Is anyone else starting to become a bit worried? mod note in first post

50% haircut. Not bleak enough, there's still hope on the subreddits. Just you wait until it's a solid 12 months of depression and suicide memes.

FileNotFound

Whats the thoughts on how low this drop may go?

HillCloudHop

Sub 20k at least

FFVII

18000 is as low as it can go apparently without system collapse. Dunno how they worked that out.

LuckyLloyd

FFVII wrote: »

18000 is as low as it can go apparently without system collapse. Dunno how they worked that out.

18.5k
That’s where the Thether ponzi will implode, apparently

FileNotFound

It's like a lead balloon at the moment

Donald Trump

Someone answered a question I asked a few weeks ago to say that there were liquid option markets for bitcoin. What are those markets saying at the minute? What would you be paying for ATM put protection on your current position say 6 months out? The vol has to be mad high anyway one would imagine

sparrowcar

This is a fairly significant drop.... interesting few days ahead.

Donald Trump wrote: »

Someone answered a question I asked a few weeks ago to say that there were liquid option markets for bitcoin. What are those markets saying at the minute? What would you be paying for ATM put protection on your current position say 6 months out? The vol has to be mad high anyway one would imagine

https://www.bybt.com/LongShortRatio

Playing BTC options 6 months in advance like it's a stock with a productive output is truly insane, I'd doubt if many or any (without a suicide wish) do that at all. Best to keep to monthlies at the very most, the landscape can change drastically in 7-14 days.

Donald Trump

grindle wrote: »

https://www.bybt.com/LongShortRatio

Playing BTC options 6 months in advance like it's a stock with a productive output is truly insane, I'd doubt if many or any (without a suicide wish) do that at all. Best to keep to monthlies at the very most, the landscape can change drastically in 7-14 days.

Well the idea of buying protection wouldn't be insane. However, I'd imagine it's prohibitively expensive and would be kinda my point.

What I see on here are some posters who are certain that BTC is going to be back up at, and have surpassed, X before the end of the year. Now, I obviously don't agree with that unwavering certainty. I don't have to know a lot about cryptocurrencies to have that position. There are markets where you do get a negative forward vol (i.e. commodities) but I would not expect that here. If the market is pricing in a large risk of something being far from where a person thinks it is going, then it can be useful for them to realise that

Donald Trump wrote: »

Well the idea of buying protection wouldn't be insane. However, I'd imagine it's prohibitively expensive and would be kinda my point.

What I see on here are some posters who are certain that BTC is going to be back up at, and have surpassed, X before the end of the year. Now, I obviously don't agree with that unwavering certainty. I don't have to know a lot about cryptocurrencies to have that position. There are markets where you do get a negative forward vol (i.e. commodities) but I would not expect that here. If the market is pricing in a large risk of something being far from where a person thinks it is going, then it can be useful for them to realise that

Given history (and I don't particularly want BTC to be higher, it gets higher based on brand hype and being an inflation sponge - government prints money, Bitcoin goes up), I think it goes up.
Something could destroy that. But hasn't yet. Putting in a failsafe amount of money as collateral so your bets don't get swallowed by crypto is basically at least 90% of your money given how far this could fall. without a 10:1 ratio for what you're gambling, could be gone in a month.
I'll echo sentiments elsewhere on the forum and say that ETH @ 300-500 is "fair pricing". The lowest price at which the crypto's price sustains itself through actual use without hype is it's fair price. 300-400 is normal network usage with full blocks.
Does BTC deserve 60k? It doesn't deserve 3k, but enough people believe it deserves it 10k-20k that they'll buy the sh!t out of it, so what do I know?

Donald Trump

grindle wrote: »

Given history (and I don't particularly want BTC to be higher, it gets higher based on brand hype and being an inflation sponge - government prints money, Bitcoin goes up), I think it goes up.
Something could destroy that. But hasn't yet. Putting in a failsafe amount of money as collateral so your bets don't get swallowed by crypto is basically at least 90% of your money given how far this could fall. without a 10:1 ratio for what you're gambling, could be gone in a month.
I'll echo sentiments elsewhere on the forum and say that ETH @ 300-500 is "fair pricing". The lowest price at which the crypto's price sustains itself through actual use without hype is it's fair price. 300-400 is normal network usage with full blocks.
Does BTC deserve 60k? It doesn't deserve 3k, but enough people believe it deserves it 10k-20k that they'll buy the sh!t out of it, so what do I know?

How much of "government prints money, Bitcoin goes up" is attributable to people making an actual deliberate inflation hedge and how much of it was the US man-on-the-street lobbing their stimulus "check" into the hype-of-the-day for FOMO?

I'd imagine that the latter had a good bit to do with any run over the last 12 months.

But anyway, that is a digression from the point that the market would demand a high price to "insure" a current position against losses. That is the case for a reason. Not because they think it won't go up but because of the risk it will plummet. risk=uncertainty

Much more. Totally get that. The everyman who doesn't give a crap jumping into what is from their PoV a ponzi is probs the majority of newcomers to the market.

The ideological people are in the vast minority.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQLBC7wbvrA

Vice suggesting crypto should be banned/regulated due to it's involvement in cyber crime

I think the entire road network should be ripped up because nearly every criminal uses roads to get about on so they can commit crimes.

99.99% of crime involves fiat currency, so money should just be banned.

HGVRHKYY

cnocbui wrote: »

I think the entire road network should be ripped up because nearly every criminal uses roads to get about on so they can commit crimes.

99.99% of crime involves fiat currency, so money should just be banned.

Criminals think about committing crimes - no thinking, no crimes. Ban thinking!

I know why its nonsense. But enough continuous noise could lead to regulation regardless.

MrMusician18

Deleted User wrote: »

I know why its nonsense. But enough continuous noise could lead to regulation regardless.

What's wrong with regulation if it weeds out the criminals?
Clean crypto would then be immune to the criticisms it faces now.

Bob24

MrMusician18 wrote: »

What's wrong with regulation if it weeds out the criminals?
Clean crypto would then be immune to the criticisms it faces now.

It depends on what is meant with by regulation.

If you listen to the likes of Elizabeth Warren in the US, regulation is not very different from banishment.

Clearly she has other motives (she wants a CBDC with no easy opt-out for citizens so that her allies can enforce heavy-handed MMT policies), so any regulation she comes up with will be aiming at suppressing crypto rather than fixing potential issues.

If you take another US lawmaker such as Cynthia Lummis, then yes regulation is probably a good thing as she seems to genuinely support crypto and to see regulation as a way to make it more legit and trusted.

Dohnjoe

cnocbui wrote: »

I think the entire road network should be ripped up because nearly every criminal uses roads to get about on so they can commit crimes.

99.99% of crime involves fiat currency, so money should just be banned.

This is not the point. If someone created a "dark dollar" tomorrow that was untraceable and totally private, then it would be better for criminal and illicit activity than the standard dollar. A step backwards.

Likewise physical cash is a far better vehicle for crime than digital cash, but that's slowly being phased out. The worry is that criminals will start moving towards crypto (which is what they are already doing)

Dohnjoe

MrMusician18 wrote: »

What's wrong with regulation if it weeds out the criminals?
Clean crypto would then be immune to the criticisms it faces now.

Nothing wrong with it, but there's a strong anti-establishment streak in crypto that is firmly against any regulation, no matter how common sense. Of course when a massive amount of funds is siphoned off an exchange they're all asking why it wasn't better regulated.

MrMusician18 wrote: »

What's wrong with regulation if it weeds out the criminals?
Clean crypto would then be immune to the criticisms it faces now.

That's a laugh. All the KYC banking stupidity that prevents many people from opening bank accounts and which causes endless hassles for others, hasn't made a dent in money laundering or illegal activity. Same way the war on drugs which has been raging for half a century stamped out drug use, right?

Murdering people is illegal - has that stopped? Fraud is is illegal, with a lot of it happening via the internet, and it seems to be growing faster than any other are of crime, it seems - shut down the internet.

FileNotFound

cnocbui wrote: »

That's a laugh. All the KYC banking stupidity that prevents many people from opening bank accounts and which causes endless hassles for others, hasn't made a dent in money laundering or illegal activity. Same way the war on drugs which has been raging for half a century stamped out drug use, right?

Murdering people is illegal - has that stopped? Fraud is is illegal, with a lot of it happening via the internet, and it seems to be growing faster than any other are of crime, it seems - shut down the internet.

Bit excessive but point stands I suppose.

Then again we are dealing with makey uppy nonsense that is driven by pure conjecture, so anything that would slow the mad dips (when china says X or Elon says Y) would not be the worst thing.

Unearthly

I'll be starting a job soon that involves stopping ML and terrorist financing in crypto

Don't worry I got this

Dohnjoe

cnocbui wrote: »

That's a laugh. All the KYC banking stupidity that prevents many people from opening bank accounts and which causes endless hassles for others, hasn't made a dent in money laundering or illegal activity.

It deters/prevents criminal and sanctioned entities from opening accounts anywhere they want. It allows financial institutions detect if they are being used by individuals with criminal intent. It helps identify money launderers, individuals linked with fraud, etc.

Murdering people is illegal - has that stopped? Fraud is is illegal, with a lot of it happening via the internet, and it seems to be growing faster than any other are of crime, it seems - shut down the internet.

Christ what a stupid argument. Laws/rules/regulation act as a deterrent and punishment. The aim is to reduce illicit activity.

cnocbui wrote: »

That's a laugh. All the KYC banking stupidity that prevents many people from opening bank accounts and which causes endless hassles for others, hasn't made a dent in money laundering or illegal activity. Same way the war on drugs which has been raging for half a century stamped out drug use, right?

Murdering people is illegal - has that stopped? Fraud is is illegal, with a lot of it happening via the internet, and it seems to be growing faster than any other are of crime, it seems - shut down the internet.

This is a silly argument. Laws and regulations are a deterrent regardless if people break them.

Comparing crypto to proper currencies is madness. Crypto facilitates ransomware, gambling, child porn, and dark web drug markets. It’s applicability in the real world is almost non existent.

And the other reality is that most of the people gambling on this stuff just want to become filthy rich in FIAT. Only the casino is rigged.

SortingYouOut

Deleted User wrote: »

Comparing crypto to proper currencies is madness. Crypto facilitates ransomware, gambling, child porn, and dark web drug markets. It’s applicability in the real world is almost non existent.

And the other reality is that most of the people gambling on this stuff just want to become filthy rich in FIAT. Only the casino is rigged.

No, people do and crypto is just a tool at their disposal. These people also use the likes of Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) that also make working from home possible for so many people. A great tool to bolster your internet security but they also have sinister uses, so should we look to them the same way you're looking at Crypto?

https://www.teradata.com/Blogs/Have-Billions-of-Dollars-in-Organizations-Technology-and-Regulatory-Fines-Actually-Reduced-Money-Lau

Dohnjoe wrote: »

It deters/prevents criminal and sanctioned entities from opening accounts anywhere they want. It allows financial institutions detect if they are being used by individuals with criminal intent. It helps identify money launderers, individuals linked with fraud, etc.

Christ what a stupid argument. Laws/rules/regulation act as a deterrent and punishment. The aim is to reduce illicit activity.

Do you believe there is significantly less money laundering, prostitution and drug use than 20 years ago because of the success of increasingly obstructive and punitive legislation? Really?

All the incredibly strict anti terrorism funding measures didn't stop ISIS, did they? The Qatarie's just jumped on their private jets with suitcases full of cash and flew it to Turkey.

Would you like to buy a bridge, one careful previous owner?

All this KYC and AML rubbish does is squeeze the tube of toothpaste in the middle, instead of the end, it imposes costs to individuals and financial institutions that likely far outweigh the amount of revenue gained - if there even is any. I'll bet more money would have been raised by governments by just putting a micro tax on on all financial transactions and everyone would have vastly preferred it an it would have cost business and individuals far less.

Legislation doesn't prevent or reduce crime, it just lets you penalise it after it's happened one time in 50.

Financial institutions have been fined $26 B worldwide for AML non-compliance - that's not a success in preventing money laundering, it's a tax on financial institutions that didn't cost money launderers a penny.

The cost in the US and Canada of AML compliance alone is a staggering $31.5 B. So say it costs $60 B globally; add the fines and you get a global cost of $86 B. What a stupid waste of a lot of money, for nothing.

As an absolute, money laundering is now three times more than it was 30 years ago, or about $2.5 trillion. As a ratio of market volume, it's not much better. Why?

Anti money laundering has less than 1% impact on crime. At what cost?
September 25, 2020
by Nicky Morris

https://www.ledgerinsights.com/anti-money-laundering-has-less-than-1-impact-on-crime-at-what-cost/

I get you have a stake in this as it's literally your bread and butter, but as Upton Sinclair once said: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it."