RT @marcvanderchijs: What Coindesk missed in its article about Ruffer investing $744M into BTC, is that they sold Gold and bought Bitcoin (Ruffer mentioned this in its shareholder memo). I believe this is a new trend. Gold will do well, but BTC will simply do 10 times better. https://t.co/X79oHl2Syz
This reminds me of the time George W. Bush wanted to take the social security trust fund and use it to pump up his favorite stock market investments. It's basically the same thing. Somebody's getting paid big time, and the fund shareholders will be left holding the bag.
Considering the US printing money is a big part of the reason the stock market is doing so well, doesn't really matter. The US could fund social security as much as it wants.
But also, the George W. scheme would have meant that the US government would end up owning a huge parts of the stock market, essentially nationalizing many industries.
They have 20 billion in assets to manage. They put 2.7% in.
I love how everyone just sees the large number and automatically thinks it's astronomical or verifies that BTC is a legitimate asset because some firm dumped $750M on BTC. That's a drop in the bucket for these guys and also, they aren't investing their own money.
They probably had customers asking about Bitcoin and decided to pick it up to give them the options to invest it in through them.
Lmao, I probably hold more BTC then you. Just because I hold BTC doesn’t mean I’m ignorant to the fact that something obviously fishy is going on with it and right now isn’t the time to buy it.
As long as Tether is the majority trading volume of BTC, I’ll stay away.
What they should learn from such stories is, okay, if you are looking towards what these funds are doing, okay then, learn from them, meaning allocating enough that doesn't destroy you. If you want to risk 2.5% of your wealth, fine, even 5%, even 10%, but why go put ALL your savings in it.
These guys probably have teams of people monitoring it constantly and will probably cash out asap if there is signs of trouble. At most, maybe their 2.5% gamble becomes 2%, and lose 0.5% of their asset. A reasonable risk. Lot's of funds allocate a certain percentage to high risk/high reward, but not too much that puts their whole business at risk.
Although, even those exist. It's not like funds never make bad decisions that bankrupt them.
But for a personal investor, why don't they look at these guys and think, "hmm, okay, I'll act like them and invest a small part of it". Instead they put everything they have in it, for maybe hitting it big when they are 60.
> I was told the institutions aren't coming and all the demand is from the magic USDT printer that can break the law of supply and demand.
350 million Tethers printed during the weekend.
This is one of the biggest wealth transfers of modern times.
The losers: Traditional finance. Retail FOMO'ers.
The winners: Crypto OG's. And most of all: The guys who control the printer. No wonder Crypto OG's love Tether.
It's like 2017 over again.
Some institutions are coming.
USDT still has a magic printer that can break the law of supply and demand, allowing for mass financial scam and price pumps.
All three things aren't incompatible.
it's almost like not all investment managers are sane people
I think that more Institutions™ will enter, though, iirc most of them got out in time during the last crash, so they probably hope to ride the wave again
Investment managers will do whatever it takes to stay relevant. They need customers like any other business.
If you can't compete with all the other active and passive funds with the same profile, you can always enter a niche where the competition isn't so bad.
To be honest it has the same properties as a ponzi or pyramid scheme, the only real difference being than it's not run by a unique group with an intention. To me it feels more like an involuntary speculative scheme, more like a ridiculous version of the South Sea Bubble. So I guess it boils down to how you define a scam, because from the point of view of victims, it's about the same.
the victim part makes it a scam, not whether theres a head or not. the head has been replaced by technology like so many other jobs. its 2020. its okay if a program is the head of a ponzi. we can update the definition.
people are rabidly semantic about these definitions. its the same thing with the same mechanisms for payout through recruitment. the lack of a head is a laughably small detail that just needs updated, as language has always needed to over time. pyramid just meant a shape or the Egyptian kind until we added the pyramid scheme.
It’s not a Ponzi and there is a major difference. Bitcoin is scam and with all financial scams it shares the quality that some people make money at the expense of others.
In a Ponzi there will come a point where it *has to collapse to zero.* It is inherent in the structure.
Bitcoin can continue indefinitely. It’s just a rigged speculative trading token.
Yes it is. Why does a ponzi collapse to zero? If you could convince people to keep buying you could keep going.
You're just wrong buddy.
Yo u/b1daly ? You there? If ponzi could have kept getting recruits he could have just stretched out payouts further and further. The law obviously stepped in and took it to zero.
Bitcoin is over the instant there is no new buyers. Doesn't matter if it's at 1,000,000 a coin. If noone buys in again then it's done. Total zero.
A Ponzi has to end because there are promises of a return bases on assets. Because people put in and expect a return on not only their initial return but upon their false profits. This leads to an exponential growth situation. Eventually people will attempt to withdraw ‘returns’ and in a long running Ponzi the discrepancy between actual assets and claims grows higher and higher inevitably leading to a total collapse. The Madoff loss was on the order of $64b if I remember correctly.
A Ponzi has an explicit lie at the core which is that money put in is being ‘invested’ and growing. If it is revealed that people are getting at best pennies on the dollar the fraud is revealed and that is the end of the Ponzi.
When you buy bitcoin there is no promise of a return. Anyone that is not a total moron can look at a chart and see the price goes up and down.
If there is a price crash and some participants sell at a big loss, there is no ‘lie’ that has been revealed that then leads to the collapse of the whole system. There has been multiple cycles up pump ‘n’ dump.
Tether is a fraud and in some ways this imparts an aspect of a Ponzi to the bitcoin market. The explicit lie is (was) that every tether is backed by a dollar. My guess is that most people who use tether at this point know this is not true. They do not expect to redeem tether for a dollar with Tether Inc. Instead they depend on there being someone who will take the tether off their hands in exchange for something of nominal value.
A lot of tether apologists make the argument that since the peg is holding and Tether basically acknowledges they will never ‘redeem’ tether then the market ‘trusts’ tether enough to keep trading. Essentially that the risk is ‘priced in.’
This is actually a pretty good argument.
Numerous problems remain though, not the least that Tether Inc is not restrained from issuing tether at will.
It’s interesting that the graph of tether growth looks rather exponential.
> A Ponzi has to end because there are promises of a return bases on assets.
no it doesnt. just get more recruits to pay people out. as long as you can keep doing that, it doesnt have to end. tell your clients to HODL if they are trying to cash out too much until you can get more recruits. or just tell them withdrawals are delayed. as long as new recruits come in, you can keep paying people out as slowly as they arrive.
this is just like bitcoin. if noone would buy tomorrow then everyone loses everything.
> A Ponzi has an explicit lie at the core which is that money put in is being ‘invested’ and growing.
bitcoin has the same lie that money is invested and growing. there are zero dollars in bitcoin. none. bitcoin cannot hold or contain or otherwise have dollars. theres no money in bitcoin.
> When you buy bitcoin there is no promise of a return.
there is a promise of a return, all the recruiters peddle that. i can find you many many examples just from today in this sub.
> If there is a price crash and some participants sell at a big loss, there is no ‘lie’ that has been revealed that then leads to the collapse of the whole system. There has been multiple cycles up pump ‘n’ dump.
im absolutely sure madoff reported some losses sometimes for some clients. or at least he couldve. that wouldnt make what he did not a ponzi.
> It’s interesting that the graph of tether growth looks rather exponential.
on this we agree, it is definitely interesting!
A Ponzi has to end eventually because people won’t hodle forever. The longer it runs the more outlandish the discrepancy becomes. If people look at their account balance and see $10M some will think hmm maybe time to get that Lambo I always wanted, or they need money for retirement, or they die and heirs want the cash.
It’s true that there is zero cash in bitcoin and this is distinct from a Ponzi. There’s no ‘account’ listing all the dollars you have. You just have bitcoin.
I’m sure there are hucksters promising returns but really that isn’t needed for this kind of speculation. It’s a natural phenomenon of human behavior and happens over and over. Bitcoin just is an especially pure form because it’s just a digital token.
This aspect of markets is known as the ‘Keynesian beauty pageant’ after a thought experiment he proposed where the judges vote not based on who they think is most beautiful but rather on who they think other people will find most beautiful.
People like to gamble.
I do think tether is behind the price rise and this is a pure fraud. I don’t have enough info to know for sure. (I know tether is a fraud, what’s less clear is if markets have priced it in.)
The plugin is called "reddit masstagger" and its genuinely super useful.
It helps you from engaging in useless arguments with like flat earthers, TERFs, and the like. And, as you just saw, with "climatesceptics" too.
But it is a large problem that its not directly evident whether the person engaged in the tagged sub to criticise or play into [whatever the specific delusion].
One can click on the tag on the user and read the actual comments they've made, and if they'd done so in this case they'd seen that you're not a "climatesceptic". So thats largely on them.
I really recommend the plugin, it really serves to highlight the amount of bigots and conspiracy morons that use reddit. One can specify which taggs one are interested in aswell.
Bitcoin itself is a scam too.
There's nothing it does better than existing financial systems. Nothing. And nobody has ever been able to prove otherwise.
So the idea that bitcoin is an "investment" security is completely fraudulent. It has zero intrinsic value. Any promises it offers are hollow and don't hold up to scrutiny. That's a scam.
Oh, there is nothing mysterious. It just shows that you haven't even tried to scratch a surface of those cryptos.
You can start with the most popular buzz-word "blockchain" a.k.a. decentralized database/ledger. Are there any existing financial systems with such feature?
Then you can continue with "smart contracts".
I could continue to enumerate those things but it does not make sense because you will not gonna read about it anyway and it's just impossible to convince you at this moment. You're comfortable in your echo-chamber and I am not the person who is going to drag you out of it.
> Oh, there is nothing mysterious. It just shows that you haven't even tried to scratch a surface of those cryptos.
Oh WHAT A SURPRISE.. the 'ol "You don't understand if you don't agree with me" argument.
Bitcoin will remain a scam in my book, as long as it has no real life usecases that are not supported by real value.
A supply cap + artificially created demand through lies + no usecases = scam
You can argue the bitcoin blockchain is not a scam in itself, but it´s debateable. As long as coins can get lost forever, the supply will eventually go to zero.
As long as coins can get lost forever, the supply will eventually go to zero.
Not really, it's infinitely divisible so right now the smallest denomination is a satoshi which is one onehundredmillionth of a bitcoin bit later on if that is not enough it can be divided into one billionth of abtc and on and on
That just pushed the problem down the road for others to deal with. Eventually that last bitcoin might get lost. Then there will be no possibility of dividing anything. Even if that were not to happen, it still would be very bad to have 95% of the supply out of circulation, and proves that it is a ponzi scheme that must rice in price forever as more coins get lost.
This has now been confirmed incorrect. The originally reported number seems to be correct as per Nasdaqs website. It is infact 740 Million into BTC. which is absolutely insane.
"*Correction (Dec. 16, 13:51 UTC):* An earlier correction to this story was itself wrong and the original version of the article was accurate. As a spokesman for Ruffer clarified the initial memo and directly confirmed to CoinDesk Wednesday morning that the investment firm now holds over $740 million worth of bitcoin."
money printer goes brrr