Is anyone else starting to become a bit excited?

olestoepoke

Mellor wrote: »

In virtually all investments, 50% ROI is a good return over a few years, let alone in a year..



Would it have beaten just throwing the $1k into BTC.

Looking back now yes I should have bought BTC but who knew it would make it to 50k so quickly? It's a decision I made and my portfolio is doing great regardless.

jester77

This run is a bit mad. Just cashed out the amount I've invested over the years, and I still have the most of my portfolio left over.

Mellor

olestoepoke wrote: »

Looking back now yes I should have bought BTC but who knew it would make it to 50k so quickly? It's a decision I made and my portfolio is doing great regardless.

Absolutely. Wasn’t suggesting the performance of BTC proved you right/wrong. Was mainly curious. How the alts benefitted from the symbiotic connection to BTC

olestoepoke

Mellor wrote: »

Absolutely. Wasn’t suggesting the performance of BTC proved you right/wrong. Was mainly curious. How the alts benefitted from the symbiotic connection to BTC

There are alts that have went to the moon in the last 8 to 12 months. For example XOR was approx 0.12 last May and is approx €250 this week. A €100 punt on that last year and you are looking at a nice bag today. I know that this year is not the norm but who knows when it will end. We just need to find the next XOR. I think some of the coins in the Polkadot ecosystem have a potential and some of them are still cheap enough e.g I bought some PHALA at 0.30 and its doing well.

Stormington

I'm not one to defend big banking or hedge funds, but I can't help but laugh when people bring up JPM's financing of a ship used in the cocaine trade as a way to slam high profile figures show are critical of BTC when for much of its existence, BTC's primary use case was for illegal trading on the likes of the Silk Road ffs.

Sure looks like it.

Now which one of those two groups of people were individuals chancing their arm with a speculative asset (fundamentally unsuitable for wide stream adoption as a means of exchange) and which were using bonuses derived from using teacher and government pension fund money to destroy retail accounts to buy said drugs?

Gamestop went up 20x+ because a load of people on Reddit pumped it artificially for a laugh. It was great fun and seeing hedge funds take big losses was great craic, but where's the price at now?

It looks like you are blaming retail for pumping and dumping in a market system designed to steal their money rather than spotting an opportunity against an overleveraged fund (with no stop loss in place, which then doubling down on their shorts after getting billions in a bail out) instead of blaming RobinHood that fed Citadel customer data to front-run their trades and then forced retail trades into sell-side only before ringing the Oval Office to intervene.

Maybe you care to explain how that is utterly disconnected to FX manipulation seen in the settlement for
Contant v. Bank of America?

The house in the Hamptons will be along any minute now.

Not for long. Chamath will buy it and level it first.

No need to be salty at other people making money.

Looking back now

Don't. You don't drive a car by looking through the rear window.

Stormington

I'm interested in getting started in investing. How much do I need to get started? What else should I look into if I decide to invest?

How much are you willing to lose and what is your risk appetite? Do you have time-based or financial targets? Do you want to trade on a daily, weekly or monthly timeframe?

Referral bonuses for signing up (either deposit top-up or reduced fees) and Coingecko to see where the stronger assets are.

Treat everything as a ponzi - some projects will work out but the vast majority will not. Let others look for the needle in the haystack.
Pay your taxes. Assume 1/3 of profit on every trade goes to the taxman.
Put some money in, and if it goes up and you want to take profit turn 50% into BTC and 50% into USD(T or C).

TheMilkyPirate

Payment was returned from Kraken not sure why. There is an instant option to buy with your card on the website, is this just the same yeah? As in the coin will just go to my portfolio same as if I deposited fiat from bank transfer?

BrandonBay86

TheMilkyPirate wrote: »

Payment was returned from Kraken not sure why. There is an instant option to buy with your card on the website, is this just the same yeah? As in the coin will just go to my portfolio same as if I deposited fiat from bank transfer?

Kraken can return payments if there is a big price change during the purchase.

BrandonBay86

Addison Fancy Macrame wrote: »

As per title, have we reached the bottom ?

Don't think we'll see the likes of $3200 ever again.

$5150 at time of posting.

Back in the mainstream media once more.

The price has precisely 10x’d since the first post on this thread.

Another 10x would be absolutely mind blowing. Wouldn’t rule it out over the next 6-7 years.

Shakey_jake

Can someone clarify for me if ive to pay 33% on profits made on crypto??

I've 13.5 Eth Coins and 4k XLM Coins that im planning to hold for a long time

Stormington

Shakey_jake wrote: »

Can someone clarify for me if ive to pay 33% on profits made on crypto??

I've 13.5 Eth Coins and 4k XLM Coins that im planning to hold for a long time

Yes.
When you trade crypto (to crypto or cashish) you have to pay 33% CGT. If you have bought and not sold then you have no tax to pay until you sell.
You should register with Revenue and update annually that you holding the assets for if/when you do cash out.

Check the tax thread.

Gumbo

Shakey_jake wrote: »

Can someone clarify for me if ive to pay 33% on profits made on crypto??

I've 13.5 Eth Coins and 4k XLM Coins that im planning to hold for a long time

Yes when you sell. It’s call CGT.

cnocbui

Shakey_jake wrote: »

Can someone clarify for me if ive to pay 33% on profits made on crypto??

I've 13.5 Eth Coins and 4k XLM Coins that im planning to hold for a long time

You pay 33% CGT on any gains made above €1,270. Each year, you have that CGT threshold, but it's not cumulative, it only applies to gains in that year. Make no gains in a year and the relief does not carry forward into the following year.

Use it or lose it.

So you can make a CG of €1,270 in a year and not have to pay tax on it, make more than that and you pay 33% CGT on the gain over €1,270.

If you made a loss on some cryptos, you deduct those from your profits before looking at the relief and CGT owing. Losses carry forward from year to year.

dougal0691

cnocbui wrote: »

You pay 33% CGT on any gains made above €1,270. Each year, you have that CGT threshold, but it's not cumulative, it only applies to gains in that year. Make no gains in a year and the relief does not carry forward into the following year.

Use it or lose it.

So you can make a CG of €1,270 in a year and not have to pay tax on it, make more than that and you pay 33% CGT on the gain over €1,270.

If you made a loss on some cryptos, you deduct those from your profits before looking at the relief and CGT owing. Losses carry forward from year to year.

if your intentions are to hodl for a decade and make no trades in that time frame are you best to cash out a portion every year and reinvest immediately to take advantage of the allowance? if you cash out after 10 years you get an allowance of 1270 but if you do it every year you effectively have 10000 more profit?

OEP

dougal0691 wrote: »

if your intentions are to hodl for a decade and make no trades in that time frame are you best to cash out a portion every year and reinvest immediately to take advantage of the allowance? if you cash out after 10 years you get an allowance of 1270 but if you do it every year you effectively have 10000 more profit?

No, and I only found this out recently. There's a thing called the Bed and Breakfast rule, where by if you sell you cannot buy back in for 4 weeks (I think) if you want to count it as a new trade so to speak.

cnocbui

dougal0691 wrote: »

if your intentions are to hodl for a decade and make no trades in that time frame are you best to cash out a portion every year and reinvest immediately to take advantage of the allowance? if you cash out after 10 years you get an allowance of 1270 but if you do it every year you effectively have 10000 more profit?

You will have to decide that for yourself, I'm emigrating before cashing out, and it's not certian I'll do that in any hurry either.

Gumbo

dougal0691 wrote: »

if your intentions are to hodl for a decade and make no trades in that time frame are you best to cash out a portion every year and reinvest immediately to take advantage of the allowance? if you cash out after 10 years you get an allowance of 1270 but if you do it every year you effectively have 10000 more profit?

OEP wrote: »

No, and I only found this out recently. There's a thing called the Bed and Breakfast rule, where by if you sell you cannot buy back in for 4 weeks (I think) if you want to count it as a new trade so to speak.

You can’t buy back for 30 days.

olestoepoke

cnocbui wrote: »

You will have to decide that for yourself, I'm emigrating before cashing out, and it's not certian I'll do that in any hurry either.

Just wondering, can you emigrate to a crypto friendly place e.g Portugal and cash out straight away or do you have to wait until you are no longer ordinary resident?

grindle

olestoepoke wrote: »

Just wondering, can you emigrate to a crypto friendly place e.g Portugal and cash out straight away or do you have to wait until you are no longer ordinary resident?

You have to wait three years.

cnocbui

olestoepoke wrote: »

Just wondering, can you emigrate to a crypto friendly place e.g Portugal and cash out straight away or do you have to wait until you are no longer ordinary resident?

It all depends on you. Financial institutions that have signed up to the dobbing protocol (not real name) will either inform Revenue directly, or their local tax authority if they don't have your PPS no., of large deposits; sales of shares - things that look like they might imply earnings, if your residential address is Irish. If the institution has you down with a local residential address, then they won't report your transactions as belonging to a non-resident person, though they may require something like a local tax file no. or some such.

Revenue believe any disposal you make, of an asset acquired while tax resident in Ireland, within 3 years of moving to another country, is still subject to 33% CGT payable to them. Whether you want to abide by that nonsense is up to you.

Personally I can't see any way Revenue would ever become aware of such a disposal in another country, if the financial institutions involved believe you are resident in that country - ID's, utility bills - all that know your customer stuff having been satisfied.

So you can dutifully wait 3 years, but in my opinion, the practical period is how long it takes you to have bank accounts and exchange accounts with a local residential address.

donnaille

Stormington wrote: »

Sure looks like it.
It looks like you are blaming retail for pumping and dumping in a market system designed to steal their money rather than spotting an opportunity against an overleveraged fund (with no stop loss in place, which then doubling down on their shorts after getting billions in a bail out) instead of blaming RobinHood that fed Citadel customer data to front-run their trades and then forced retail trades into sell-side only before ringing the Oval Office to intervene.

I'm sure many here are already well versed in what really happened with GME/Robinhood, but thought it worth addressing this point as it reads like something from WSB.

Robinhood's revenue model is payment for order flow, that's how it offers commission free trades. This isn't front running, it's actually better for the trader, as offering the trade to a market maker provides a better execution rate to the retail trader than routing it directly to an exchange.

The Oval Office didn't 'intervene', Robinhood received a normal margin call from the clearing house, which included a bunch of excess premium capital charges. This triggered a special assessment with the NSCC (National Securities Clearing Corporation) caused by lots of retail traders trading extremely volatile stocks.

Robinhood was basically undercapitalised at this point and had to make the call to impose trading restrictions.

Anyhow, back to crypto...

BrandonBay86

donnaille wrote: »

I'm sure many here are already well versed in what really happened with GME/Robinhood, but thought it worth addressing this point as it reads like something from WSB.

Robinhood's revenue model is payment for order flow, that's how it offers commission free trades. This isn't front running, it's actually better for the trader, as offering the trade to a market maker provides a better execution rate to the retail trader than routing it directly to an exchange.

The Oval Office didn't 'intervene', Robinhood received a normal margin call from the clearing house, which included a bunch of excess premium capital charges. This triggered a special assessment with the NSCC (National Securities Clearing Corporation) caused by lots of retail traders trading extremely volatile stocks.

Robinhood was basically undercapitalised at this point and had to make the call to impose trading restrictions.

Anyhow, back to crypto...

Should they not have halted both buys and sells, rather than just buys?

banie01

I'm enjoying the Financial services committee hearing.
Robinhood are treading water with their questions whilst Melvin capital are avoiding anything of substance.

I threw a few quid at both reddit's memestocks and dogecoin.

Down 60% on the stocks (but I like them ) and up 60% on doge so I've broken even and am enjoying the ride now!

donnaille

BrandonBay86 wrote: »

Should they not have halted both buys and sells, rather than just buys?

They were forced to halt trading, or post margin. Afaik they halted all trading, but I’d be genuinely interested if you have something showing that it was only ‘buys’ halted?

donnaille

BrandonBay86 wrote: »

Should they not have halted both buys and sells, rather than just buys?

Actually I do see exactly that from a few sources, I’d be interested to understand that too, will take a look in more detail if I have some time later.

TheMilkyPirate

donnaille wrote: »

They were forced to halt trading, or post margin. Afaik they halted all trading, but I’d be genuinely interested if you have something showing that it was only ‘buys’ halted?

Revolut definitely only halted buys as I could sell but couldn't buy for a few hours. Can't speak for Robin hood but as a far as I know that was the same

olestoepoke

cnocbui wrote: »

It all depends on you. Financial institutions that have signed up to the dobbing protocol (not real name) will either inform Revenue directly, or their local tax authority if they don't have your PPS no., of large deposits; sales of shares - things that look like they might imply earnings, if your residential address is Irish. If the institution has you down with a local residential address, then they won't report your transactions as belonging to a non-resident person, though they may require something like a local tax file no. or some such.

Revenue believe any disposal you make, of an asset acquired while tax resident in Ireland, within 3 years of moving to another country, is still subject to 33% CGT payable to them. Whether you want to abide by that nonsense is up to you.

Personally I can't see any way Revenue would ever become aware of such a disposal in another country, if the financial institutions involved believe you are resident in that country - ID's, utility bills - all that know your customer stuff having been satisfied.

So you can dutifully wait 3 years, but in my opinion, the practical period is how long it takes you to have bank accounts and exchange accounts with a local residential address.

Irish domiciled and tax resident = World wide gains
Non Irish domiciled and tax resident =World wide gains only if remitted to an Irish bank account.
There is no defined time to when you lose your domicile, you have to prove that you've cut all ties with your previous domicile and have no intention of ever returning, so if you can do that in less than 3 years you can realise your gains. Seems that this is a grey area with revenue and if it did go to the courts it would be determined by case law and individual circumstances and intentions.

cnocbui

olestoepoke wrote: »

Irish domiciled and tax resident = World wide gains
Non Irish domiciled and tax resident =World wide gains only if remitted to an Irish bank account.
There is no defined time to when you lose your domicile, you have to prove that you've cut all ties with your previous domicile and have no intention of ever returning, so if you can do that in less than 3 years you can realise your gains. Seems that this is a grey area with revenue and if it did go to the courts it would be determined by case law and individual circumstances and intentions.

I believe you are correct, however, all that is predicated on you returning to Ireland at a later point subsequent to Revenue finding out about the CGT event.

I belive the latter to be extremely unlikely and the former just wouldn't happen in my case and so there would be nothing to prove to a court as the issue simply wouldn't arise.

But yes, anyone wanting to return to Ireland before the expiry of the statute of limitations needs to think it through and dot their i's and cross their t's.

Stormington

but thought it worth addressing this point as it reads like something from WSB

This info has not been gleaned from WSB, but even if it was why would it automatically make the information less valuable? There are some diamonds in the rough.

donnaille wrote: »

Robinhood's revenue model is payment for order flow, that's how it offers commission free trades. This isn't front running, it's actually better for the trader, as offering the trade to a market maker provides a better execution rate to the retail trader than routing it directly to an exchange.

Yes, and they were getting rewarded by Citadel (market maker) by offering worse prices to retail and then getting a premium rebate from Citadel (24 cent per 100 shares compared to industry average of approx 15 cent) seeing as Citadel's HFT bots were front-running the limit order buys as they had the order flow and knew the liquidation prices for every single account.

Best execution does not automatically mean best price. It can be a faster order fill at a higher price.

FINRA started an investigation into Robinhood for failing to disclose to investors that it was using a Payment for Order Flow (PFOF) model back in 2016. SEC and FINRA regulations require a broker to clearly disclose to clients (fiduciary duty) that it uses this method to fill orders but also ensure that clients receive best execution of their orders. They appear to have operated as FX-style brokers and not fiduciary securities brokers. The problem at the time was that the majority of its PFOF was routed through Citadel Securities. Citadel Securities is a market maker whose majority owner is Ken Griffin, the founder of the hedge fund Citadel (separated by Chinese walls). They were fined $1.25 million after that ended November 2017.

A second investigation for failure to disclose to clients that their orders were sold to HFT trading firms by the SEC started in September last year.

The Oval Office didn't 'intervene', Robinhood received a normal margin call from the clearing house, which included a bunch of excess premium capital charges. This triggered a special assessment with the NSCC (National Securities Clearing Corporation) caused by lots of retail traders trading extremely volatile stocks.

Robinhood was basically undercapitalised at this point and had to make the call to impose trading restrictions.

Janet Yellen received 800k for speaking at an event for Citadel and Ben Bernanke another several hundred thousand dollars. Yellen as head of the FSOC is responsible for monitoring the system so the White House and WH advisors were all aware of what was going on and what would be done or not done.

What wasn't done was permitting the hedge funds to take a financial hit, even liquidation, by being sloppy and overleveraged.

Instead ITM calls of retail customers were effectively margin called due to RH's imposition of sell-only actions on the shares to protect its market maker Citadel Securities, which happened to have a direct interest in Melvin Capital's survival via its links to Citadel LLC's (Hedge fund) 2.75 billion bail out of Melvin as they couldn't cover their liabilities falling due.

Maybe the CEO of IBKR did not accurately describe things and was only trying to poach more customers from Robinhood on tv?

But don't worry - I'm sure that Robinhood removing options spreads is for the good of their customer's accounts (and not solely to remove the ability to reduce the cost to retail of maintaining long term ITM calls by taking out smaller short-term puts) and not reducing their market maker's future exposure.

Revolut definitely only halted buys as I could sell but couldn't buy for a few hours. Can't speak for Robin hood but as a far as I know that was the same

This was the case for RH, Webull, TDA, DriveWealth (Revolut's broker), Schwab and others. IBKR and to the best of my knowledge Degiro operate differently.

Anyhow, back to crypto...

If you think the above is separate to an outflow of retail funds from the stock market to the unregulated crypto market you are sorely mistaken. A lot of liquidity will come pouring into crypto directly because of this. A lot.

donnaille

Stormington wrote: »

This info has not been gleaned from WSB, but even if it was why would it automatically make the information less valuable? There are some diamonds in the rough.

Completely agree, some diamonds in the rough, but unfortunately the majority of posts following the GME saga are factually incorrect, as was your post - hence my response.

Stormington wrote: »

Yes, and they were getting rewarded by Citadel (market maker) by offering worse prices to retail and then getting a premium rebate from Citadel (24 cent per 100 shares compared to industry average of approx 15 cent) seeing as Citadel's HFT bots were front-running the limit order buys as they had the order flow and knew the liquidation prices for every single account.

Best execution does not automatically mean best price. It can be a faster order fill at a higher price.

FINRA started an investigation into Robinhood for failing to disclose to investors that it was using a Payment for Order Flow (PFOF) model back in 2016. SEC and FINRA regulations require a broker to clearly disclose to clients (fiduciary duty) that it uses this method to fill orders but also ensure that clients receive best execution of their orders. They appear to have operated as FX-style brokers and not fiduciary securities brokers. The problem at the time was that the majority of its PFOF was routed through Citadel Securities. Citadel Securities is a market maker whose majority owner is Ken Griffin, the founder of the hedge fund Citadel (separated by Chinese walls). They were fined $1.25 million after that ended November 2017.

A second investigation for failure to disclose to clients that their orders were sold to HFT trading firms by the SEC started in September last year.

I'd rather not get into the debate on whether PFOF is right, wrong, or creates conflicts of interest as I don't think that's overly relevant here. Also, not sure of the relevance of the fine (which btw I think was deserved), as Robinhood resolved this in 2017, which is reflected in the relatively minor fine. Retail trading is too random to be of use for market makers - its generally uninformative.

Stormington wrote: »

Janet Yellen received 800k for speaking at an event for Citadel and Ben Bernanke another several hundred thousand dollars. Yellen as head of the FSOC is responsible for monitoring the system so the White House and WH advisors were all aware of what was going on and what would be done or not done.

What wasn't done was permitting the hedge funds to take a financial hit, even liquidation, by being sloppy and overleveraged.

Instead ITM calls of retail customers were effectively margin called due to RH's imposition of sell-only actions on the shares to protect its market maker Citadel Securities, which happened to have a direct interest in Melvin Capital's survival via its links to Citadel LLC's (Hedge fund) 2.75 billion bail out of Melvin as they couldn't cover their liabilities falling due.

Maybe the CEO of IBKR did not accurately describe things and was only trying to poach more customers from Robinhood on tv?

But don't worry - I'm sure that Robinhood removing options spreads is for the good of their customer's accounts (and not solely to remove the ability to reduce the cost to retail of maintaining long term ITM calls by taking out smaller short-term puts) and not reducing their market maker's future exposure.


This was the case for RH, Webull, TDA, DriveWealth (Revolut's broker), Schwab and others. IBKR and to the best of my knowledge Degiro operate differently.

Lots to unpack here, unsure of the relevance of the majority of it. Robinhood traders were net sellers in the week before trading was halted. Retail traders might have kicked off the rally, but professional* traders were causing most of the price action in that week. (*Professional in that it's unclear, it could be institutions, HFTS, crews of day traders who don't access markets through traditional retail platforms etc.)

Stormington wrote: »

If you think the above is separate to an outflow of retail funds from the stock market to the unregulated crypto market you are sorely mistaken. A lot of liquidity will come pouring into crypto directly because of this. A lot.

Not what I meant, this was merely to avoid this thread going off the topic in hand. I'm sure the Robinhood saga has been discussed to death in a thread elsewhere.