Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: nicewatch who wrote (197325)	3/17/2023 5:43:35 PM
From: sense	Respond to of 217617

I posted on it shortly after they launched... The easiest problem to identify was that they were formed by BORROWING the money used to buy "coin"... That makes it an easy arbitrage trade... If BTC goes up... they can leverage the debt into profits based on trading... and keep going... IF trade well. If BTC goes down... if they have the skills... they could trade the declines for a profit, too... IF trade well. [Edit: Just as "the banking system could do"... and be profitable... "if trade well"... but, with QE defining banking losses of $9 Trillion... before just tacking on another $2 Trillion this week... "could do" is a theoretical outcome based in improbable assumptions, and not a highly probable outcome.] BUT, at the point where the price of the BTC goes down enough that it no longer covers the debt... they become insolvent... both "technically" and "in practical terms". So, its always been a "bet" that BTC would always and only go up forever... as the source of benefit... or that it would, at the least... never decline to a price below where it was when they launched... So, if they'd launched with BTC was $1... that might make sense. Or, if the source of the BTC was someone who bought it at $1... and then lent/sold it to them ? That would make sense as an "exit strategy" for a big holder... But, that arbitrage trade based on the listing... means a lot of people betting on them to fail, too... so the trading disparities result because of the struggles in the market... which are not about the price of BTC in isolation... but are about the arbitrage trade... AND about the balances in that trade... the mass of "bets" having a gravity of its own... that suppresses volatility and tends to restrict trading in a range near the "point of balance" in those bets. Given the leverage available in the derivatives trade... you have to be concerned that the game is "not what it appears"... as is typical of things like "convertible note death spiral" financing... in which a hidden debt is used to float something for the public to trade... while the reality is... the terms of the debt ensure no one will ever own any fraction of it, other than the lenders behind the "floating" of the thing traded... And, they "make money on the trade"... and, if it fails... they still own all the assets... The "company management" posture as "working for shareholders"... but, reality is... they work for the lenders. And what the lenders interest is... probably is not the same as expected by those "trading" in the shares... ? Then, you look at the others that have failed recently... and the fact that they operated as scams intended only to skim money out of markets and transfer that $ to the top of the pyramid structured to enable that ? Bankman-Fried took $3.2 BILLION out of his operation... ? That sort of crap goes on all the time in markets... even those that ARE regulated... But, BTC is... essentially unregulated... and, in the "compliant" listings that are SEC regulated... they're still trading in a commodity... the trading in which is not regulated ? "Regulation" is a scam... to ensure "investor confidence" whether it is warranted or not ? So, what "regulation" does... is sweep the dead bodies up off the floor... so that the next crop won't notice them and grow cautious... Perhaps... at this point... rewind this conversation back to the repeal of Glass-Steagal and look at banks again... and how they have changed since then ? Allowing "crypto" to "fund itself" based on running Ponzi schemes... was always just "pretending it was real" ? BTC itself... is a "non-participant" in the market ? But, "the markets" in which it is traded... are FAR more about "using the markets" than they are about BTC being all it can be ? I think there's vastly more risk in the market than is being assumed, now... because every element in the market that is not "a share held"... is largely dependent on the derivatives trade... and, that means... on the financial stability and integrity of the counter-parties to those trades... it also not mattering if they "can" backstop a trade... if they can and do opt not to ? Maybe... Bankman-Fried could have rescued his own aborted empire... if he put the billions he stole back ? No matter how "woke" the perps pretend to be... or, all the more in that degree... "don't expect altruism will save the markets from themselves"... seems a reasonable rule of thumb to apply...