an end-of-month USD balance.

The authors also tried to argue some other points which I didn't find convincing.

---

I took the paper's data at face value. There were several points where I thought that they could be cherry-picking data, but it's too difficult to check this sort of thing. Cherry-picking / confirmation bias is especially easy to do with block-chain analysis. And I know for a fact that their method of grouping block-chain transactions is not robust in general, though it probably was sufficient for what they did here.

I've thought for a long time that USDT is almost certainly a scam, and this paper makes me think so even more. Though I was actually a little surprised that this provides evidence (via the end-of-month trading) that USDT ever had any real USD.

The paper estimates that if you removed the USDT issuance events which the paper's authors regard as most likely to be BTC price manipulation, the BTC price would be $4100 as of March 31. But that's based on a whole pile of assumptions; I wouldn't give it much credence. I think that the collapse of USDT will be mostly limited to the obvious direct effects (ie. some exchanges would have major troubles, there'd be many people stuck with worthless USDT, etc.), and there would not somehow be a natural "rollback" of any gains which monopoly-money USDT may have driven. Also, the paper makes clear that all major crypto was affected, often much more than BTC, so this isn't any sort of argument against BTC in particular.

0.00016 in Barcelona

Meritorious^

Very interesting paper Theymos.
My two points:
1. I won't keep a cent in Bitfinex because there's a chance this will end very badly.
2. SHingTF won't result in a BTC price correction. USDT holders will be the ones paying the price. I don't see how things could go differently from this.

---

To anyone thinking BTC price will drop once the USDT shenanigans are exposed:

Imagine there's a small planet of fishermen who use shells as currency. There's a limited supply of shells.

One day an astronaut arrives  from an advanced planet; he carries a secret device which allows him to create several fake shells.
For some weeks the astronaut buys a lot of local diamonds (unique and also limited in supply). He pays with his synthetised shells but the fishermen don't know they're fake and thus his market demand drives the diamonds prices up.

One day the astronaut returns to his planet with the diamonds and then the fishermen find out all the shells he gave them were fake and have now turned to ash.

Will the price of diamonds go down?

Nope.

The fishermen will still use shells to buy diamonds, and astronaut gone or not, there's still the same amount of shells around and the same amount of diamonds.

What happens next? A few possibilities
1. Other astronauts from other planets will come back with fake shells, but hopefully the fishermen won't be fooled (regulations on the crypto market coming next)
2. A proxy will come back to sell the astronaut's diamonds amd he'd be ready to cash them out at a slightly lower price via OTC trades.
3. Fishermen will lose faith in shell-to-diamond trades and will prefer gemstone-to-gemstone P2P trades (raise of dex vs centralized?)
4. The space police will find the astronaut and force him to refund those he gave fake shells to; he might do that with giving them back diamonds or other gemstones.
5. Etc

Oh yeah, well, you're the one equating my discussion of micropayments with the slump in the price of corn, so... yeah.

I read through the Tether manipulation paper. IMO it made two convincing points:

#1 Someone has a habit of doing this:
 - Issuing new USDT
 - Within days, moving that USDT to BitFinex, Bittrex, and/or Poloniex
 - Using that USDT to buy crypto (seemingly a portfolio of BTC & others). They especially like to buy crypto when the price is just below whole numbers.
 - Moving the resulting crypto back to BitFinex
 - Rarely or never selling the crypto for USDT again
 
The authors argue that this is Tether/BitFinex themselves, and I think that this is in fact the most likely explanation. But the authors didn't address the alternative possibility of this being a particularly ham-fisted whale who is a close partner of Tether.

#2 Due to end-of-month trading, Tether has probably always been trading with USD deposited with them (fractional-reserve), though at least until March 2017, USDT was probably not complete monopoly money, since they did go to the effort of achieving an end-of-month USD balance.

The authors also tried to argue some other points which I didn't find convincing.

---

I took the paper's data at face value. There were several points where I thought that they could be cherry-picking data, but it's too difficult to check this sort of thing. Cherry-picking / confirmation bias is especially easy to do with block-chain analysis. And I know for a fact that their method of grouping block-chain transactions is not robust in general, though it probably was sufficient for what they did here.

I've thought for a long time that USDT is almost certainly a scam, and this paper makes me think so even more. Though I was actually a little surprised that this provides evidence (via the end-of-month trading) that USDT ever had any real USD.

The paper estimates that if you removed the USDT issuance events which the paper's authors regard as most likely to be BTC price manipulation, the BTC price would be $4100 as of March 31. But that's based on a whole pile of assumptions; I wouldn't give it much credence. I think that the collapse of USDT will be mostly limited to the obvious direct effects (ie. some exchanges would have major troubles, there'd be many people stuck with worthless USDT, etc.), and there would not somehow be a natural "rollback" of any gains which monopoly-money USDT may have driven. Also, the paper makes clear that all major crypto was affected, often much more than BTC, so this isn't any sort of argument against BTC in particular.

If you have a Whole Foods (Amazon-whiteguilthippiefoodstore)  in your area you might procure yourself a bottle of the Don Simon Cabernet Sauvingnon.

It's currently ~ 0.0006 BTC.  You can afford it.

Bob touting the merits of Lightning Network. Get ready for another leg down.