Submitted by udo on Wed, 11/15/2017 - 15:49
The Bitcoin graph looks Interesting ! ?
I’m pretty sure this is a scam. Id stay away for now.
Whoever wrote that China article didn't have much of a clue. Saying it is so cheap and comparing to the Bitcoin and Ethereum price whilst giving no supply or market cap details. Looked very scammy to me too.
"Also boosting the value of bitcoin are some optimistic forecasts from investment banks like JP Morgan (which sees it surging as high as $US146,000 in the long term) and Citi (which forecast it could hit $US318,000 by year end).
Not a bad comeback for an asset which crashed below $US3,200 (from a peak of around $US19,000), when its first 'buying frenzy' died down about two to three years ago."
What’s it tell you about the stability of fiat currency ?
Fiat is dead my friends, even more so when central banks continue to hit the "print" button.
Bitcoins use as a currency is almost close to irrelevant it close to useless it's slow and expensive and with a negative impact to the environment not to mention extremely unstable.
it's now something completely different like they say much closer to gold, i have to say i never expected it would blow up again, but i think now it could go anywhere as seems like the real money has come in, and peoples confidence boasted, now its always going to bounce back, if it drops a decent amount people are going to be buying in big time.
Kind hurts a little seeing it blow up and not riding it, but i rarely every bought any bitcoin or ETH, i had a look the other day and the crypto i had havent even hit previous highs and the market was full of all these names id never seen before.
I was suggesting BTC is a day to day form of money. Merely pointing out as you say people are realising the worthlessness of fiat currency when countries can just continually hit the print button.
And yes there's a whole new world of alt coins out there now that not even I know what they really do.
It's funny watching youtube and reading telegram right now on crypto. It's like 2017/2018 all over again with everyone hyped saying BTC will go to $400k and alts like BNB will reach BTC marketcap. Everyone believes ALTS will give them 50-700x returns.
I think what people don't realise is NOTHING that sustains always goes up. It has to correct. Just a question of how big a correction. Learnings from 2017/2018 for me are the faster it pumps the harsher it dumps.
$ 70,700 AuD
Down from 71,800 earlier
fomo ....so is it gunna keep going up......or crash.....?
Not Bitcoin but still interesting :
Financial Devil's Dictionary: "SPAC"
America still leads the world in one thing: inflating speculative bubbles using gibberish finance acronyms. Meet the latest 'Get-Super-Rich-Quick' scheme, the Special Purpose Acquisition Company
Matt Taibbi and Eric Salzman
SPAC (n) acronym for Special Purpose Acquisition Company: a way to pay millions today, for the exciting investment idea someone promises to have tomorrow.
After the dot-com bubble exploded, Americans were forced to take a master class in the initial public offering, or IPO. When Enron blew up, we sifted through Special Purpose Vehicles (SPVs) found in the wreckage. With the 2008 crash, the job was finding ways to explain Collateralized Debt Obligations, Credit Default Swaps, and other acronymic nightmares, under cover of which a fair portion of the world’s wealth vanished.
In the Fed-fueled Covid-19 economy, there’s one acronym worth knowing now, in case of bust later: the SPAC, or Special Purpose Acquisition Company.
The SPAC is an IPO-for-IPOs. In essence, it’s a shell company, put together for the express purpose of raising money to acquire private companies that will eventually be taken public. Pick any absurd empty-package metaphor, and it’ll probably fit: investing in the plate one picks up on the way to a salad bar, in the tortilla you’ve been told will eventually contain the world’s best burrito, in the plain white paper and finger-paints you hope to dump in the crib of the next Rembrandt, etc.
Often called “Blank Check Companies,” the SPAC isn’t all new, but the mania has reached once-unimaginable heights. In 2021 already, 160 SPACs have raised over $50 billion, nearly matching last year’s record of $83.4 billion. An increasingly common element in SPAC announcements is the name of a celebrity, who’s enlisted to join a group that announces a plan to raise a massive sum of money for… something. It could be anyone, from A-Rod (asking for $540 million), Shaq (twice asked for $300 million), Grammy winner Ciara ($200 million), etc., etc.
The SPAC’s cash requests are often wrapped in altruistic verbiage, an example being former NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick joining Phoenix Suns part-owner Jahm Najafi to form Mission Advancement. The group believes “purchasing decisions can act as instruments of change,” and therefore wants to build brands to create “meaningful financial and societal value.” In their SEC filing, they figure this will only cost $287 million:
On the opposite political end lay former House Speaker Paul Ryan’s Executive Network Partnering Corporation, launched last August. Reports humorously noted that Ryan and his partner, Solamere Capital founder Alex Dunn, had “not selected a target industry” for their SPAC, which essentially meant they were asking for $300 million without knowing what for yet. The SEC filing for ENPC was inspired vagueness:
We have not selected any company to partner with and we have not, nor has anyone on our behalf, engaged in any substantive discussions, directly or indirectly, with any company to partner with regarding a partnering transaction. We may pursue a partnering transaction with any company in any industry.
If you invest in a SPAC, your money goes in an interest-bearing account that can only be used to acquire properties or be returned to you, should the SPAC management team (called “sponsors”) fail to acquire properties in the allotted time, usually 18 to 24 months. Sponsors are paid in “founder shares,” bought at a discount and usually amounting to 20% of the common stock of the future company, a nice relatively risk-free chunk of change framed as the sponsors’ reward for not paying themselves exorbitant salaries during the brief shopping period.
In the nineties, investors jumped en masse into a tulipomania of stock-buying in companies that in many cases were little more than loose business plans scrawled on the backs of napkins. Crowds poured billions into names like Webvan, eToys, and DrKoop.com, which often barely had income, let alone profits.
The SPAC boom takes the last IPO bubble and moves the speculative mania back a regulatory step or two, allowing money to be raised before any irritating disclosures have to be made about any concrete business plans. After all, the businesses don’t exist yet. When you invest in a SPAC, you’re investing in the reputations of its sponsors, i.e. names, not businesses.
Although the money hasn’t abated, investors are said finally to be grumbling over the lusciousness of the arrangement for SPAC directors. As Yahoo! noted, the “intense competition for deals is beginning to erode returns,” triggering a “backlash from some investors over what they say has become a ‘get-super-rich-quick’ scheme.” Of course, they say that like it’s a bad thing. What’s not to admire, about a country that sells ideas it doesn’t even have yet?
From Macrobusiness :
“US Treasury Secretary, Janet Yellen, weighed in on Bitcoin last night, clearly on the negative side. This is important:
It is a highly speculative asset and you know I think people should be aware it can be extremely volatile and I do worry about potential losses that investors can suffer.
I don’t think that Bitcoin … is widely used as a transaction mechanism. To the extent it is used I fear it’s often for illicit finance. It’s an extremely inefficient way of conducting transactions, and the amount of energy that’s consumed in processing those transactions is staggering.
You don’t say. The result was a 22% smash in the “safe haven” asset:
It is pretty amusing watching this battle play out. There is some incredible cognitive dissonance going on when a brand new…err…private currency, with no backing from a sovereign, taxation system, or central bank, is somehow construed as the “new gold”.
Neither does BTC operate as a medium of exchange, despite Elon Musk’s hope that it will. And, if it does, what happens then as it undermines taxation everywhere?
It is very clear that nobody can even agree on what BTC is, let alone that it is the future of money.
Private currencies have been launched many times in history and eventually, all have failed. The reason is simple. There are two key sources of power that give a sovereign nation its definition. The most important is the monopoly on violence. Only the state can be allowed to be fully armed and to use these arms in defence of its integrity. This is not to say that that integrity is always right. Obviously not. Sometimes it must be fought.
The second source of power is control of the currency. This gives the state the ability to tax, the ability to grow the economy, and the ability to control the flow of wealth such that it can remain intact against such forces as class warfare, globalisation etc.
I do wonder if those that promote BTC really understand how radical is their product. I admire the anarchistic features of BTC. But this is not some worthy Millennial revolution in sexual and racial relations that we are talking about. BTC is fooling around with a nuclear device positioned directly under state power.
The state is ponderous, corrupted and beastly. But it will defend itself when the time comes. At that point, BTC will look like a pocket knife brought to a nuclear war.
This is why I say that the more that BTC succeeds then the closer it gets to failure. I don’t know where that tipping point is for the state. Nobody does. But it certainly exists. A point very much underlined when the US Treasury Secretary, the person most endowed with the duty of care for state financial power, speaks negatively about crypto.
Janet Yellen is the one with her finger on the BTC equivalent of the BIG RED BUTTON“
Yellen is not anti Bitcoin, she is pro regulation. This is a good thing for the industry. She has made other comments and clarifications that the writer of the above article chose not to mention. Lets not forget that clicks are more important than balanced reporting these days.