Ah, ok ty, my bad SP.

ETF should not be anywhere near powerful enough to change the supercycle structure. Exchange hacks, contentious forks, $50 transactions didn't slow it on the way up. Good news won't help it on the way down.

Could help if bubble 4.0 happens.

Hi all. Not exactly sure where to post this. I'd appreciate any advice.

I bought ether in 2017 on Coinbase which I recently transferred to Bitstamp to sell (I've sold on there before without issues.) Among the many things Bitstamp wants for their KYC compliance is bank statements showing my initial purchase of crypto: how did I get money on Coinbase to purchase the ether in the first place? The answer, that these are profits from online gaming, is one I'm sure they wont like. So basically I have a sizable chunk of (now) USD stuck on there right now and I'm not sure what to tell them. Anybody know what the worst case scenario is here? I'm fine with them closing my account as long as I can get my funds off.

I haven't dealt with that on Bitstamp, but when I couldn't get past Coinbase's compliance review they just closed my account and allowed me to withdraw the crypto/usd I had.

I've told Bitstamp about being a pro poker player and they didn't care. They wanted some proof though. But this was a little while ago.

Appreciate the responses. Has anyone dealt wit them more recently?

I'm guessing they wouldn't really care, they are not US facing. But they have stepped up their KYC a lot recently, and outsourced the process, so you might have to jump through some hoops before they're satisfied.

When using poker sites I always go through binance. They seem to have no issues related to gaming. Then if I need to I will transfer to coinbase from there.

SEC rejected the ETF, at least in part I assume because their prospectus said if the coins get hacked, the investors are shut out of luck and the 'Voss twins arent responsible.

Lolz

There are multiple ETF filings.

Most surprising to me is 1 commissioner dissented:

https://www.sec.gov/news/public-stat...ssent-34-83723

Looks like she takes a narrower view of what aspects the SEC should consider in approval. I thought these were all at close to 0% chance but have to bump that up now.

They rejected it because the price it's based on can be manipulated. Every price can be manipulated to some degree, the question is where the regulators decide to draw the line. This one was pretty obvious, since the price is based on their own exchange, which for one think has very little volume compared to the entire market, and their application has already been rejected twice. As case3, I was much more surprised that there was a dissenting vote.

VanEck doesn't seem super likely to get approved either, that dissent non-withstanding.

The SEC would be signing themselves up for massive headaches for as long as BTC lasts by approving these.

Proshares seems like the only one with a snowball's chance, but functionally if you recognize all the issues with Crypto and its markets, building an ETF on futures isn't hugely different from the coins themselves.

Price has rebounded today

it literally hit my stop loss then jumped up $400. they had to flush out the fish money

Obv at a certain point BTC will trade downward, but it's nice that we had a run up, got bad news, and basically didn't fall off at all.

Why do you think it will trade downward?

Well........... Look at today. Also look at the history of BTC. It's going to swing heavy in both directions.

https://www.reddit.com/r/BitcoinMark..._okex_futures/

^ Very interesting, although admittedly I don't fully understand what's going on.

Unless BTC recovers quickly to $8k, and/or OKex comes to the party to make things right, shorters who are currently in profit will get screwed to the tune of 950 BTC?

Krugman: Why I'm a crypto skeptic.

I haven't seen a couple of his arguments before, or at least not exactly, although that might just reveal my ignorance. I thought the piece was interesting enough to be worth posting.

(One speculative answer to his question about what problems crypto might solve: smart contracts? He might be too focused on the specifics of bitcoin.)

From the Krugmam article:

Quote:

That is, there might be a potential equilibrium in which Bitcoin (although probably not other cryptocurrencies) remain in use mainly for black market transactions and tax evasion, but that equilibrium, if it exists, would be hard to get to from here: once the dream of a blockchained future dies, the disappointment will probably collapse the whole thing.

I posted a link to the Mueller indictment of the Russian military officers. If that indictment shows us anything, it shows us that the US govt certainly can unwind blockchain transactions and determine where money is going. A person deciding to use hide income via the blockchain be forewarned.

BTC isn't anonymous and is entirely traceable. It's a poor substitute for cash in that regard.

Krugman article is predictably awful.

"Money is money because the government has guns and they say it's money"

Bitcoin naysayers never seem to acknowledge the existence of off-shore banking, currently estimated at over $20 trillion.

Peter Schiff, another notable naysayer, was on Rogan recently shilling a website where you can buy gold and transfer it to anyone in the world who also has an account. It's hilarious how close he is to the right answer yet so far.

I think you've missed the point. Here's the paragraph (emphasis added):

In other words: money is money (qua medium of exchange) because some large group of people agree that it is.

The rest is a matter of recognizing that this state of agreement is volatile, and governments enforcing tax laws requiring payment in fiat currency provides some stability to that consensus. But the primary "value" of a dollar as a currency, in the quote above, comes from the fact that people will accept it. That is why he uses the word "entirely" in the way that he does. To put it mildly, this is not a controversial claim.

The point, then, is that bitcoin qua currency doesn't have the benefit of this stability that government-backed fiat currencies have, or the stability provided by its usefulness as something other than currency, as in the comparison to gold. Although here is where my counterargument about smart contracts (or other kinds of crypto-based apps) is relevant.

This seems like a non-sequitur. Do you think Krugman denies that there exists more than one fiat currency? The quote even uses the term "currencies" in the plural. There's nothing in the article that suggests a denial of the existence of off-shore banking, and I have no idea why you think this contradicts anything he said.