Stay up to date on all things crypto and blockchain

So, I have a few questions:

• Do all trades in exchanges appear on the blockchain ? I guess no, the exchange can have a private pool of crypto and fiat currencies, and satisfy many trades internally.

• Do all exchanges have to match opposing trades in the same way, with same timing, same quantizing of the trades ? I guess no, they can choose to rate-throttle, match trades any way or any time they wish, etc.

• Do exchanges have to offer small spreads ? I guess no, they're free to make the spread as wide as their customers will tolerate.

So it seems to me that the graphs etc in this article don't necessarily mean "fabricated trades". Much of what they show could just be artifacts of exchange algorithms and policies. Maybe some of it could be termed "exchange manipulation" or "unfair practices". But I don't think the case has been made that trades have been fabricated.

Maybe I'm wrong, I didn't read all of the report or understand all of it. Please correct me where I'm wrong.

let me guess, this is good for the coin ?

Won't this trigger a bankrun? I mean fake volume indicates that they don't have the keys right?

The report was submitted to the SEC on 19 March 2019, as part of an application for a bitcoin based ETF to be listed on the NYSE. Bitwise asset management reports:

We will demonstrate in multiple different ways that approximately 95% of this volume [reported on CoinMarketCap.com] is fake and/or non-economic in nature, and that the real market for bitcoin is significantly smaller, more orderly, and more regulated than commonly understood.

The report says that Binance, Bitfinex, bitFlyer, Bitstamp, Bittrex, Coinbase, Gemini, itBit, Kraken, and Poloniex are reputable exchanges without evidence of manipulation. Unless you know what you are doing, best to stick to one of these for trading.

I encourage you to give the report a read. There's a lot of information in there about how to spot suspicious activity.

wen ETF

227 slides. Who got that TL;DR

Wow thank you for sharing ...was a good read...funny how they nail the exchanges with a fake volume. Lol

Lmao. "Near zero transportation cost" for Bitcoin

"The coin with the larger market capitalization is deemed to be the continuation of the original blockchain".

Unfortunately this is the world we find ourselves in, PoW, and consensus mean nothing to fat cats.

This was a presentation to the SEC, not the SEC itself.

Welcome to r/patient_hackernews! Remember that in this subreddit, commenting requires a special process:

1. Declare your intention of commenting by posting a pre-comment containing only the single letter R. (This pre-comment will not be visible to others.)

2. Wait 24 hours or more (you will receive a reminder).

3. You can then post a new comment with your actual reply in the same location.

Comments that don't abide by the 24h delay will be automatically removed.

NOTE: since step 3 is not mandatory, pre-comments can also be left as a way to set up a reminder to check up on the discussion in 24h.

More information on how this forum works.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

There is a discussion on Hacker News, but feel free to comment here as well.

CR plan doesn't say anything about how would be handled claims not related to the exchange? Will they be covered 100% like fiat creditors related to exchange or prorate? That important because Coinlab has allowed (but disputed) claim for $500M and trustee need to set asiide (reserve) either ~23% of that amount if distribution is prorate (like btc creditors) or 100% like fiat creditors. Beside that claim Coinlab has $17B claim what is currently not allowed under assessment (trustee for now doesn't need reserve funds for this claim, only if court rule its allowed but disputed claim).

Had a buddy pay for a fiverr gig today with bitcoin and it took so long that the gig got canceled because they didn't receive the BTC payment in a timely manner. Hmm...

Snapshots:

1. Kim Nilsson of WizSec on the Coinla... - archive.org, archive.today*

I am just a simple bot, not a moderator of this subreddit | bot subreddit | contact the maintainers

I've got big respect for Kim Nilsson and his WizSec reports on Gox, but surely he's well out here.

Creditors who don’t opt for the early payout will stay on until the end and split the remaining assets normally, which is projected to be slightly higher (22–23%) if CoinLab’s claim is successfully struck down.

Where is this 22-23% coming from? I think this is confusing BTC assets/BTC claims for YEN assets/total claims. With the appreciation of BTC, yen assets are way higher now. BTC would have to crash to like 12k USD or something stupid for us to be in this situation.

Sorry for spamming this same thing everywhere. It seems like I am shadowbanned on this subreddit alone, no one can see my opening posts, so I'd rather try and share the message. I've reached to mods since I believe this to be some accident. Just few months ago my post was the pinned one here.

What's important here is that the trustee managed to reach a settlement with CoinLab. The whole Early Payment -bullshit with Fortress and CoinLab is now confirmed by CoinLab itself.

Since nothing is being pushed on us, I really think this is best for us as creditors, allowing the case to get forward instead of getting stuck with CoinLab.

What's the most revealing today was also that CoinLab mentioned that the trustee has 23% (!!) of BTC held vs the approved BTC claims.

For each Bitcoin that was locked up in the bankruptcy that has a claim on it, the estate has only 0.23 coin to give out, according to a CoinLab spokesman.

From: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/coinlab-reaches-deal-mt-gox-184624542.html

That’s a serious bump from the 15-18% what people have mostly discussed about.

Sure, some might/will be sold still due to default ”Final Payment” option being a cash. That shouldn’t impact the ratio as it’s pro rata, but BTC value might slide obviously lower if thousands/tens of thousands of BTC will be sold - even on a bit longer period of time.

Realistically, I think we'll hear from the court in H1/2021. As the trustee is assigned to the work by the court and trustee even mentions he's part of the whole process even now with court, I believe it's going to be approved.

I would say stuff is going to happen faster than /u/thondera pointed out here (except the 2069 Mars Base!), but other than that the list itself looks good to me. I'd even claim there's a chance everything is settled (Final Payment paid in BTC/BCH) by the end of 2021 too; 2022 by the latest.

Yes, this is a good article. Sorry if my previous comments got a bit out of hand but this is an emotional rollercoaster for all of us.

This is really bad advice. This makes it look like the early payout is 90% of value when really it's absolutely horrendous unless Bitcoin crashes to next to nothing. 21% of the BTC value when civil rehabilitation started is worth 4.8% of a Bitcoin now, currently best guess from ozcoin is 14.9% payout for BTC claims. It's literally a third of the expected value.

Thanks for posting this.

How can you not get much more if you wait until final payout? There is 15% coins left at market price today and early payout gives 21% of 90% of old obsolete market price. Seems there should be a definite positive upside on waiting with the extra risk of something happening along the way. But of course Fortress wants that extra cash and process to end as much as we. Maybe Fortress is good actually. If you don't take the early payout that is. Taking the early payment is essentially selling to Fortress because they take the upside later. They expect an upside otherwise they wouldn't negotiate this. I think author of this article is wrong when he says there will be little upside in waiting. Waiting it will be however.

Except, the rehabilitation process should go rather quickly from here.

All of the creditors have submitted claims and the claim process has closed. Therefore, if the plan is deemed reasonable by the court, it will proceed quickly. Everyone that filed a claim will receive their Bitcoin and the unclaimed portion/disputed portion may drag on.

Out of the 140,000 BTC a maximum of 90% will be distributed likely within months. Not knowing the number of claims, or those electing to wait out the dispute process for the remaining 10%, you could only guess at least a minimum of 50% will be released in the first phase.

With the rehabilitation plan draft submitted and the Coinlab agreement, there's very little left to stall the process.

Thanks! I was really worried about this.

Well finally someone wrote something of value.

Thanks for posting /u/germano_nh! Remember to follow the rules. If you need some extra help, please contact Twitter Support. Please DO NOT send modmail or ask the moderators for help regarding to your twitter accounts and issues, please contact Twitter Support.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

haha i read every word and im not smart enough to know if it makes any sense

I understand how this threatens Tether, Tether holders, and every exchange that trades Tether. But what I don't understand is how this threatens the value of Bitcoin itself.

What does this mean for BTC hodlers?

To me, this only sounds bad for Tether holders (and a few non-US exchanges).

I did read that 70% of the volume was coming from USDT, so without Tethers are we to conclude that there will be an immense collapse in demand, and therefore in price?

This is completely bonkers. First read about it on Matt Levine's Money Stuff and patio11's blog.

How does one short Bitcoin?

Edit: balajis' comments on the post.

Has there been any news from the 15. document deadline?

This has been posted here, but it's useful for reminding people. As another redditor commented, "you won't see this in r-bitcoin". So while the majority of btc bag holders (including Adam Back) prefer to serve their own self interest, here we are keen on truth and success of crypto without corruption.

Big article, will spread like wildfire.

Tether’s supposed bank in the Bahamas is Deltec. Whose Chairman and largest shareholder is one Jean Chalopin a French, ginger, ex ‘writer and producer’ - read kids cartoon maker, turned banker.

I kid you not.

You literally cannot make this stuff up.....

wow ... a Ponzi which expands while contracting ....

For the sake of the argument let's assume Tether is backed 1:1 in USD. Then, how do they earn money? Because operations, lawyers, accountants, bankers all for sure do not work for free. That's not even accounting for the money they lost. What's their claimed business model? How do they cover for risks?

Was ist das Problem mit dem Artikel?

Ich verstehe nicht ganz wie das den Wert von Bitcoin beeinflusst. Kann das jemand mal für dumme erklären?

Interessanter Blog-Post über die Manipulation vom Bitcoin-Kurs durch Tether. Vielleicht für dein ein oder anderen relevant, der bei den kürzlichen Kursentwicklungen sich überlegt hat, Krypto ins Portfolio zu packen.

I’ve been around the crypto space since 2017, and I remember the massive levels of FUD around Thether on all the forums before there was a huge sell off of Bitcoin and then the massive bull run up to 20k. Has anything with the concerns around Tether changed since that time frame? It’s reminding me a lot of the 2017 FUD that amounted to nothing.

I think this analysis is really valuable; I can't determine its truth value but there seems to be a massive bubble regardless; Tether being a fraud would explain this to some degree.

I think a lot of people will ignore and/or push back on this simply because they don't want it to be true. After all, if it IS true, that means their crypto position is in jeopardy and their paper gains are more likely to disappear. However, sticking one's head in the sand and ignoring all the available evidence is rarely a good decision.

I think it's clear to anyone with half a brain that this crypto bull run is based on the speculation of the price of Bitcoin alone. Although there have been 3 years of steady development in the Ethereum world since we hit the ATH price, ETH is not currently over $1000 because it's being used by thousands of organizations every day, it's only there because Bitcoin number go up.

Given Tether's shady history, lack of transparency, and general fuckiness, I think there's a very strong chance that it's a black swan waiting to happen. Look at it this way: if you had the opportunity to print a token out of thin air, swap it for BTC or ETH, swap that BTC/ETH for fiat, and then rinse and repeat, wouldn't you do that as many times as you could, until you were caught? I sure as hell would.

Unlike USDC which has regular audits by known accounting firms, or DAI, which has a built-in system of collateral and liquidation, Tether's finances are largely unknown. I, for one, don't think it's a coincidence that the price of Bitcoin gets pumped every time Tether goes on a printing spree of billions of "dollars."

All that said, I still think there's a sound investment thesis for holding ETH long-term, in that the value will come when thousands of companies have deployed multiple smart contracts to save on labour costs, and need to buy ETH to pay for all the gas they will be using; however that day is still many years away. I'm not sure what the investment thesis is for Bitcoin anymore, other than 'number go up.' I'm not advocating that everyone liquidate their entire crypto positions like the author of this article did, but I'd also say don't dismiss his claims simply on the basis that you don't want them to be true. Part of making an informed investment decision is knowing the risks involved in your position, and tether is a huge risk.

TLDR - author gives compelling argument that tether USDT is a scam and not fully backed by dollars. Shows USDT powers majority of crypto trading. Then points out that a sufficiently capitalized actor could blow the whole thing up by selling USDT for USD until the USD runs out, collapsing USDT price, and destabilizing the crypto markets.

Everyone should read this article.

That was an amazing read. Thank you for posting.

Bitcoin doesn’t give a flying duck about tether. Fact.

i got banned from the bitcoin subreddit for posting about the mods removing a post with this article. is this FUD or real fraud which will crash bitcoin?

https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tether Die Geschichte hat es schon auf Wikipedia gepackt.

Naja das ganze wird so lange laufen bis die Blase platz... Wünsche allen schöne gains bis dahin, bloß würde ich da vielleicht nicht meine gesamte Altersvorsorge reinpacken 😜

naja also er hat schon recht. und trifft auch ganz gut das was z.B auch ich mir denke (wenn auch weit nicht so ausgereift). Aber wenn einer bis vor kurzem nicht gecheckt hat wie groß USDT ist, ist man schon ein ziemlich ignoranter fuck.

Oh boy

Keine 🚀, keine WKN, ganz viel Text. Bin raus

Fraud is everywhere even in government and amongst regulators. I'm very sure all the authorities responsible for first of all preventing this fraud and putting it to an end, have been well aware of it. But because most of crypto is basically unregulated is kind of a cover for them. I do believe tether was a deliberate conspiracy to "fakely" propel the crypto markets to the level they are at currently by artificially pumping Bitcoin for the purpose of raising global awareness. This wouldn't have happened quickly without the "Tether fraud". Once the utility phase kicks in, which in my opinion is about to, then Tether will be brought to down together with 99% of cryptos without utility.

tldr; Ethereum’s mainnet is set to be deployed in a “soft launch” with a defense-in-depth approach to mainnet. We’re taking an iterative approach by launching first with training wheels and removing them as we gain confidence in the production system. The fastest route to an open, fully decentralized & secure optimistic future is to relentlessly iterate.

This summary is auto generated by a bot and not meant to replace reading the original article. As always, DYOR.

What are the requirements and how can one run an Optimism node?

withdrawal time : 1 week???

Is it a joke or "back to 1980" ?

https://blog.synthetix.io/l2-snx-is-now-available-for-withdrawal-from-the-optimistic-ethereum-testnet/

https://i.imgur.com/v1Cqly3.jpeg

Who exactly benefits from this? other than everyone of course. I saw Uniswap and SNX listed? (Noobish)

For those who might be wondering, this is a new rollup scaling tech called Ethereum Optimism. They are on the cusp of launching on mainnet. Bright days ahead for users / reduced network fees.

Hmmm. I wonder what the bug bounty rewards are gonna be. Can't wait.

This is the scaling solution everyone was waiting for. Now to test it iteratively to make sure it's safe, and then open the flood gates.

2021 is going to be great.

bring on the chainlink!🚀

tldr; Ethereum’s mainnet is set to be deployed in a “soft launch” with a defense-in-depth approach to mainnet. We’re taking an iterative approach by launching first with training wheels and removing them as we gain confidence in the production system. The fastest route to an open, fully decentralized & secure optimistic future is to relentlessly iterate.

This summary is auto generated by a bot and not meant to replace reading the original article. As always, DYOR.

tldr; Ethereum’s mainnet is set to be deployed in a “soft launch” with a defense-in-depth approach to mainnet. We’re taking an iterative approach by launching first with training wheels and removing them as we gain confidence in the production system. The fastest route to an open, fully decentralized & secure optimistic future is to relentlessly iterate.

This summary is auto generated by a bot and not meant to replace reading the original article. As always, DYOR.

Its happening

Thank fuck.

this is nice. everyone wants to enter the crypto market.

Goldman can go f themselves.

I'm never forgetting 2008.

I'm very \'Excited\'

Fidelity owns 10% of Hut 8.

BTC adds diversification among all this economic uncertainty.

Now explains who is pushing the story of the guy who lost his keys

and suddenly coinbase will not be considered the lowest of the low

Ya know I really don’t want them anywhere near it...

tldr; Goldman Sachs has issued a request for information (RFI) to explore digital asset custody, according to a source inside the bank. The RFI was circulated to at least one well-known crypto custody player toward the end of 2020. The bank's digital assets initiative is "part of a broad digital strategy," the source said.

This summary is auto generated by a bot and not meant to replace reading the original article. As always, DYOR.

A big part of why big banks will be forced to step into this space is continuous fintech innovation. For example, we now have Square and PayPal offering big crypto’s. Either big banks do this too and capture a market share, or let square and PayPal keep racking it in.

Biggest news so far in 2021

big if true

tldr; Goldman Sachs has issued a request for information (RFI) to explore digital asset custody, according to a source inside the bank. The RFI was circulated to at least one well-known crypto custody player toward the end of 2020. The bank's digital assets initiative is "part of a broad digital strategy," the source said.

This summary is auto generated by a bot and not meant to replace reading the original article. As always, DYOR.

When asked about JPMorgan, Goldman and Citi – the three big U.S. banks most are watching in relation to crypto custody – Mónica said: “We are talking to all these guys.”

Just hodl and retire in 5 years, my lads.

tldr; Goldman Sachs has issued a request for information (RFI) to explore digital asset custody, according to a source inside the bank. The RFI was circulated to at least one well-known crypto custody player toward the end of 2020. The bank's digital assets initiative is "part of a broad digital strategy," the source said.

This summary is auto generated by a bot and not meant to replace reading the original article. As always, DYOR.

Havent we heard this for months?

Is this big news?

Surprisingly not surprising.

Little more info:

There has been chatter about Goldman perhaps offering something akin to prime brokerage services involving crypto. However, the Goldman insider said the bank is looking at custody but not prime brokerage.

My guess is they'll do the prime brokerage thing eventually.

Welcome to r/patient_hackernews! Remember that in this subreddit, commenting requires a special process:

1. Declare your intention of commenting by posting a pre-comment containing only the single letter R. (This pre-comment will not be visible to others.)

2. Wait 24 hours or more (you will receive a reminder).

3. You can then post a new comment with your actual reply in the same location.

Comments that don't abide by the 24h delay will be automatically removed.

NOTE: since step 3 is not mandatory, pre-comments can also be left as a way to set up a reminder to check up on the discussion in 24h.

More information on how this forum works.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

There is a discussion on Hacker News, but feel free to comment here as well.

Anyone know anything about this? I’m experimenting with it but was wondering if others here have tested it, too.

Irc is already decentralized, so I'm guessing they mean distributed

Is the chat encrypted? Edit: I'm not smart.

faq What kind of security does cabal have?

All traffic is encrypted using a symmetric key,

Looks very interesting! I like that it's just simple chat like IRC is.

Something I don't see in the FAQ that I'm interested in; how does it discover peers?

Looks cool. But does this have anything to do with IRC beyond both being used for chatting?

No servers are needed to join a cabal, or to start your own. Everything is stored and runs locally.

Does that mean it's serverless peer-to-peer like Bitmessage/I2P-Bote/Scuttlebutt? I love serverless systems, you can't censor them.

Private business, broke TOS, BANHAMMER!

NOTHING is preventing free speech and you shouldn't force companies to become a bullhorn for violence and hate.

Maybe they should start their own servi.... oh. They tried that and got ran out of town for their violence and hate? huh, I don't know. Stop being a dick?

Hi globaltummy. Thank you for participating in /r/Politics. However, your submission has been removed for the following reason(s):

• Off-Topic: All submissions to /r/politics need to be explicitly about current US politics.

If you have questions as to why your post has been removed, please see here: Why was my post removed as Off-Topic?

If you have any questions about this removal, please feel free to [message the moderators.](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/politics&subject=Question regarding the removal of this submission by /u/globaltummy&message=I have a question regarding the removal of this [submission]%28/r/politics/comments/kygnln/big_tech_and_censorship/?context%3D10000%29)

Being able to speak freely and petition your elected officials for redress is not the same as having a global bullhorn to spew misinformation.

Why can't we go on the TV news and discuss whatever we want? Why are they keeping our free speech down?

Honestly the tech companies are too powerful and shouldn't be self regulating, just not for the reasons trump supporters think

Edit: all I'm saying is FB ,Twitter, etc should be broken up and regulated by the government instead of regulating themselves.

All they care about is profit so we will only get limited accountability and half measures until something changes.

If you come into my place of business and start spouting lies and racist rhetoric, I am throwing you out as is my right.

This is in no way a 1st amendment violation. These are private businesses deciding that Far Right rhetoric is no longer good for business. This is the free market in action. Republicans would be overjoyed at the prospect if it didn't impact them.

They took muh freedom... to be a racist.

It's really infuriating when people exercise their first amendment rights to spread misinformation about your first amendment rights.

Sigh. Again, do we really have to explain, that the 1st Amendment / Free speech doesn't mean what you think it means?

As a reminder, this subreddit is for civil discussion.

In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any advocating or wishing death/physical harm, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.

If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.

For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click here to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

tldr; Analysts and mining pools say selling pressure from mining wallets hasn't contributed to recent corrections in bitcoin’s price. For the past six months, weekly bitcoin flows from miners to exchanges have been steady despite bitcoin's more than 330% gains over the same period. Miners are currently on track to finish another extremely average week with only nearly 1,200 coins

This summary is auto generated by a bot and not meant to replace reading the original article. As always, DYOR.

Seems to me that with the low volume of BTC being mined compared to current total supply, it’s obvious the dip wasn’t due to miners selling. 1200-2100 btc mined per week vs the 18 million-ish already mined... miners make up a tiny percentage, certainly not enough to cause a 30% dip. I’m a dummy though so happy to be corrected if I’m way off.

A lawyer for Tether denied that any of those funds were Tether’s.

Aaaaaaand we all know how much you can trust Tether's lawyers ...

It’s funny news about Tether manipulating the price of BTC doesn’t take off around here. I guess a lot of people aren’t ready for the implications of this...

People need to adopt USDC already

So just like a normal brick and mortar bank, but it invests in a hard asset instead of propped up equities markets, sub prime mortgages and failing businesses? As of Jan. 1, 2018, banks with deposits less than $16 million have no reserve requirement. Banks with between $16 million and $122.3 million in deposits have a reserve requirement of 3%, and banks with over $122.3 million in deposits have a reserve requirement of 10%. Non-personal time deposits and eurocurrency liabilities have had a reserve ratio of zero since December 1990.

The double standard is hilarious.

Lol this just prove tether is issued to pump bitcoin. Tether prints to buy bitcoin, which is deposit in the bank.

... This is fine

No really it's ok guys

We bought bitcoin (BTC, +5.1%) for our clients at about $9,300 so that worked very well through 2020 and we expect it to continue working well in 2021 as the printing presses continue to run hot,” Rogers said in the video.

See? They'll just keep printing and put the printed money into bitcoin, all is well!

tldr; Tether’s bank Deltec Bank & Trust is investing customer funds in bitcoin. The announcement raises new questions about whether the dollar-pegged USDT stablecoin is backed in any way by bitcoin. Deltec made headlines in 2018 after Tether published a letter from the bank announcing that it held a little over $1.8 billion.

This summary is auto generated by a bot and not meant to replace reading the original article. As always, DYOR.

tldr; Tether’s bank Deltec Bank & Trust is investing customer funds in bitcoin. The announcement raises new questions about whether the dollar-pegged USDT stablecoin is backed in any way by bitcoin. Deltec made headlines in 2018 after Tether published a letter from the bank announcing that it held a little over $1.8 billion.

This summary is auto generated by a bot and not meant to replace reading the original article. As always, DYOR.

Great news!

Thank goodness. This is way too important to rush through and get wrong.

Coinbase can achieve KYC compliance without killing the ability to send smaller amounts around freely. Anything under $10k shouldn't require a full audit. Chasing $1500 worth of crypto around the world is a huge waste of everyone's time - especially the governments.

I like to think that our comments had something to do with this.

Let's keep it up! If you haven't yet, leave a comment! I left mine.

Mnuchin, as the incumbent operative in a bankster-occupied state, acts spasmodically, brazenly violating established procedures and then retracting, but as much he as his successor the ex-FED Yellen, and the private banksters they represent, know that Monero is the black hole which will suck their fraudulent fiat money into nothingness, thus exterminating the parasite race of fractional reserve banksters from the face of Earth.

Re-linking the response from the Monero Policy Working Group:

https://downloads.getmonero.org/Monero_Policy_Working_Group_FinCEN_01-04-2021.pdf

Does anyone have a template for submitting comments?

This is a good start, but they have not pulled back on the proposed rules themselves.

we need to keep fighting.

Our writing letters worked. This nixes the outrageous 15 day deadline for comments and pushes consideration into the hopefully more favorable next administration.

This is a win for crypto. It pushes the time for finalizing misguided new rules into the next administration and removes what was clearly a politically motivated railroading attempt. From where I sit, the community pulled together and forced a positive change. We have muscle and should keep using it for good.

Finally, some common sensibilities!

I’m glad this change occurred because it seemed like they were just going to pull a FCC move at first glance.

That’s excellent news

I try to stay out of the way of them people that think they can predict shit. But this chick has it spot on a tok of shit.

Omg I love this girl she is right about everything

Check out the Chainlink logo as well.

If you haven't seen XLM's logo before: https://www.stellar.org/blog/announcing-the-new-stellar-logo?locale=en

Also let's not forget about the Saturn on ETH: https://www.reddit.com/r/PastSaturnsRings/comments/hn883u/theres_an_ethereum_based_crypto_for_saturn_didnt

Anchorage is pleased to announce that the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) has provided conditional approval to our application for a national trust charter, which makes Anchorage Digital Bank National Association, the first federally chartered digital asset bank in history. This is a major milestone, not only for us as an organization, but also for the crypto industry and the wider financial world. Crypto deserves a bank, and we are immensely proud of being approved as the one to set the standard.

The dream slowly becoming real!

Gigantic news! Basically, this gives all major banks the legal green light to offer bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies to their customers through a partnership with Anchorage.

Visa, who are major backers of Anchorage, are now firmly positioned to benefit from the growth of cryptocurrency.

I believe the term for this is "BOOOOOOOOLISH"

tldr; Anchorage Digital Bank has received conditional approval to become the first federally chartered digital asset bank in the United States. The bank will offer sub-custody services for traditional financial institutions that wish to give clients access to digital assets. Anchorage Digital Bank is the first entity to have both the tech and the regulatory clarity that serious institutional participation in crypto demands.

This summary is auto generated by a bot and not meant to replace reading the original article. As always, DYOR.

There is no 'funny' business. Only compliant or non-compliant. Legal or illegal. No compromise on the truth

eh buon giorno come se fossero in giro da ieri

Credo sia la strada che vogliono prendere tute le principali banche.

E onestamente la trovo la cosa più corretta, maneggiare Bitcoin e le cripto in generale lo trovo speculativo peggio di stock OTC e penny stock.

In più ci sono tante "tarantelle" che andrebbero evitate, vedi il caso xrp e Ripple.

Non sono sicuro del perché sia necessario regolamentare dall'alto, ma l'ultima volta che ho provato a capirci qualcosa di più mi avevano risposto che essenzialmente sì, si tratta di scommettere sulla diffusione dell'adozione della tal valuta. No?

Ritaly logic: Bitcoin bad, Tesla good

Le banche hanno parlato

Vai vai fate casino cosí continuano a salire e mi pago la pensione che a tassi negativi sto prima a rapinare una banca

è giusto che vengano regolamentati, sono soldi che girano senza alcun controllo.

Lagarde? questa qui?https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/christine-lagarde-convicted-imf-head-found-guilty-negligence-fraud-trial-a7484586.html

Kinda weird that this 200-year-old woman and her friends still think they don't have enough power.

It's like being a billionaire and begging for pennies.

mi sono letto una vagonata di commenti in cui si dice "eh ma con le crypto posso spostare una capitali senza intermediari etc etc"... però poi ste crypto prima devi comprarle (intermediario 1) e poi devi venderle (intermediario 2)... qual è la differenza con il classico "bonifico" o con il tizio che porta lingotti d'oro oltre il confine Svizzero?

everything has been used for money laundering or corruption purposes, I don't get it why people tend to immediately criticize something because it has been used by criminals.
fiat has been used by criminals way more than other currency has been and we still use it, in fact, they print it

Affermazioni fatte ad ogni bull run del BTC, presto dimenticate appena inizia il bear market.

Una regolamentazione comunque, secondo me, potrebbe solo beneficiare il BTC attirando ancora di più i grossi investitori rimasti in sideline.

Penso che la libertà di trasposizione del titolo che si è preso OP abbia deviato la discussione.

Il problema di Lagarde non è la natura speculativa, ma il riciclaggio.

(Bitcoin) is a highly speculative asset, which has conducted some funny business and some interesting and totally reprehensible money laundering activity

Da questa dichiarazione i funny business del titolo originale sembrano proprio riferirsi al riciclaggio e non alla speculazione.

Infatti nel paragrafo successivo si legge

Lagarde did not provide specific examples of money laundering cases but said she understood there had been criminal investigations into illegal activity.

Ora rispetto al riciclaggio e ad altri funny business è innegabile che sia un problema di bitcoin, ma non mi sembra che la cosa sia limitata ai soli bitcoin. Non è che prima del 2009 non si facesse riciclaggio tramite le banche, anzi lo si fa ancora oggi.

Quindi mi sembra che io riciclaggio sia la motivazione di facciata, e che il vero obbiettivo sia un altro, magari come detto da altri utenti quello di spianare la strada ad un euro digitale.

Leggendo questo thread, da completo ignorante in materia, mi viene in mente solo gente che urla "Perché la Banca é l'emblema, zio"

Io ci credo che la tecnologia blockchain sia il futuro. Quello che mi devono spiegare è perché un bitcoin o qualsiasi altra alcoin sia comprata come se il valore delle crypto in $ ne definisca la reale utilità e adozione.

Se io credo nelle crypto dovrei comprare quote delle aziende che ci lavorano e producono la infrastruttura, non le coin stesse che altro non sono ma un tool.

La frenesia sui bitcoin in realtà ha un effetto contrario alla possibile adozione: dato che viene visto solo come un mezzo per fare soldi facili e il suo prezzo non è stabile, cio ne riduce la probabilità di adozione come moneta di scambio.

ELI 5: Se io ho una bella somma in BTC è possibile convertirla in euro senza vendere i BTC a qualcun altro?

stai a vedere come quelle cripto che ho da parte dal 2017 quando arrivano a valere qualcosa e non è il moment in cui me le stratassano stai a vedere

Che la signora Lagarde volesse dire una stronzata per farli scendere un po’ e poterne comprare altri?

Questa signora mi è sempre stata sulle balle

*unzip wasabi wallet*

Regolamentazioni aka tasse

She understands that Bitcoin has been used for illegal activities?

If I were going to issue a call for global regulations on an asset class, then I’d be more informed on the subject I was speaking on.

It’s a public ledger. You can literally track the money from wallet to wallet. Can’t do that with paper fiat.

Criminals already use Monero for its truest private transactions.

Monero is great for privacy, but it is more suspect than BTC for illegal activities.

l'intero internet triggerato tra 3...2...

​

come per la famosa net neutrality, che alla fine non ha avuto alcun effetto sulle meme (come tutti dicevano) e anzi ci sta parando il culo con il casino della privacy tra whatsapp e facebook. Prima tutti capiranno che l'europa è il posto più bello del mondo e meglio sarà

Questa ci ha dato il prestito più grande nella storia dell FMI (sono argentino), non ha nessun tipo di autorità morale per affermare niente.

What if btc just increases the block size too? Wouldn’t that render bch useless?

Does anyone know anything about this lightning strike thing they are all singing about?

But they did hardfork and increase the Bitcoin block size.....it’s called BCH. Bitcoin but with bigger blocks and still usable as p2p cash

and the refusal to hardfork to improve the protocol & increase the blocksize is the reason.

Terrible headline, but the article makes a really good point.

A currency is not supposed to increase in value or have wild fluctuations in value. Both of those degrade its utility as a medium of exchange. It's supposed to be stable and, if anything, very gradually lose its purchasing power over time. It's not supposed to be an investment, it's supposed to be a temporary token that we use to exchange one thing of value (our labor) for something else of value (goods, services, or investments). If what you're buying is not doing that, then its not a currency.

Bitcoin today is a speculative investment, not a currency. So long as its market value is so volatile and overall increasing, it won't be used as a currency.

Bitcoin solves a core issue with fiat currency; central banks have a history of hyperinflating its value. Fiat currencies, on average, last 27 years. Governments use central banks to finance increased spending by printing money in the form of debt. That money has to be paid back eventually. Governments can either raise taxes or print more money to pay off the debt created by printing money. The former has immediate negative effects on the economy while the latter kicks the can down the road so future politicians have to deal with the consequences. Governments always choose the latter. Its a self destructive feedback loop that ends up forcing the central bank into hyperinflating its own currency to pay off its debt.

The USD became a fiat currency in 1971 when it was taken off the gold standard. It's managed to stay incredibly stable as a world reserve currency. It's used for trade between countries, giving it extraordinary demand. Without that demand, the Federal Reserve wouldn't be able to print money at its current rate without creating immense inflation. USD M1 supply increased 25% in 2020 alone. It's creating asset price inflation with stocks at ATH, yet living expenses haven't increased substantially. There's too many reasons for low inflation to list, but a couple major factors are that people are hording cash during this recession and technology is lowering prices. The bottom line is that the money printing won't slow down and inflation will catch up to us eventually. The US government isn't going to raise taxes to pay off debt and the Federal Reserve won't be able to raise interest rates without crashing the economy. It could be 40 years before it's a problem, but who knows.

The USD isn't going to last forever, we will need to move to a different system eventually. Bitcoin is a step forward in the right direction because its supply is fixed. We know exactly how much bitcoin there will be 100 years from now. Bitcoin is volatile, but its volatility is decreasing. USD on the other hand will increase in volatility years down the road. Eventually, (I'm taking 40 years into the future) bitcoin or some other decentralized currency will become less volatile than the dollar and people won't have option but to use it. People will see prices skyrocket in USD and remain relatively stable in crypto. They'll have a choice between holding a currency that increases in value or a currency the decreases in value. Inflating currencies may be better for spending, but to spend a currency you have to hold it first. Cryptocurrency will be an obvious choice in the future.

Bitcoin is a very limited technology. It can only handle 7 transactions per second. That said, second layer solutions can be made on top of bitcoin. People don't have to transact with bitcoin itself, bitcoin can be used as a reserve currency for financial institutions to back their customer's deposits. For example, PayPal can hold all of your bitcoin and keep track of your transactions. They don't have to make an on chain transaction every time a customer spends their bitcoin. Instead, financial institutions can make bulk transactions with each other every 10 minutes to ensure their holdings match the amount held by their customers. The institutions would manage all the transactions between customers themselves.

Crypto is a solution to fiat's supply problem. The only other solution known is gold and silver. Bitcoin is faster and cheaper to transact than gold and works in today's digital age.

Oh no, the best performing asset of the decade has volatility! It's dead! Again!

As a long time btc holder, it's fucking hilarious seeing these same articles pop up over, and over, and over, and over, and over; and despite bitcoin's many deaths, large institutions and millions of retail investors keep buying, putting btc at almost 40k at time of writing.

If you haven't bought btc yet, it's not too late. You don't need to rationalize sitting on the sidelines with these silly articles. Invest responsibly, a small portion of your net worth. Buy and hold for the long haul. Don't try to time the market. Take profits if you need them for your life. It's not hard.

There's definitely an article a week making this exact argument and it's mostly irritating because it's an entirely destructive argument that offers nothing helpful, not even a framework to start thinking about a better alternative.

I'd like to see an author like this tackle the stated goals of bitcoin - peer to peer, censorship resistant, independent, global currency, and propose a system that doesn't look like this. Or compare bitcoin to other currencies with similar goals.

Because the volatility argument in particular is not an easy to avoid problem and I'd be curious to hear alternative suggestions.

You can tie your crypto to the dollar, but that doesn't meet the goal of being an independent entity. You could write a crypto which issues more coins to combat deflation automatically, but that is unpredictable in an entirely different way, and not easy to create and secure. You can have a highly inflationary currency, but it's still subject to market forces which affect it differently at different economic scales, so volatility is not likely to be solved.

I also agree with other posters that volatility inevitably comes with growth in bitcoin. It's absolutely true that bitcoin adoption is growing, both as a speculative asset and a currency. The limited supply means growth causes it to spike in value, and this activity will increase speculative activity, until growth has reached some kind of plateau. Price stability will open up currency opportunities, leading to increased growth, leading to another speculative run.

Finally, these articles assume that bitcoin has reached full maturity because its price is astronomical compared to the last bull run. Bitcoin, and the crypto space, is in its childhood still - a niche plaything with insane potential. It's an evolving technology and it may die before adulthood, but for now it's at the highest levels of usage and speculative value in history, and still has a bright future. Satoshi opened pandora's box for the next generation of money, and it's not just going to fade away.

This has pretty much been my take on bitcoin for years now. There's 2 main groups who see value in it: investors and people who want to use it as currency, and their end goals for bitcoin are completely contradictory while simultaneously creating a feedback loop that makes both goals seem plausible (but the currency folks are definitely getting the short end of the stick).

Like the article said, nobody's ever going to use bitcoin as a currency when its value fluctuates so wildly because nobody wants to be the guy who paid $300 million for a couple of medium pizzas. On the flip side, the only reason the value fluctuates so wildly, and mostly upwardly (which the currency people love to point at as a sign of mass adoption), is because of the investors. If the currency folks give up on the idea, then investors are speculating on an intangible asset with no real value. If the investors get bored with it, the price tanks and the currency folks are left with a worthless currency.

Eventually, one side of the two groups is going to decide en masse that they're not getting the value they wanted out of it. I think it'll be the currency side, and then we'll get an absolutely ridiculous bubble popping from the investors. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see it jump to $100-200k before cratering to near zero.

Oh hey! It's one of these articles.

With the boring predictability of a spinning planet, BTC goes up and then when it drops there's a wave of "BTC is dead/horrible/never lived" articles. This one is nicely formatted, but still in that pile.

Yeah, we don't really now what public general use cryptocurrencies are just yet. They're a lot closer to cryptocommodities than currencies, at least for BTC's design.

There's some circular logic here. Bitcoin isn't used by consumers or accepted by retailers because of it's volatile price. Businesses are hesitant that the bitcoin they accept is worth ~25% less than what they accepted within a business day. Individuals are hesitant to spend that bitcoin because the pizza or cup of coffee they're buying might literally be a downpayment on a house in a couple years. So because no one is spending/accepting, then it's not usable as a currency? And because no one is using it as a currency, it's dead?

Bitcoin is useful for lots of reasons; the store of value, combined with the ability to globally transfer/receive, all publicly legered but with a layer of anonymity, is interesting and unique outside of the crypto realm (obviously there are other crypto that do this). There's all kinds of speculative assets that double as something else. Real estate, art, trading cards, cs go skins, stocks. All of those things do one thing or service, and double as a tradable store of value. Bitcoin is the same.

Bitcoin opened up the world to cryptocurrency and other kinds of crypto assets. Even though there's other crypto that better accomplish what bitcoin does (faster, more secure, more anonymous, more contract complex), all those other coins are relative to bitcoin. And bitcoin has a cap, there's only ~10% left of the total to mine, and that remaining 10% will take over 100 years to mine. The inherent scarcity is exactly why it retains value, because even though relative to a fiat currency the price may fluctuate or go down, bitcoin won't inflate itself by creating more coins in the system.

I most often compare and use high end art and expensive real estate as the real world comparison for bitcoin. Both of those markets basically exist as a way for wealthy people to park money into assets, and even though the art world and the real estate market are volatile and non-liquid, more often than not the asset will appreciate. Both those markets are huge, but they're so slow moving and non-liquid it's often tough to move if you need it. For luxury real estate you have to have a slew of real estate agents, mortgage/loan officers, appraisers, stagers, insurance, utilities, not to mention crew to upkeep the property until you sell it/while you rent/occupy it. There's closing costs, taxes, escrow. For art, it's the same. There's auctioneer costs, appraisers, temperature controlled storage, insurance, and you're going to pay someone to make a replica that you keep out while you hide away the real one. Bitcoin does away with all of that. You have your store of value, and with an address and a network fee, you can nearly instantly transfer that value to anyone in the world, and the receiver can have the transaction checked and verified by the blockchain and confirm that the funds were actually received. The volatility is a cost you bear, and basically the only cost. I think that's pretty powerful.

I bought some bitcoin in the early days out of curiosity, back when it was very cheap. I unfortunately kinda forgot about it, and my password.

I think there is a lot of nuance missed in both this article and some of the comments. Among those nuances: Bitcoin is a commodity, not a currency. Also, think what you want of Bitcoin, but it has created an entire cryptocurrency industry. This industry is allowing for economic innovation and reimagining of currency, which may lead to a new form of stable currency. Will it be Bitcoin? Probably not. But I expect future money will have been inspired by Bitcoin

I've read this article twice now and I'm still trying to figure out why it is trending. Perhaps someone can explain to me what I'm missing. Bitcoin had trouble being a currency from the start because there was no common market buy-in. There was the occasional story about a pizza place accepting bitcoin, but there wasn't a true market, industry, or region that said that bitcoin will now be as common of an exchange as traditional money. Second, a dip in the value of a currency doesn't signal it's end. It signals an adjustment, which will happen with a currency that has been purchased based on pure speculation. Finally, bitcoin is like any technology and will become whatever we make of it. As long as people see it as an investment it will continue to go up in value. If they start using it as a currency it will fluctuate, like any other currency. If they realize it is another tech fad you will see the bubble burst. As of right now I think the future is far too gray to make the speculations that were made in this article. I thought that was the discussion of all cryptocurrency since the beginning, but again maybe I'm missing something.

Currencies should be stable, no?

Every week I see at least ONE article claiming this, it's a meme at this point

Bitcoin became, and I believe to a large extent remains, popular for ideological reasons as a libertarian and anarchists dream of the ability to divest the power of control over the currency from the govrnment of the country they live in and give that control to the market.

Regardless of any other pros or cons of bitcoin - and there are other cons - this on its own is an incredibly stupid idea. The ability of the people of a country as represented by their elected government to control and purposefully direct the behaviour of their nations currency is an incredibly useful thing to maintain direct control over in times of financial crisis.

Left to the market, the market will often panic when it should remain steadfast, be over exuberant when it should be cautious, and these are things that should be left to experts with the best interests of the people of the nation in mind, not the invisible - or rather, non-existant - hand of the market and the mob.

THIS IS AN OPINION. Hit it where it hurts.. The insurrection only made the nazis, I mean patriots- withdrawing their money from anyone opposing donold

if i didn't listen to asshats like you ten years ago i'd have a house off bitcoin right now like my UPS driver, shut the fuck up with this cynical ass fascist ass doom and gloom

oh boy a fucking medium article with a clickbait title what fucking quality content article of an internet post this must be i can't wait to read all about how bitcoin isn't yet as static as established currencies and that's why it'll never contribute to denying power to entrenched elites or ever be meaningful in anyway aguuuuu fucking chodes

bitcoins speculative phase will eventually end, were in pure price discovery now, it could be years before it settles but eventually all this price discovery will settle on an agreed upon value.

also im sure the value of currency issued by the continental congress varied wildly from the years 1775-1789 or so.

Not one mention of the bitcoin lightning network in this article, which was specifically designed to address the central problem that was brought up. Its like they just hired an intern or junior level writer and told them "Hey, everyone is talking about bitcoin again. Write us something about it to put between these ads". Then it was put on the internet with no QC by anyone who is actually well informed about the topic. And no one cares if it is woefully poorly informed because they got their clicks and ad revenue.

In which folks learn the difference between currency and commodities. Bitcoin is a commodity. The open question is whether its like oil/grain/soybeans or more like tulip bulbs/beanie babies.

Bitcoin has always bewildered me. I started really paying attention to it around 2014 when it was at its low point after the failure of mtgox (~$200 or a bit below there). Never invested.

It's now up to an incredible amount, about ten times higher than what was then considered a fantasy of delusional proportions. There was at the time literally a whole copypasta of some bitcoiner's fantasy of waking up and seeing a $5K bitcoin price followed by spending their day doing various activities with bitcoin integrated into the process.

Bitcoiners got the first part (the $5K value and then some to boot) but never got the second part. In fact I still can't think of any compelling use cases for bitcoin that I wouldn't rather use venmo/apple pay/wechat pay for. The author pretty much says this too and points out it's entirely a speculative asset, but I mean, even gold can be used in engineering applications, so it's even more "pure" as speculative assets go.

Looking at this, Tesla, and the way that... literally the entire stock market behaved in 2020, I'm just absolutely convinced that much of peoples' investments are based on nothing but hype, and they're making complete bank off of it.

Have I gone crazy? Is this just the way the markets work now? Have they always worked this way? I'm honestly afraid to put my money in now because I wonder when people are going to realize that much of the valuation that goes on right now have nothing to do with the utility/potential of the underlying asset.

The price volatility is due to new people getting into the coin and holding them rather than spending them, this causes price growth as supply dwindles and results in the the occasional short term bubble as people rush in to make easy money. However each bubble cycle is less volatile than the last and eventually the price will stabilise because over time the amount entering into supply shrinks while the amount in circulation reduces towards a certain amount. For anyone looking to speculate based on this, bare in mind that it might stabilize at a price point that is lower than the current.

These massive swings and growth simply can't last forever. None of this happens with state currencies since their adoption is much quicker and the price discovery is measured in days or weeks as a result. The price swings are simply due to the novelty of bitcoin, and its reduction in volatility over time is what's part of the design. If you're at all familiar with bitcoin you'll know about mining and mining rewards. At first the mining was reward was 50 BTC. Then after a certain amount of time the reward halves and then it halves again and so on, literally forever. This means fewer and fewer coins enter circulation and there is less and less reward to enter the network.

The real problem with bitcoin as currency is that it's slow and can be controlled by anyone who has a majority of the hashing power in the network. Right now most hashing power is in mainland China which means that the CCP has in theory control of the blockchain but theoretically they can be checked if other countries set up their own mining farms for no other reason than to counter the Chinese. But then you get into a problem where you're spending huge amounts of power just to keep the blockchain safe

The reality is that blockchain is a cool tech but bitcoin specifically isn't designed with strategic interests or widespread use in mind.

Its shit like this that keeps me subbed to this propoganda reddit, top class 10/10 abusively manipulative titles are too good to pass up.

"In Soviet Russia... Bitcoin regulates you"

The EU needs to continue crumbling and self destructing. No wonder the UK left them. I’m hoping more countries leave this dumpster fire

tldr; European Central Bank President Christine Lagarde said bitcoin has facilitated "funny business" and needs to be regulated. Lagarde also described bitcoin as a "speculative asset" that has led to "some reprehensible activity." She said there will be a digital euro, hopefully in no more than five years.

This summary is auto generated by a bot and not meant to replace reading the original article. As always, DYOR.

Is this seriously the whole article? Because it doesnt say shit.

There's an old English saying: The pot calling the kettle black

The EU central bank chief added there will be a digital euro, hopefully in no more than five years...

Likely there won't be an ECB in 5 years.

Max Keiser was estimating ECB bankruptcy would happen this year lol

the “highly speculative asset” has led to "some reprehensible activity," including money laundering, and any loopholes need to be closed,

What's with all this "we need regulation to stop money laundering!"

Yeah, ok, how well is that working with HSBC and friends?

https://www.icij.org/investigations/fincen-files/hsbc-moved-vast-sums-of-dirty-money-after-paying-record-laundering-fine/

Why does the US have this paranoia around government involvement in anything. It’s always possible that they’re honest well meaning people working hard to protect and improve the lives of their citizens. Rather than evil pedophile lizard people who want to inject us all with mid control microchips. Standards of living are higher across Europe because governments do care and intervene where necessary to make life better. Or maybe that’s the microchips talking.

Edit. A classic example is the new WhatsApp terms and conditions. Basically giving Facebook everything you on on your phone. That’s come from a private US company. The EU is using legislation to aprotect its citizens from this mass surveillance not encouraging it

"The EU central bank chief said there will be a digital euro, hopefully in no more than five years."

Yea, so they can get rid of cash and create mass panopticon. Surveillance society where every transaction you make is analyzed and attached to your credit score and your worth as a human being.

"The ECB has been looking into the benefits and risks of a euro-based digital currency since the Facebook-backed Diem (formerly Libra) project was announced."

Yea, so they connect the social graph with credit score. Shut you down for saying the "wrong" thing or being associated with someone they don't like.

gaslighted paranoid edit:

https://gizmodo.com/your-credit-score-should-be-based-on-your-web-history-1845912592

So says the 'elite bankers liar' .. don't pay them any attention, Bitcoin doesn't.

Get ready for the run to continue. Buckle up.

this is just more good news for large companies adopting crypto. 🚀

tldr; Fei Protocol aims to create a stablecoin that exhibits a high fidelity peg. The FEI stablecoin has an uncapped supply that tracks demand. It enters circulation via sale along a bonding curve that approaches and fixes at the $1 peg. FEI will support the creation of bonding curves denominated in any ERC20.

This summary is auto generated by a bot and not meant to replace reading the original article. As always, DYOR.

faceplam why does anyone believe this nonsense. LoL CCP isn't going nationalize the company, atleast publicly this will never happen. The remification of.such action and possible chaos ensure is unimaginable. I get alot people here are either too young or live is pre socialistic world to understand this, but market is not the enemy.

Also I think it's utterly naive to believe that nationalizing everything is the way. Beuracracy and politics are very important for society and it's complicacy has driven many mad. Stop being naive for god sake, It's this reason why most of you are still.stuck in your capitalistic hell hole

This needs to be taken down, literally fake news.

This is just western propaganda. This will never happen

X to doubt.

Yea like others said, its unreliable.

Plus from standpoint of competitiveness and free markets, this seems kind of a bad idea.

I can see government taking a stake in alibaba and/ or ant financial though.

But complete nationalization is a bit overboard. This will harm foreign investment.

Anyone can make up anything these days.

Anybody can toss out rumors. We'll believe it when we see it.

How reliable is this? Seems like wild speculation to me, not to mention a horrible idea and doesn’t even solve the monopoly complaints about the company (don’t @ me communists).

This would be awesome.

Hype.

Not happening. Article is compete FUD. Not in the interest of the CCP to do so. To think so is laughable.

I found Pa but I can't find Ma

What does this mean for BABA stocks ?

Alibaba has been assimilated.

Une chose que je ne comprends pas, Jack Ma n'était pas parti à la retraite ?

Fake news

This would have been all over the likes of CNBC of it had any basis in reality

Plot twist:

Ma isn't missing, Xi is.

So did China steal them from Ma?

Est-ce que "nationaliser" implique un achat des entreprises ou tout simplement leur saisie par le gouvernement ? Et si ça se passe j'imagine que les marchés financiers Chinois vont êtres annihilés, ou peut-être pas; tout le délire avec Tesla et Musk me fait douter de la présence de quelconque rationalités dans le marché ces jours-ci.

Et Jack Ma toujours "disparu", c'est flippant quand même.

Ils ont retrouvé Jack Ma ?

AntiChina fake news

Pour ceux qui se poserait la question, la raison officielle pour l'intervention du gouvernement dans la gestion d'Alibaba est que cette société a récemment mis les pieds dans le secteur bancaire, ce qui apparemment ne leur était pas vraiment permis.

Alibaba avait mis en place un système de crédit à la consommation intégré au site, et il y avait des douilles à ce niveau là.