The Lemon Fool

justfisk wrote:

Crypto is currently tanking in specular fashion. Holding must feel like living in Southern California, waiting for the next 'big one'. (Well, I am a holder - the princely sum of £50, which quickly became £55, and is now probably nearer £40). It's still very early in most of USA, and Sunday afternoon in Asia. It's hard to imagine many are even looking, let alone trading amounts that could cause these shifts - I was just on a news site that had a ticker in the banner and it caught my eye.

Fiat investors have gotten quite comfortable to low volatility markets in recent years. When markets are manipulated globally as they have been for so long, people have gotten complacent

Manipulation, Fiat, can kicking, etc

You need to understand that most people don't inhabit that conspiratorial world. We have no idea what you are talking about. You either need to back up those wild claims with definition and evidence or the rest of what you say will make no sense...

e.g. show us the evidence that markets have low volatility for the indeterminate "recent years" you mention. In the real world financial assets have longer duration than has been the case for decades so their volatility purely as a function of mathematics is high, not low.

GS

EDIT: P.S. The S&P has just had its largest 12-month rise since the 1930s, having fallen about 30% the month before. How is that "low volatility"?

GoSeigen wrote:

NotSure wrote:Crypto is currently tanking in specular fashion. Holding must feel like living in Southern California, waiting for the next 'big one'. (Well, I am a holder - the princely sum of £50, which quickly became £55, and is now probably nearer £40). It's still very early in most of USA, and Sunday afternoon in Asia. It's hard to imagine many are even looking, let alone trading amounts that could cause these shifts - I was just on a news site that had a ticker in the banner and it caught my eye.

This is a misunderstanding of how trading works. A large price shift doesn't require any volume of trading, a single unit of smallest size is enough. When liquidity is poor price will fall/rise until there is an interested buyer/seller at that price.


GS

I appreciate that, but Sunday afternoon actually saw the highest volume of the preceding 7 days. Looking at the charts, volume seems pretty steady 24/7 for BTC at least. The charts show a rolling 24 hour volume, so 'smear' the data, but it is clear there was an uptick following the sharp drop. I guess crypto trading can be a good 'side-hustle' for many as it can be carried out at their time of choosing and not interfere with the day job. In dollar terms BTC sees almost $100B/day, so pretty liquid, even at weekends.

I'm not sure how automated trading in BTC is, but one theory on the weekend action was that a drop triggered $B of BTC derivatives into margin calls and forced selling. BTC derivatives? What could possibly go wrong.... I believe they are illegal, in USA at least (for retail investors).

Anyway, my £40 is now £50 again. What fun!

GoSeigen wrote:The S&P has just had its largest 12-month rise since the 1930s, having fallen about 30% the month before. How is that "low volatility"?

... as priced in massively devalued $'s. How many trillions $'s printed/spent?



2020 Covid dip seems to have end of 2019 stock values recently having been restored following the large dip. Round trip to 0% over 5 quarters, so low volatility on that measure - but with massive volatility in the interim.

seekingbalance wrote:I have looked more closely at the fees, and a few people have posted their statements on line. This thing has only been going for about 6 months, so limited data so far, but the average seems to be quite a lot of trading. In every example every single coin was traded, buy or sell, which as they rebalance to exact percentages I guess is always going to be the case, and at least one, sometimes two or three coins were totally replaced each month. This last results of course in 6 full buy/sell trades. All the other trades were somewhat or much smaller, but on average the fees added up to between 0.5% and 1% - so let’s say 0.75% per month. So, in a single year that is 11% in fees, including the initial 2%. On a £10k buy that’s around £1100 a year in fees, and more if it goes up as we hope.

Too rich for me, I think, and way too overtraded.

It’s a lot more work, but I think I’ll do my own version - £500 in each of their 20 “mid caps” via Binance at 0.1% fee, then rebalance quarterly or 6 monthly, and only to approximate roundup levels. I estimate the fees on that would be closer to 0.3% for the entire year, saving £1070 in fees.

Did you ever get around to creating your DIY 'mid cap' token ETF? Going by my experience playing with BCI25, it would be doing well. Apparently it's 'alt season', a period where sh1t-coins outperform the 'big boys'. I've had my first BCI25 rebalance - 3 in, 3 out and the other 22 all adjusted. I would guess it cost about 0.1% or so, quite a lot for one month, but trivial for the amount I have (<<0.1% of my rather modest net worth). I'm perfectly happy with Bitpanda as a service - they've started to add global mega-cap shares and a handful of iShares ETFs, all tradeable down to 1 Euro worth with no fees (I haven't checked the spreads). Plus they gave me 1/40 MSFT!

Crypto still feels very dot com - I'm sure it will implode in dramatic fashion at some point, though I also suspect there is the odd Amazon tucked among the pet.coms. I can see the value of some of the projects in terms of distributed architecture for various things like finance, even automotive, but that still doesn't really make a case for the tokens themselves - they are just tokens (with the possible exception of BTC) and the only reason to buy is the belief there is a greater fool out there somewhere. However for myself, who has never been a betting person, it's like a slow motion horse race and entertaining enough. Marginally cooler than bingo....

I have no Ontology, not even in BCI25, so most certainly not an attempt to pump, but their website gives an insight into how blockchain may actually have real world uses: https://ont.io/ -> 'Solutions'

JohnB wrote:None, and I never will for environmental reasons.

And for the same reason, do you never a debit or credit card?

A highly principled Oxford mathematician/environmentalist friend of mine who I would expect to know far more about this than this than me, says the worldwide debit/credit card infrastructure uses far more energy and causes far more CO2 production than the cryptocurrency infrastructure.

Consequently he only trades in cash.

Read this https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption

JohnB wrote:Read this https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption

One has to be seriously skeptical of the figures when this sort of thing is written on the site:

" The total daily electricity bill amounts to roughly $39,000, meaning the facility consumes around 40 megawatts of electricity per hour."


GS

Mike4 wrote:

JohnB wrote:None, and I never will for environmental reasons.

And for the same reason, do you never a debit or credit card?

A highly principled Oxford mathematician/environmentalist friend of mine who I would expect to know far more about this than this than me, says the worldwide debit/credit card infrastructure uses far more energy and causes far more CO2 production than the cryptocurrency infrastructure.

Consequently he only trades in cash.

But BTC can handle around 5 transactions per second, whereas Visa alone is nearer 2,000 (I assume Mastercard is similar). Not a very fair comparison.

Crypto still feels very dot com - I'm sure it will implode in dramatic fashion at some point, though I also suspect there is the odd Amazon tucked among the pet.coms. I can see the value of some of the projects in terms of distributed architecture for various things like finance, even automotive, but that still doesn't really make a case for the tokens themselves - they are just tokens (with the possible exception of BTC) and the only reason to buy is the belief there is a greater fool out there somewhere. However for myself, who has never been a betting person, it's like a slow motion horse race and entertaining enough. Marginally cooler than bingo....

I have no Ontology, not even in BCI25, so most certainly not an attempt to pump, but their website gives an insight into how blockchain may actually have real world uses: https://ont.io/ -> 'Solutions'

Indeed apart from Bitcoin, most other projects in the space are filled with scammers or companies selling Fool's Gold.
As for the "authorities", they are well aware that their monetary intervention is distorting markets. However they have pushed themselves into a corner. Of all the "tools" to battle their way out of it, inflation appears to be the path of least resistance.

But BTC can handle around 5 transactions per second, whereas Visa alone is nearer 2,000 (I assume Mastercard is similar). Not a very fair comparison.

Not a fair comparison at all. Comparing Bitcoin to Visa is like comparing the US Dollar to Barclays. Its Apples to Oranges.
Bitcoin (the Asset and the Network) does not compete with Visa. Bitcoin is a full stack end to end financial system, not a common retail payment system. The Bitcoin network is a settlement layer. Settlement systems exhibit fewer but larger transactions. On-chain, It is not uncommon to see single transactions of over a billion dollars/pounds. Payment systems like Visa or Paypal do the opposite. They exhibit many more transactions but of smaller size.
Technology in the real world occurs with design Tradeoffs. In the case of Bitcoin there is a Tradeoff between transactions per second and the guarantee or finality of settlement. Not just that but Bitcoin also sacrifices number of transactions per second for overall Network security and for its "unconfiscatabality". Bitcoin owners welcome these tradeoffs as protection for large stores of wealth. If multiple transactions are required, the Bitcoin Mainchain may defer to second layer solutions such as Lightning, Liquid, or companies such as Square (cashapp), Visa and Paypal who may absorb the credit risk. This is analogous to the way it works with Fiat.

None, and I never will for environmental reasons.

Energy discussions in Bitcoin, are simply energy discussions of the Human Race.
If you fix the energy problem of the human race you fix the energy problem of bitcoin.
The focus on Bitcoin is moot as it consumes more renewable energy in percentage terms than almost any other large scale industry or country in the world. Therefore, it could be argued that is more Eco-friendly.
Perhaps Bitcoin is the path to the solution. Objectively, if one is genuinely interested in the environment, the less efficient Petrodollar Fiat system should be abandoned for a cleaner Bitcoin Solution.
Any discussion on energy usually descends into one group of people hating on things they do not understand or like, while ignoring the energy use of things that they do understand and like. This is done usually from the comfort of their well heated homes and oversized cars, in clothes cleaned by washing machines and driers while typing or speaking on energy-using phones/computers or televisions. Hypocritical perhaps?
Truth is that the energy use of the Human Race will expand and grow as the Human Race grows and thrives.
For environmental reasons and some context, consider this statistic: a single Extinction Rebellion protester emits more CO2 in one day than the entire Global Bitcoin Network since inception.

JF

justfisk wrote:The focus on Bitcoin is moot as it consumes more renewable energy in percentage terms than almost any other large scale industry or country in the world. Therefore, it could be argued that is more Eco-friendly.

All that means is that the renewable energy isn't available to other consumers, so more non-renewable energy is consumed.
It is still an additional to total energy demand that offers no actual utility to the vast majority of the population.

I've decided to buy up all the renewable electricity in the world to boil the oceans. Strangely non-renewable energy prices have risen, and all the mothballed coal stations are running again to meet the demand. And people aren't applauding me as an eco-warrior, its not fair.

https://www.reuters.com/technology/tesl ... 021-05-12/


Some Tesla investors, along with environmentalists, have been increasingly critical about the way bitcoin is "mined" using vast amounts of electricity generated with fossil fuels.

Musk said on Wednesday he backed that concern, especially the use of "coal, which has the worst emissions of any fuel."

"Cryptocurrency is a good idea on many levels and we believe it has a promising future, but this cannot come at great cost to the environment," he tweeted.

The man certainly is a class tw-t, he could have found out about this problem years ago simply by reading this forum! Why doesn't he acknowledge his negligence in his tweets?

GS

GoSeigen wrote:
Some Tesla investors, along with environmentalists, have been increasingly critical about the way bitcoin is "mined" using vast amounts of electricity generated with fossil fuels.

Musk said on Wednesday he backed that concern, especially the use of "coal, which has the worst emissions of any fuel."

"Cryptocurrency is a good idea on many levels and we believe it has a promising future, but this cannot come at great cost to the environment," he tweeted.

The man certainly is a class tw-t, he could have found out about this problem years ago simply by reading this forum! Why doesn't he acknowledge his negligence in his tweets?

Just as well his cars aren't powered by that nasty-sounding stuff.

Oh, wait...

Scott.

'On the road to Damascus...'

He's just added another tweet - 'energy usage trend over last few months is insane' and a link to https://cbeci.org/

He clearly doesn't get out much if this is news to him!

NotSure wrote:'On the road to Damascus...'

He's just added another tweet - 'energy usage trend over last few months is insane' and a link to https://cbeci.org/

He clearly doesn't get out much if this is news to him!

It may all be deliberate - he buys Bitcoin and Dogecoin then makes comments which cause their prices to rise sharply. Then he sells some and afterwards makes negative comments - price of Bitcoin and Dogecoin fall. Go back and repeat...

scrumpyjack wrote:It may all be deliberate - he buys Bitcoin and Dogecoin then makes comments which cause their prices to rise sharply. Then he sells some and afterwards makes negative comments - price of Bitcoin and Dogecoin fall. Go back and repeat...

I would agree. Included in the tweet was note that crypto was still a good idea and Tesla were looking at alternative tokens that used much less energy. My guess is he will next pump say Cardano (or possibly Ripple) - one of the biggish tokens with a low carbon footprint. I think his other pump - Dogecoin - is also less energy intensive, but it is literally a joke coin.

Either way, IMO he should really concentrate on producing and selling more vehicles rather than - in his own words - 'hustling' the more gullible of his acolytes!

I see Colonial in the US paid nearly $5 m ransom in cryptocurrencies to get their system unlocked.
This sort of thing must increase the pressure for cryptos to be neutered as a matter of public policy. It really is no good having a payment facility almost designed to assist criminals.

scrumpyjack wrote:I see Colonial in the US paid nearly $5 m ransom in cryptocurrencies to get their system unlocked.
This sort of thing must increase the pressure for cryptos to be neutered as a matter of public policy. It really is no good having a payment facility almost designed to assist criminals.

This sort of thing must increase the pressure for the US dollar being neutered as a matter of public policy.
The number of illegal drug transactions and ransoms paid in USD is horrendous...

I allocated a virtual £1M to virtual currency back in the early days and now I'm virtually the worlds richest, and have the cash to prove it

justfisk wrote: In the case of Bitcoin there is a Tradeoff between transactions per second and the guarantee or finality of settlement. Not just that but Bitcoin also sacrifices number of transactions per second for overall Network security and for its "unconfiscatabality".
JF

Bitcoin (and other cryptos) is the digitisation of scarcity and is increasing in value not due to increasing confidence in the technology, but from decreasing confidence in fiat currency as a store of value. If it wasnt for the excess money printing then bitcoin would probably only be worth a few thousand dollars (but still valuable).