Is anyone else starting to become a bit excited?

Lex Luthor wrote: »

YES!!!

But the next bull run will probably be where it really shines

2025?

ADA has lots of upside this year.

If Musk bought at 28k then it's now double the price, so does that mean he can sell now for 300 billion

TheMilkyPirate wrote: »

Looking to buy NXS. It's on binance but can I only buy certain coins with certain other coins? Seems to only be the option to buy it with BTC

Nice little rise on this bought at 0.70 yesterday and 1.11 now

Mellor wrote: »

But in the contest of Robinhood and GME. They said they halted trading AND new positions, not just new positions. A circuit breaker.
Which leaves the options, and other non-trade plays.

Now, they could be outright lying about that they were doing. But that was the announcement.

The article you linked says stopped trading.

Nope, the article says they restricted trading and goes on to elaborate what it means: “ The discount brokerage informed clients they could close out positions in the affected stocks but could not purchase additional shares”.

Also it was widely reported by RH users on Reddit and on US financial media that they could sell shares but not buy any.

The reason was later explained as a market “plumbing issue” which could actually be bullish for blockchain technology:

Basically Robinhood got a liquidity call from their clearing house related to the risk associated to the massive amount of buy orders they had executed on the market for GME and other stocks (while virtually no sell orders were being submitted). The problem is that actual settlement of transactions is usually 2 days after the order is executed, and for a super volatile and high volume stock, the clearing house wants the broker to cover the risk of a violent price swing between the execution of the buy order and the actual settlement (this was particularly problematic because of the imbalance between buy and sell orders meaning they could not cancel-out each other in case of a price swing). It actually wouldn’t have made sense for Robinhood to restrict selling the stock, as they were on the contrary desperate for their users to execute sell orders on the market in order to balance-out their ratio of buy/sell orders pending to settle with their clearing house (which would have reduced their risk exposure and thus their liquidity requirement).

This is bullish for blockchain technology, as on a blockchain the order execution and the settlement are the same thing so this risk doesn’t exist, hence if the stock market was running off a blockchain this type of issue couldn’t occur (but of course for now throughout I would be an issue with using a blockchain).

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

You'd expect it to go to 100k and upward. The boat has well and truly sailed for me.
Puting 5k in to make 10k is silly, that' won't change any ones life.

In an age where gettting an annual 3% return on your money is doing well, a 100% gain is anything but silly.

You might want to consider that it might not stop at €100 K. How's it done so far?

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

If Musk bought at 28k then it's now double the price, so does that mean he can sell now for 300 billion

No.

There would be market depth for that.

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Puting 5k in to make 10k is silly, that' won't change any ones life.

100% profit is silly?

olestoepoke wrote: »

Not silly no, but is not going to pay off your mortgage if all you can afford to stake is 5k

Paying off the mortgage is quite a high hurdle for an investment!

cnocbui wrote: »

In an age where gettting an annual 3% return on your money is doing well, a 100% gain is anything but silly.

You might want to consider that it might not stop at €100 K. How's it done so far?

Agree in principle.

But I think it very much depends on how many BTCs people have already compared to their regular income and overall portfolio.

If you take 2 people who make 50k per year and have a financial portfolio worth 200k (including cash and all financial assets):

- the first one currently has 150k euros worth of BTC which was fairly easily achievable because they purchased when the price was 5k per BTC while it is now closed to 50k. BTC is 75% of their portfolio already and 3 times their annual salary. It means they already have a very high risk exposure in case BTC goes down, and a whole year of savings would probably not increase their BTC position by more than 10% (15k of savings seems reasonable on their salary), which isn’t life changing. In that case I would argue it wouldn’t be the best use of their savings to add too much more to BTC. Maybe they should diversify a bit and buy other type of assets ...

- now the second one only has 1500 euros worth of BTC. If they put the same 15k of savings into it, they could increase their exposure tenfold (which could be life changing) and their risk exposure related to BTC would remain rather limited. I would be much happier to recommend for that person to pile more money into BTC.

olestoepoke wrote: »

Any yet many many crypto investors have done just that

Of course they have. But just because the people starting investing now "wont" see 100x gains doesn't make it a silly investment.

My point is that if I was only willing to invest in potential 100x investments, I'd either a) never invest or b) back a lot of losers too.

There's a middle ground! I.e. pretty good ROI but not life changing.

donnaille wrote: »

This part isn’t correct, Robinhood weren’t desperate for sellers. I’ve mentioned Citadel Securities data a few times in responses to another poster. It’s data for retail brokerages shows retail traders as net sellers in the days leading up to the halt in trading. Robinhood sends circa-70% of trades to Citadel.

Are you referring to the net balance of Robinhood-related orders which were pending to be settled? If yes you’d you have your source? Genuinely interested to look into it.

Bob24 wrote: »

Are you referring to the net balance of orders which were pending to be settled? If yes you’d you have your source? Genuinely interested to look into it.

Unfortunately I can’t share a full dataset but it was covered seperately by Matt Levine at Bloomberg - https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-01-29/reddit-traders-on-robinhood-are-on-both-sides-of-gamestop (paywall but I believe non subscribers get a few free articles)

Bob24 wrote: »

Thanks. Unless I have missed it, he is not saying anywhere in there that Robinhood had a net selling position pending to be cleared though. He is just giving the overall Citadel daily order flow (which also includes other brokers). I don’t have data, but I’d be inclined to think that retail baby-boomers and Gen X were net sellers on more “established” platforms (those are people who have been holding the stock for years or decades and saw an exit strategy better that they could ever have dreamt of) and and Gen Y and Z were net buyers on Robinhood (the wallstreet bet crowd rightly or wrongly thinking they could squeeze more shorts).

It’s a fair narrative based off that data, but do remember this wasn’t the start of the price run up, and we don’t have any data on how much was even held by retail prior to this so I don’t think anyone would expect the retail market (for Citadel) to be net sellers - particularly at this point.

Mellor wrote: »

A paid for house is a big ask for somebody with $5k to invest.

It depends on how long you are waiting and what you invest in. Obviously putting all 5k in btc might not see life changing amounts now. But diversify it into some other coins and you could see it increase by a lot in a short space of time.