4 ms·

Bitcoin rally pushes BlackRock ETF over $10B in record time

26 points by ca98am79 3y ago

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
coconutwater72 3y ago
[dead]
ccw72 3y ago
[flagged]
bratao 3y ago
The BlackRock ETF don´t is completely against the Bitcoin principles? It is a megacorp centralizing it.
- kneel 3y ago
  That's not how centralization works, at least in the Bitcoin world
- pzduniak 3y ago
  This is good for Bitcoin because number go up!
- f321x_ 3y ago
  No matter how much you own, you cannot change the protocol's rules, that's the point of Bitcoin and one of the reasons it has to consume energy.
- diggan 3y ago
  Well, from my understanding, it seems more like the "megacorps" are conceding and joining Bitcoin, rather than the other way around. Bitcoin is still the same (mostly) it was a decade ago, so who/what changed in order to make the ETFs happen? It doesn't seem to have been the protocol at least.
  - saalweachter 3y ago
    I dunno, a decade ago people were still acting like Bitcoin was a currency and making apps and signing up coffee shops and talking about how if the entire global GDP of $45T went through Bitcoin, each Bitcoin would therefore be worth $2 million. Now it's just, an asset, that's worth money, for reasons?
    - diggan 3y ago
      I think that's OK? What something is used for does sometimes change after it's been deployed. What was once a network for universities to communicate and share information, became something much more than that, for better or worse, as one example. Not sure if counting it as a currency, asset, technology or whatever changes anything regarding if Bitcoin ETFs are a "win" for Bitcoin or not.
    - lurking15 3y ago
      > Now it's just, an asset, that's worth money, for reasons? The total cluelessness belied here in an effort to discount bitcoin as though it's unthinkable that anyone would want it is such a silly posture to take. Before the transaction pool wasn't crowded, now it is because it's highly valued around the globe. It's a vehicle for scarcity, and functions like a money or foundational asset similar to a US treasury which serves as the base asset for the USD (along with gold to some extent until the federal government debased those holdings through profligate spending). In some sense a US treasury is a token, it's as money by banks, which is probably how bitcoin could end up, while also being a much more transparent system that individual can use to some extent though not "for buying a coffee". Coffee shops don't accept gold bars either, yet gold has certainly been money (not so much these days).
      - eric_cc 3y ago
        > Coffee shops don't accept gold bars either, yet gold has certainly been money (not so much these days). This is true but it's largely because of the logistics. It's not that coffee shops don't want gold, it's just that it's too inconvenient to accept it. Bitcoin, on the other hand, is incredibly easy to accept. And unlike gold, Bitcoin can't be counterfeited. I know, in the USA at least, "digital gold" is the current narrative. But "daily currency" is just around the corner.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- npoc 3y ago
  Bitcoin's main function is to shut down the central banking scam - to separate money and state. If BlackRock try to fractional reserve their bitcoin holdings, they will be risking a "bank run"-fuelled bankruptcy which are what used to keep the traditional fractional reserve banking scam in check, before the berth of the infinite money printers of the central banks (e.g. formation of the Federal Reserve).
rafaelero 3y ago
Who would have guessed that an uncorrelated, scarce and highly liquid asset would leave asset managers salivating?
- BenoitP 3y ago
  Uncorrelated is the key word IMHO. And I wouldn't say it is liquid, but that's a good thing here IMHO too. A lot of asset management is for pensions. This means that long term stability is quite important, and when designing portfolios negative or neutral correlations are highly desired (square deviation sigma goes down with weighted sum of correlation coefficients here [1]). One one hand all companies rely on energy, electricity and gas and oil. To transform matter, to transport goods. Despite being a few percent GDP, energy is a multiplier/enabler of economic activity. Electricity's price is also being defined at the margin by peaker gas plants. And gas price is also highly linked to oil. On the other hand, Bitcoins being mostly 'hodled' their price would be greatly defined by the block rewards. Which cost of is function of electrical scarcity. The highest the electricity price, the more it cost to produce the same amount of Bitcoin as per the consensus hash rate adjustments. It's not perfect analysis, and I have not crunched the numbers; but I would not be surprised for Bitcoin to have negative or neutral correlations to a lot of assets because of energy. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_portfolio_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_portfolio_theory
  - rafaelero 3y ago
    I don't think energy prices are important for BTC. If energy prices rise and it becomes unaffordable to mine, the network will adjust the difficulty level. The only input that matters for BTC performance is demand.
    - Fire-Dragon-DoL 3y ago
      What about gpu prices? Those seemed to be a make-or-break aspect of bitcoin mining procesd
      - 3y ago
1vuio0pswjnm7 3y ago
https://cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx?d=2288689357198&w=DiltuoGpp8YN6dIdS2smmYoYRLlRo2N8 https://cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx?d=2288689357198&w=DiltuoGpp8...

26 points by ca98am79 3y ago

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

coconutwater72 3y ago

[dead]

ccw72 3y ago

[flagged]

bratao 3y ago

The BlackRock ETF don´t is completely against the Bitcoin principles? It is a megacorp centralizing it.

kneel 3y ago
That's not how centralization works, at least in the Bitcoin world
pzduniak 3y ago
This is good for Bitcoin because number go up!
f321x_ 3y ago
No matter how much you own, you cannot change the protocol's rules, that's the point of Bitcoin and one of the reasons it has to consume energy.
diggan 3y ago
Well, from my understanding, it seems more like the "megacorps" are conceding and joining Bitcoin, rather than the other way around. Bitcoin is still the same (mostly) it was a decade ago, so who/what changed in order to make the ETFs happen? It doesn't seem to have been the protocol at least.
- saalweachter 3y ago
  I dunno, a decade ago people were still acting like Bitcoin was a currency and making apps and signing up coffee shops and talking about how if the entire global GDP of $45T went through Bitcoin, each Bitcoin would therefore be worth $2 million. Now it's just, an asset, that's worth money, for reasons?
  - diggan 3y ago
    I think that's OK? What something is used for does sometimes change after it's been deployed. What was once a network for universities to communicate and share information, became something much more than that, for better or worse, as one example. Not sure if counting it as a currency, asset, technology or whatever changes anything regarding if Bitcoin ETFs are a "win" for Bitcoin or not.
  - lurking15 3y ago
    > Now it's just, an asset, that's worth money, for reasons? The total cluelessness belied here in an effort to discount bitcoin as though it's unthinkable that anyone would want it is such a silly posture to take. Before the transaction pool wasn't crowded, now it is because it's highly valued around the globe. It's a vehicle for scarcity, and functions like a money or foundational asset similar to a US treasury which serves as the base asset for the USD (along with gold to some extent until the federal government debased those holdings through profligate spending). In some sense a US treasury is a token, it's as money by banks, which is probably how bitcoin could end up, while also being a much more transparent system that individual can use to some extent though not "for buying a coffee". Coffee shops don't accept gold bars either, yet gold has certainly been money (not so much these days).
    - eric_cc 3y ago
      > Coffee shops don't accept gold bars either, yet gold has certainly been money (not so much these days). This is true but it's largely because of the logistics. It's not that coffee shops don't want gold, it's just that it's too inconvenient to accept it. Bitcoin, on the other hand, is incredibly easy to accept. And unlike gold, Bitcoin can't be counterfeited. I know, in the USA at least, "digital gold" is the current narrative. But "daily currency" is just around the corner.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
npoc 3y ago
Bitcoin's main function is to shut down the central banking scam - to separate money and state. If BlackRock try to fractional reserve their bitcoin holdings, they will be risking a "bank run"-fuelled bankruptcy which are what used to keep the traditional fractional reserve banking scam in check, before the berth of the infinite money printers of the central banks (e.g. formation of the Federal Reserve).

rafaelero 3y ago

Who would have guessed that an uncorrelated, scarce and highly liquid asset would leave asset managers salivating?

BenoitP 3y ago
Uncorrelated is the key word IMHO. And I wouldn't say it is liquid, but that's a good thing here IMHO too. A lot of asset management is for pensions. This means that long term stability is quite important, and when designing portfolios negative or neutral correlations are highly desired (square deviation sigma goes down with weighted sum of correlation coefficients here [1]). One one hand all companies rely on energy, electricity and gas and oil. To transform matter, to transport goods. Despite being a few percent GDP, energy is a multiplier/enabler of economic activity. Electricity's price is also being defined at the margin by peaker gas plants. And gas price is also highly linked to oil. On the other hand, Bitcoins being mostly 'hodled' their price would be greatly defined by the block rewards. Which cost of is function of electrical scarcity. The highest the electricity price, the more it cost to produce the same amount of Bitcoin as per the consensus hash rate adjustments. It's not perfect analysis, and I have not crunched the numbers; but I would not be surprised for Bitcoin to have negative or neutral correlations to a lot of assets because of energy. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_portfolio_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_portfolio_theory
- rafaelero 3y ago
  I don't think energy prices are important for BTC. If energy prices rise and it becomes unaffordable to mine, the network will adjust the difficulty level. The only input that matters for BTC performance is demand.
  - Fire-Dragon-DoL 3y ago
    What about gpu prices? Those seemed to be a make-or-break aspect of bitcoin mining procesd
    - 3y ago

1vuio0pswjnm7 3y ago

https://cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx?d=2288689357198&w=DiltuoGpp8YN6dIdS2smmYoYRLlRo2N8 https://cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx?d=2288689357198&w=DiltuoGpp8...