8 ms·
A single call creates yet another far-fetched mass media piece to convince unsuspecting fools to spend their money pumping up the bubble. And so the pumping con
by geezerjay 9y ago
A single call creates yet another far-fetched mass media piece to convince unsuspecting fools to spend their money pumping up the bubble.
And so the pumping continues.
The more far-fetched the story, the closer the burst is.
- zeep 9y ago$50k is not really that far fetched... Bitcoin tripled in value so many times already, what's one more time?
- everdev 9y agoYeah, no one can accurately predict market futures. It's probably only absurd in retrospect if it doesn't come true. But there's no math that says it's unrealistic, especially with faith based currency.
- andy_ppp 9y agoThe is all currency, when people stop believing in a currencies value the exchange rate drops no?
- 0x006A 9y agoit's not the same if there is an army and a tax collector that help you 'believe' in a currency.
- geezerjay 9y ago> when people stop believing in a currencies That's a foolish comparison. Public servants are paid in the nation's official currency. Do you believe employees just forget about their salary? And I won't even talk about taxes and supplying the state with goods and services. Equating these so called "cryptocurrencies" with cash is simply idiotic, and something that only serves the agenda of those personally invested in defrauding the world while pumping the bubble.
- everdev 9y agoFaith based currency is a different beast. Money like silver coins can have utility beyond their exchange rate. For example, melted down and used to produce a physical item. You can't do that with paper money or a cryptocurrency. The utility of silver could still drop, but it's much less likely than someone deciding that a piece of paper or a token in a ledger is essentially worthless. That said, faith based money can skyrocket in value if everyone believes in it.
- FabHK 9y agoAlso, you have to pay your taxes in faith based money.
- geezerjay 9y ago> $50k is not really that far fetched... No, it actually is a ludicrous bet. No rational investor would ever make this investment. The absolute max value stands at less than a third of that. This sort of call only makes sense if it's designed to manipulate fools into a buy spree to supply liquidity to mask a massive cashout. > Bitcoin tripled in value Ah yes, and lightning will certainly hit the same person again and again. Do you happen to have any money on bitcoin by any chance?
- wellboy 9y agoYou were probably the same guy who shouted at $10, at $1000, at $10000 that it's gonna crash soon and that it's never going higher.
- y0ghur7_xxx 9y ago> The absolute max value stands at less than a third of that. Care to elaborate?
- FabHK 9y agoI assume GP means the highest value realised so far, and was a bit sloppy on his mental maths.
- Kiro 9y agoWhat do you base the "absolute max value" on?
- sundvor 9y agoThe transaction costs are going through the roof though, if you want half the chance of it going through in a foreseable time frame. What can you actually do with Bitcoin, then?
- scotty79 9y agoWhat can you do with gold bar you own?
- sundvor 9y agoGood point. Thanks.
- zeep 9y agoI don't personally use them, but you can use them to gamble online, black markets, transfer funds, etc.. much easier to move than gold (gold tends to be heavy, unless you get gold "certificates" or whatever they call them, then you don't even know if you really have real gold).
- jsjohnst 9y ago> what's one more time? That’s called gambling, not investing. Albeit many mixup the two concepts quite frequently, they are distinct.
- Tepix 9y agoThey paid $1m for an option for 275 BTC@$50,000. That seems quite expensive... if the price goes anywhere near $50,000 the emitting party could aquire those 275 BTC for less than $50,000 each and wait until the options expire.. am i missing something?
- vasilipupkin 9y agoLedgerx requires full collateral, so the emitting party had to have that BTC, but yes, seems quite expensive, but you have to take bitcoin volatility into the account. It could reach 50,000 in 2 days.
- FabHK 9y agoSure, the emitter could, say at $40,000, buy the 275 BTC. If the option expires in the money, the emitter would deliver the BTC, and receive $50,000 each, making a tidy $2.75m profit in addition to the $1m premium. But BTC could also fall back to $10,000. Then the emitter sits on a $8.25 m loss (minus $1m premium). That's really the issue. It's feasible that the emitter owns 275 BTC already (or more), and is happy to give up the upside beyond $50,000 on 275 of them for $1m cash now (in other words, he wrote a covered call). That's the most likely scenario in my view. (If you delta hedge, you could manufacture the call, and then are not so much exposed to the price of BTC, but to its realised volatility to expiry; the emitter would be short vol: if vol is higher than expected, they'd spend a lot on the delta hedge (due to gamma), if vol is lower, they'd spend less and make money.) It's