"bitcoins are more like penny stock, shares of a company with no assets, no products, and no staff; or shares in a pure ponzi schema, like Madoff's fund." /u/jstolfi
Prompted by this post in /bitcoin stating how the SEC used Jorge Stolfi's comment as reason to deny the filing. Reading the SEC comment here and Jorge's post and response here, I confirmed the /bitcoin post's claims true. Jorge likens Bitcoins to a Ponzi scheme and is proud to have been part of the SEC denial. nullc, (yes I know he's hated here but please hear me out), speculates in that same bitcoin thread that Jorge is one of those people "who's opposition means that you're doing something right" Before dismissing Greg out of turn, I read through a bit of Jorge's reddit history, and I see that he indeed wants bitcoin to fail if it's used for crime (but fiat is okay?).
So, there may be some truth in Greg's words. Jorge openly admits he wants bitcoin to fail. He actively hinders the SEC filing. He speaks negatively about bitcoin openly in other subreddits. Then, he comes here to /btc, and he fans the flames of contention against core devs. However, sometimes "the enemy of my enemy is my friend," and sometimes you just have more enemies. Greg may or may not be right, but there is certainly a grain of truth in his words. There has been and is a lot of hate towards core developers here, and there's a lot of hate towards the Classic and Unlimited communities from others. I can't help but wonder if that hate was seeded on both sides to cause contention and ultimately hurt bitcoin. If that was the intention, then it has succeeded. Sure there are justified disagreements, but these things are minor when compared to the hate and backlash between the communities. We may be under attack from the inside by a group playing against our own bad temperament, which is where we are most vulnerable.
"If your enemy is secure at all points, be prepared for him. If he is in superior strength, evade him. If your opponent is temperamental, seek to irritate him. Pretend to be weak, that he may grow arrogant. If he is taking his ease, give him no rest. If his forces are united, separate them. If sovereign and subject are in accord, put division between them. Attack him where he is unprepared, appear where you are not expected." -Sun Tzu, The Art of War
Just thought I'd lay out my 10 year plan, maybe the ideas may interest somebody. I will be 40 (ish) years old - actually aiming for a kind of semi-retirement. Property for holiday lets: I have one small property with an older relative living in it who just covers the mortgage and will do until that mortgage is paid off (18 years). That's a super long-term investment and I kind of see that as an inheritance (as I won't be getting actual inheritance from parents). Property worth approx £160k currently. I have one property which is let out as a holiday cottage. After all expenses, including the management, of it I am averaging £1000 profit per month, I don't really put in any time into the running of this. The plan is to get at least another 2 holiday lets which will hopefully bring in similar profit. This could be a very easy semi-retirement gig managing these. I found a property nearby recently for £600k which was a large house with 5 small one-bedroom holiday apartments attached - this would be perfect! I would have cleaners working them, maybe a management firm running it. Cryptocurrency: (dollar cost averaging) Bitcoin - The most decentralised and adopted crypto, it looks like it's won the race. Monero - massively undervalued privacy coin, it's pretty much the only coin currently used on dark web markets (good indicator for future adoption). Ethereum - Bit of a gamble, but looks promising. On release of ETH 2.0 they will offer a 6% annual interest on your holdings if you 'stake' it. I honestly believe the cryptocurrency market could increase X 50 in the next 10 years, it is a hedge against all the money printing which is going on. IF it goes 50X then my holdings should buy me the previously mentioned house with holiday lets. Stocks/commodities etc: (dollar cost averaging) I hold some Gold ETFs, but am currently sat out of stocks. Gold is a good hedge investment. I plan to DCA into a REIT (real estate investment trust which often give 8-12% returns)). Pensions: I may have some measly amount in a military pension (9 years service) - probably £50 per month by the time I reach it (67 years old). I'm not wasting my time with pensions, the state pension is a giant ponzi scheme as far as I'm concerned and I don't trust other people enough with my money to play with it in a private pension pot. I've literally just joined this group and have noticed it's pension heavy so maybe I'll be swayed a bit. Just to give an idea of roughly what I can dollar cost average - I can save approx £2k per month at the moment (work abroad). I'll keep a bit of cash but will mostly be DCA'ing into crypto, gold and a REIT. Cash is only going to be worth less and less each year! So not to waste money:
Won't have flashy car - something cheap and works
Buy all my furnishings etc second hand (gumtree/marketplace) No shopping in Next or Ikea
No takeaways, limit meals out
Pay off credit cards every month
Don't have kids, don't get married
All the obvious smart money management.
Hopefully I will be able to sit back in 10 years with some holiday lets under the belt bringing in a few quid and I can spend the winters somewhere sunny.
1 Crypto will eliminate Middletown, them evil bankers
Fact: Evil Bankers are replaced by evil Exchanges running Ponzi Schemes.
2 Bitcoin is gonna save us dirty tactics by the Banks and Institutions which manipulate the stock markets.
Fact: Institutional Money has started manipulating Bitcoin and for the past few months or rather in 2020, Crypto assets are no longer non-correlated. Wake up people... P.S. Pretty sure I'm gonna be crucified by downvoters but I'm happy to put my thoughts out about being realistic about my expectations with Cryptocurrencies. Few of those who enjoyed the post, Much Love 🙏
Argument mega thread - What are the arguments against Bitcoin that you commonly see? We should crowd source the counterarguments here in this thread.
Anti Bitcoin arguments
It's a Ponzi scheme.
Tangibility argument - "But I can't hold it in my hand. I can hold gold in my hand."
Bitcoin could go to zero.
I'm too lazy to read about Bitcoin. It's too complex. I'm not interested.
Ponzi schemes have no underlying asset. Bitcoin's asset is the highest money security ever invented. If you can call Bitcoin a Ponzi scheme, you can call any market traded asset a Ponzi scheme.
Tangibility - The money in every banking and brokerage account isn't tangible either. But it spends just fine. You can hold gold in your hand, but you need a $15,000 machine to know if it's real or not. Bitcoin requires as little as a smartphone, which 3.5 billion people own currently.
Bitcoin to zero? Absurd. Bitcoin's upside potential is literally infinite against every fiat currency. Money printing always ensures Bitcoin's success. Stock to flow indicates that Bitcoin is more likely to go to infinity than to zero.
Volatility is actually a plus with the right strategy. Buy the dips. DCA. Never sell. Short term volatility is acceptable when you plan on holding for years or generations. In 10 years, your kids won't care about a 50% dip that only lasted for 2 months.
Hello Redditors, my name is Alex Gutmann, I am the CEO of Bitrockxa Capital and today I present you my DeFi Token Rockxa.finance. The Bitrockxa Capital Lending Fund is a modern, highly automated and profitable crypto hedge fund and the first Bitcoin lending fund of its kind. 20 years of market experience paired with the most modern trading and lending engines generate an average return of over 14% per year. After joining the crypto universe six years ago and hearing many unfortunate stories from people who lost everything to make up for their losses by trading alts while all they had to do was hold bitcoin, I came across one solution. An interest based crypto fund. I want to expand my company further by creating the DeFi Token Rockxa.Finance. DeFi is a very interesting concept and it certainly has enormous potential for the future. So far it seems to me that it is definitely a zero-sum game at the moment. The high returns are only bearable as long as other people fill the "Ponzi" scheme. This is usually always the case with new emerging markets. Therefore, I designed the Rockxa Finance Token so that it is fully update capable in order to update future developments that will offer the best possible return and / or function. I don't want to set up a pump and dump scheme, but rather offer an opportunity to participate in the new DeFi market at an early stage. The income from the presale will be used to expand rockxa finance and Bitrockxa Capital. 25% of the income will be invested in the lendings funds at Bitrockxa capital, and the income is used to support the Rockxa Finance network. 25% go back to DeFi pools as liquidity and the remaining 50% will be used for the further development of Bitrockxa and Rockxa. The aim is to get a hedge fund with a license on the US stock exchange. The main goal behind Bitrockxa and Rockxa Finance is to give the rest of the world access to attractive returns and investment opportunities. Not everyone is lucky enough to live in a country that allows free access to the financial markets. Now a few facts about Rockxa.Finance total supply 4,200,000 tokens presale: 1,300,000 tokens website and presale: rockxa.finance price $ 1.50 per Rockxa / 210 Rockxa per ETH Presale is open! Coming updates: staking, farming, lending, burning Also AMA Regards Alex Gutmann CEO Bitrockxa Capital
Mystery as Quadriga crypto-cash goes missing. Efforts to recover millions in crypto-cash from the digital wallets of a man who died without revealing passwords to access them have hit a snag. The wallets have been found to be empty.
Nassim Nicholas Taleb advisories on hedging against a fiat system implosion
Universa Investments, advised by Nassim Nicholas Taleb, recently made a fortune shorting the financial markets and their long-standing penchant for underestimating fat-tail risk. Universa Investments is owned by Mark Spitznagel who is notorious for declaring the following:
I spend all my time thinking about looming disaster.
I only have an idea of what to avoid. Avoid owning treasury bonds, avoid owning some classes of assets; at this point I would avoid stocks simply because they could collapse any time.
Hence, Nassim resolutely advocates against owning any assets in the financial markets, because these markets are going to fall apart. In fact, we already knew about this advice. We also knew that Universe Investment was actively shorting the financial markets. In the same interview, Nassim advises the following about fiat currencies. When a country (in this example, Lebanon) introduces currency controls, Taleb strongly advocates abandoning the fiat banking system and to use cryptocurrencies instead:
I am realising Lebanon is in a situation where there is an implied currency control but the government cannot control bitcoin which is a good thing because people have no trust and the ability of the central bank which really causes the ponzi style collapse and the bitcoin does not have that.
Gold has its problems. Gold may not be entirely suitable for international trade and associated payments. Nonetheless, Taleb still wants to own gold as a store of value:
Do I like gold? No. But I own that because I am confused and it feels good. If I do not have enough gold, I do not sleep well. If I have enough gold, even if prices collapse, I sleep well. So, may be may body is telling me something about how the environment is moving away from central bank domination.
Of course, I remain on the outlook for new comments and advisories by Nassim Taleb on a possible fiat system implosion. I am quite confident that the above is not the last thing he will be saying on the matter.
A brief about how the current bailouts are illegally violating the constitution.
https://www.hussmanfunds.com/comment/mc200420/ BITCOIN This is an explanation why the Feds recent actions are illegal. Its from John Hussman's new post which also talks about the spread of SARS-COV-2 and stock market valuations and internals. Both the Federal Reserve Act and the recent CARES Act places very clear restrictions on the types of assets that the Federal Reserve can purchase, and the conditions that must be satisfied in order to purchase them. Congress went so far as to include a section in CARES to emphasize these requirements “for the avoidance of doubt.” Put simply, Fed purchases under the Federal Reserve Act are restricted to assets that are explicitly guaranteed as to interest and principal by the U.S. government, or that has a claim to sufficient collateral to avoid losses to the public. The securities that the Federal Reserve is legally allowed to purchase are: a) Section 14 open market purchases of securities that are fully guaranteed as to interest and principal by the U.S. government or a foreign government; b) Section 14 purchases of “commercial bills of exchange” arising out of commercial transactions. What are those? See the definition in Section 13(2), which defines commercial bills of exchange exactly as they’re commonly understood: arising out of commercial transactions, secured by agricultural products, goods, or merchandise, with a maturity of less than 90 days, and specifically prohibited from “covering merely investments, or issued or drawn for the purpose of carrying or trading stocks, bonds, or other investment securities, except bonds and notes of the government of the United States.” c) Section 13(2) discounting (i.e. prepayment) of commercial, agricultural, and industrial paper (again, bills of exchange); d) Section 13(3) emergency lending to individuals, partnerships, and corporations, restricted to discounting notes, drafts and bills of exchange, and contingent on collateral (“security”). Section 13(3) also requires that these activities must be for “the purpose of providing liquidity to the financial system, and not to aid a failing financial company, and that the security for emergency loans is sufficient to protect taxpayers from losses.” e) Section 13(4) and 13(6) lending for payment of sight drafts for agricultural transactions, and bankers acceptances which typically arise out of merchandise transactions. That’s it. The menu is very specific: either government securities, or those that are backed by a pledge of collateral “sufficient to protect taxpayers from losses.” This principle is consistent with the U.S. Constitution: only Congress has fiscal authority. The Federal Reserve does not. If this is not taken seriously, the Fed could purchase whatever security it wished, at whatever valuation it might choose, and the American public would be on the hook for any losses. On April 9, the Federal Reserve announced the creation of the “Secondary Market Corporate Credit Facility” (SMCCF), that would leverage $75 billion of CARES funding from the U.S. Treasury to buy as much as $750 billion of corporate debt and ETFs. The initial allocation from the Treasury covers $50 billion for “primary” lending (directly to companies), and $25 billion for “secondary market purchases” of outstanding corporate bonds from investors. That Treasury funding is fine. Congress allocated the $75 billion in Treasury funds as part of the CARES Act. Every dollar provided by the Treasury acts as a Federal guarantee for the equivalent amount of corporate obligations that the Federal Reserve purchases. The problem is that the Fed intends to leverage these funds 10-to-1 without taking actual collateral pledges from the underlying companies. This exposes the public to outright losses in the event that declining market prices or corporate defaults reduce the value of these bonds by even 10%. As a result, the newly created SMCCF is either a Ponzi scheme at public expense (if the Fed plans to allow portfolio losses to exceed 10%) or a 1987-style portfolio insurance scheme (if the Fed plans to liquidate securities into a falling market in order to cap its losses at 10%). Section 13(3) requires updates every 30 days on the “value of collateral” – that’s going to be an interesting dance if we break the March lows. In any event, even here, the SMCCF is already illegal. Uncollateralized junk bonds are being treated as their own collateral. What makes this so brazen is that when Congress approved the CARES Act, it wrote the terms and conditions section like a children’s book, “for the avoidance of doubt” – to prevent exactly this sort of abuse of public funds. Specifically, here is section 4003(c)(3)(B), which limits how the $500 billion of 4003(b)(4) funding provided for businesses, states, and municipalities may be used: 4003(c)(3)(B) FEDERAL RESERVE ACT TAXPAYER PROTECTIONS AND OTHER REQUIREMENTS APPLY. – For the avoidance of doubt, any applicable requirements under section 13(3) of the Federal Reserve Act, including requirements relating to loan collateralization, taxpayer protection, and borrower solvency, shall apply with respect to any program or facility described in subsection (b)(4). CARES Act Section 4003 and Federal Reserve restrictions (violated) Has the Federal Reserve taken collateral pledges from the companies underlying these “loans”? Has the Federal Reserve ensured that “the security for emergency loans is sufficient to protect taxpayers from losses”? Nope. Instead, what’s going on here is that the Fed is treating the SMCCF as if it is a “business” in itself. It is then treating the corporate bonds and ETFs purchased by that vehicle as if those unsecured bonds are the “collateral.” Yes, that’s right. Uncollateralized junk bonds are being treated as their own collateral. Of course, that’s also why Section 13(2) of the Federal Reserve Act was written to prevent this sort of thing, prohibiting discounting of corporate securities “covering merely investments, or issued or drawn for the purpose of carrying or trading stocks, bonds, or other investment securities, except bonds and notes of the government of the United States.” The whole operation is a hand-waving attempt to the purchase of assets that are wholly rejected by the provisions of 13(3), and may ultimately be impossible to close without a loss to the Fed, which is a loss to the public, which is fiscal policy, which belongs to Congress, not the Fed. Again, it’s fine for the Federal Reserve to use the $75 billion of Treasury funding as “collateral“ that confers a federal guarantee on $75 billion of corporate loans and security purchases. Those funds are part of the amount that Congress, in its singular constitutional role, has allocated for public support for corporate lending. In contrast, additional purchases to “leverage” that funding are neither secured by non-financial collateral, nor have security sufficient to protect taxpayers from losses. They are illegal, both under Section 13(3) of the Federal Reserve Act, and under Section 4003(c)(3)(B) of the CARES act, which “for the avoidance of doubt” specifically invokes 13(3) “requirements relating to loan collateralization, taxpayer protection, and borrower solvency.” The newly created SMCCF is either a Ponzi scheme at public expense (if the Fed plans to allow potential portfolio losses to exceed 10%) or a 1987-style portfolio insurance scheme (if the Fed plans to liquidate securities into a falling market in order to cap its losses at 10%).
What a response! Ponzi it is not. Keep your vagueness to yourself. We’ve been getting a great response to our Search for the Next Bitcoin docuseries.Yesterday’s interview with Jason Schenker really stirred up some controversy!In today’s episode I go into some detail with my presentation about all the signals and moves in the crypto world that are being made. News.Bitcoin.com reported on the Onecoin scam on various occasions releasing multiple exposés on the Ponzi’s destruction. Ruja Ignatova and her associates told Onecoin investors there was a ... Bitcoin and cryptocurrency trading is not for the faint of heart, as Dave Portnoy, the founder of the Barstool Sports blog-turned stock market day trader, learned this year.. The bitcoin price ... The bitcoin price has climbed through much of 2020, adding some 40%, with the bullish stock-to-flow model—that predicts a massive $288,000 bitcoin price before 2024—working "like clockwork ... Tag: bitcoin stock. Philippines SEC warns of ‘cloud mining’ Ponzi associated to Bitcoin Vault. by Judie Simms. September 16, 2020. 0 . The Philippines SEC has launched an official warning about Bitcoin (BTC) “cloud mining” firm Mining Metropolis, advising the general public ... Bullish Case For Bitcoin: Revenue Taking Turns Into Shopping for The Blood. by Judie Simms. September 16 ...
Ministry of Finance has cautioned the retail consumers to avoid participating or being trapped in the Ponzi schemes like Bitcoin or any other cryptocurrency or virtual currency. Bitcoin does not ... In this video, I discuss whether or not Bitcoin is a Pyramid scheme or a Ponzi scheme. I conclude that it is neither, simply because: 1) Bitcoin is decentralized, not run by a corporation or ... Lies that stock market experts spread and fake media eat up. Did the Stock Market Bottom? - Duration: 15:18. ... 15:18. Why Bitcoin Is a Ponzi Scheme with David Heinemeier Hansson - Duration: 52:52. Make More Marbles Recommended for you. 52:52. Pomp Podcast ... litecoin LZHVqUWe8JE2PrBS7AuFU3eYgKGYPKnhpe bitcoin 1P6yTbb7CJJVpsDUKpi2VH6CMSsc6uN8jM.