Welcome to NexusFi: the best trading community on the planet, with over 150,000 members Sign Up Now for Free
Genuine reviews from real traders, not fake reviews from stealth vendors
Quality education from leading professional traders
We are a friendly, helpful, and positive community
We do not tolerate rude behavior, trolling, or vendors advertising in posts
We are here to help, just let us know what you need
You'll need to register in order to view the content of the threads and start contributing to our community. It's free for basic access, or support us by becoming an Elite Member -- see if you qualify for a discount below.
-- Big Mike, Site Administrator
(If you already have an account, login at the top of the page)
Trading: Primarily Energy but also a little Equities, Fixed Income, Metals and Crypto.
Frequency: Many times daily
Duration: Never
Posts: 5,051 since Dec 2013
Thanks Given: 4,391
Thanks Received: 10,208
Just watched an interesting interview on RealVision TV where Michael Green of Thiel Macro sat down with Dan Morehead and Joey Krug of the blockchain investment fund Pantera Capital.
At one point Michael asks...
Would you be surprised if Bitcoin went to zero over the next 5 years?
To which they answered
I'd be extrememly surprised if a basket of cryptocurrencies was not worth a lot of money in 5-10 years. Bitcoin vs Bitcoin cash vs Etherium, there's lots of arguments on all of them, they are all different and have different parameters, and any one of those could potentially go to zero, but as a whole if you have half of dozen them it's very unlikely.
Interesting perspective - one that I'm beginning to come around to myself - question is whether its still too early. Have to remember Amazon wasn't founded until 94, Google '98 while the initial internet leaders like AOL (1983), Compuserve (1969) are no longer dominant players if they have survived at all.
Skepticism about cryptos seems to have died down a bit.
Here's something that may justify ramping it up some -- an academic paper that examined millions of transactions and found patterns that suggest that manipulation in Bitcoin and others contributed to their advance:
The price reaction to MT GOX news was based on initial positive reaction that MT GOX selling was not an immediate risk factor followed by subsequent bearish sentiment and recognition that the latest news also means that the issue won't be fully resolved until Feb 2019. If traders were anticipating a sooner resolution the news could be paradoxically interpreted as bearish, i.e. another uncertainty now hanging over the market for a longer period of time.
Looking back to the point (end of November 2017) when i created this thread when BTC was hoovering at the 12.000$ level, we have now made a full 50% correction. While DLT is here to stay and one of the future promising technologies, i am still not convinced of the fundamental value that some of those current crypto's have received based on their market cap.
In order to sustain the value a few issues need to be addressed :
- where to complain / recuperate in case of a hack (broad statement), each is responsible for the security of his own system, but in some cases you could loose your asset due to fault of a 3rd party of a loophole in the techno..
- efficiency and speed are not yet comparable to mainstream systems, while this will gradually fade away, there is still a long way to go
- some of the ICO offers where in 'wild-west' style, no regulatory oversight, this is asking for trouble sooner or later
For those people who were believing in a get rich quick scenario, they are not thee yet, that was the initial point of my post in december :
I have to say that probably just under 100% of the trading activity in various blockchain/DLT coins was probably only about getting rich quick. I'm not sure how close it has been to 100, but I imagine it was very close.
As to the long-term value of the concept, I have no idea.
I think that the original impetus was to have a currency that was not issued by or dependent on a government or any repository, such as a bank. All of the issues you list are essentially due to there being no place to go for relief, and no entity, such as a bank, that actually has your money and is responsible to you for it. There is a downside to decentralization.
The future, of course, is never clear until it comes, so who knows what will eventually succeed in the marketplace.
I do think that the perception of "Hey, look how it's going up, let me get in on this" was the principal motive for most market participation, so far.
(Of course, that's also usually the principal reason for participation in any market, but then we know that most traders lose money. I think this phenomenon just took more money away from them, faster. )
I think most of the developments on BTC have been bullish over the past year except for regulation. I think the regulations are the real problem. If you look at positive developments, it had futures listing, tracking by mainstream financial sites, tracking/following by institutional investors, etc. These are all signs of a true global phenomena. I suspect most of the bearishness is due to increased regulation and taxation treatments. I think it is very conceivable also that the futures listing changed the price dynamics because it may have decentivized any possible manipulation by whales to push the price higher.
This dynamic would have been supported by wider adoption where more numbers of people hold an asset thus making it harder for the few to control prices, i.e. increasing competition.
I think now institutional investors are going to be primarily keying in on volatility. They probably want to see the volatility drop. If the volatility drops then money may flow out of the stock market and into BTC (and other cryptos). Entrenched investors may recognize the risk this can present because everything is relative.
I think what's critical for determining whether it survives is how both the price and the network behaves around marginal production costs.
A friend mailed me an invite on a project called Initiative Q
When reading the website, they plan to create a new global payment system.
Quite rightful they indicate that the success of a payment system is often a chicken
and an egg situation, being 'adoption'.
According to there website they claim to have one guy on board Saar Wilf, an
entrepreneur who sold his business to Paypal. Working myself in the payment
industry for +25 years, the mentioned pain-points about many of the current
payment systems are legitimate.
However :
The project does not provide insight in how they will build such a payment
network with global reach, other than that they will work with local partners.
The website mentions the initiative Q is not based on crypto. But while digging
a bit deeper around I did find they have create ERC20 tokens just in case they
want to play the crypto card. I think they don't know it yet : https://bloxy.info/address/0x6745c87289ab2524d26565679532acf88e7675db and https://etherscan.io/token/0x6745c87289ab2524d26565679532acf88e7675db
but with a massive almost unlimited supply or 2 Triolion...
You look at this initiative and all red lights go off. But then, they don't ask for money.
It sure sounds like a pyramid, but can you make a pyramid without asking for money ?
Digging deeper i found the company behind this initiative is registered in Israel :
The Kew Initiative Ltd.
English name: INITIATIVE Q LTD
Date creation: 2018/05/30
Address : Tel Aviv - Yafo | street: Ahad Ha'am | number: 28 | Zip : 6514107 | Country: Israël
On the address is a brokerage firm, but not linked to this :
I was asking myself, what is the catch here ?
I don't think they will go through all this pain just to harvest people's email address ?
I did register myself, you get Q coins to register
Then you can invite 5 friends, you get more Q coins
After the 5 coins you become an evangelist and can invite 10 more friends...
No money asked, just invite people
name / email
Any thoughts from people here ?
Is this a known scheme ?
Or could it be like they explain on the website, the beginning
of an eco-system ?