Jump to content

Bitcoin/cryptocurrency thread


Recommended Posts

Just now, oaksoft said:

I couldn't give a f**k about Netflix.

I haven't studied their accounts, I don't know anything about their plans or what their problems might be, what their debt position is, their profit margins, their competitor base, their market share, their pricing strategies. I've done no legwork on them at all. And as a result have no funds invested in them and have nothing to say about their share price.

Have you done all that legwork with LUNA?

You seemed quite happy to discuss that asset above, the post I replied to.

Or was that just because you hate Crypto and cant see past your own bias, so you're happy to have that discussion without doing any of that work?

[note: this is a rhetorical question, we all know the answer already, your hypocrisy is now confirmed in black and white]

Link to comment
Share on other sites




Because it's based on nothing.

As I've already said, it's not based on nothing, you can look at its competitors, its total value locked, it's revenue per customer, et cetera.

Repeating "its based on nothing" doesn't make it true, it makes you seem like someone who ignores reality when it doesn't fit in with your prejudices.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, oaksoft said:

You can't do that legwork with a crypto currency.

Because it's based on nothing.

Thanks for making my point.

Repeating the same nonsense over and over again isn't a point, its still just nonsense. You can, of course, do all of that legwork with LUNA, you just dont want to and have realised you've twisted yourself in knots again with your own argument.

I think its probably best to leave this here, as fun as its been. 

There are plenty of things I dont like about Crypto as an asset class (and LUNA is actually and has always been one of them, incidentally, along with NFT's, high leverage availability and lack of regulation to name but another few of my many irks). I'm no crypto maxi, I moved most of my profit out in December to fill up my ISA for the year and only have around 10% of my overall portfolio in now as a trading account (same as I do 10% in ForEx).

I find it hilarious that there are so many people who are not and have never been involved in crypto in any way, or even bothered to do a modicum of investigation into the market, are so rage filled about its very existence, or the possibility that other people can actually have the brass neck (in their eyes) to make money from it.

As has been said to you many times before though, no-one is forcing you to get involved in Crypto or this thread. Kinda reminds me of this billboard I saw in San Francisco when California was having its marriage equality vote and its the advice I would leave you with here:

If you dont like Gay Marriage, dont get Gay married.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The assertion is that crypto is based on nothing.
But you think comparing it to another crypto which is also based on nothing somehow disproves that eh?
You're as lost a cause as gaz5 TBH but it's your money bud.
Are you really that dense or are you just being an arse? You can compare how many users one protocol has with the number of users its competitors have. Just as you can with Tesco and Morrisons.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

Fair play to you gaz5.

You have had your arse well and truly skelped on this thread tonight but you're still smiling.

I can't help but respect that TBH.

Right, I need to walk this bloody dog and the heavens have opened. Clearly the God of all Crypto isn't happy with me showing it up as a piece of speculative nonsense. 😜

Take care bud. 😃

Have to hand it to you, that made me laugh. I honestly wish I had this sort of outlook, life would be so much simpler.

Enjoy your evening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

I couldn't give a f**k about Netflix.

I haven't studied their accounts, I don't know anything about their plans or what their problems might be, what their debt position is, their profit margins, their competitor base, their market share, their pricing strategies. I've done no legwork on them at all. All of that would need to be done thoroughly before I would even consider putting my money into them.

And as a result, I have quite sensibly, no funds invested in them and have nothing to say about their share price.

Now, come on, which of those minimal research things do you do with crypto before you gamble on one of them? Do you just do what Elon Musk recommends?

Oh, you changed this one after I replied.

I see this is quite a habit to make it look like the conversation went your way. Good job I got the quotes in before you changed them all. :)

Anyway, you know the answer to this. I don't do fundamentals checks on any asset I trade, because I'm a technical trader, not a fundamentals trader, so I dont need to. I don't hold for the long term, I'm just in and out at the levels the chart tells me to be, either through successful profit take or stop loss because my idea was wrong.

All my long term investing, done via my ISA, is in ETF's and I have no control over how they balance those. I just pick a ratio that works for me over time and DCA in (during S&P and NASDAQ uptrends). My ETF's (currently 2, a Vanguard one and an HSBC one) were selected based on the asset split I want in my long term holds (70/30) and the geographic diversification that I wanted.

In this regard I treat Crypto in exactly the same way as Stocks and ForEx, short term PnL based on Technicals.

Anyway, you're the one that said you needed to do all those checks before deciding on an investment, then confirmed you hadn't done any of them before deciding on an investment. Seems you only need to do those checks in asset classes you've not already decided on. which is fine.

 

Edited by gaz5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, gaz5 said:

image.thumb.png.c682e5d08d0182b9ed0e9a98fd46dc4d.png

 

Yes, LUNA is a clusterf*ck (and Do Kwon deserved no better for being an arsehole), but we can all pick and choose our examples.

As I've said before, I totally understand that people don't like/understand Crypto and fully accept that, but lets not pretend these sorts of things don't happen to blue chip stocks as well as some sort of "told you so".

It does your argument (as someone who agrees there's a ton of bullshit in Crypto) no favours at all.

Does it no favours with whom, exactly? You're inside the speculative bubble champ. 

There's really not cases of blue chip regulated stocks dropping 99%+ of their value in a day or two. The volatility is of a completely different order of magnitude. 

21 minutes ago, gaz5 said:

As has been said to you many times before though, no-one is forcing you to get involved in Crypto or this thread. Kinda reminds me of this billboard I saw in San Francisco when California was having its marriage equality vote and its the advice I would leave you with here:

If you dont like Gay Marriage, dont get Gay married.

 

Except that it has enormous negative externalities for the 99.9% who are not - quite frankly - stupid enough to engage in an obviously rigged, speculative nonsense market. 

If it were just VLs on the Internet losing their life savings then the boom and bust would be irrelevant. But speculative bubbles never stay within their own community. This nonsense is literally going to kill people in countries whose populace have bought into the 'inflation-proof' nonsense; while any contagion to the wider financial system will be paid for by states and ultimately taxpayers. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, virginton said:

Does it no favours with whom, exactly? You're inside the speculative bubble champ. 

There's really not cases of blue chip regulated stocks dropping 99%+ of their value in a day or two. The volatility is of a completely different order of magnitude. 

Except that it has enormous negative externalities for the 99.9% who are not - quite frankly - stupid enough to engage in an obviously rigged, speculative nonsense market. 

If it were just VLs on the Internet losing their life savings then the boom and bust would be irrelevant. But speculative bubbles never stay within their own community. This nonsense is literally going to kill people in countries whose populace have bought into the 'inflation-proof' nonsense; while any contagion to the wider financial system will be paid for by states and ultimately taxpayers. 

Of course its a speculative bubble. Who has ever claimed otherwise? All bubbles are speculative.

Including this one, which took me 30 seconds to find. A Blue Chip stock losing 95% of its value in 77 days, 90% of that in the first 13 days. It actually fell as low as 99.8% in the end.

image.thumb.png.52e934f38b207193640cd6fee738d0fa.png

Did LUNA happen faster than that? Of course. Do we know the reasons for that? Yes we do. Is it likely to happen again in both Crypto and the Stock market? Absolutely yes, which is what my Netflix example was intended to show. That this isn't a problem limited to Crypto. Thats all.

My point is not that Crypto is great, "champ", as I keep repeating. There's plenty I don't like about it. :)

Am I aware that its a bubble? yes, 100%. Am I aware that it's more volatile than equites? Yes, also 100%. Is that what makes it appealing to trade? 100%. 

You and I are not so different in many of our views. I also (and have said many times) view the "inflation proof" narrative is bullshit. A maxi argument that has no credence whatsoever and you only need to look at the correlation between Bitcoin in particular and the major indexes (SPX and the QQQ's) and the DXY to know that its a risk on asset and it acts like every other risk on asset during inflationary pressure and a rising $. Poorly. People who say its an inflation hedge are either being wilfully misled, or haven't actually looked at it.

While I appreciate your sentiment: no-one wants to see people die in poverty, the countries that have adopted Bitcoin as a currency (which by the way, I also agree with you is bonkers, its not a currency and never will be, its a speculative asset, just like stocks) were already well in the shitter as far as inflation was concerned prior to taking it on. People were already dying in poverty, which is obviously terrible. I agree with you that Bitcoin is not their answer, but equally it wasn't their initial problem either, that runs much deeper. With Bitcoin they are just jumping from one problem to another.

In terms of the impact on the 99% of people not involved, I'm not sure I follow where you're going with that other than to agree that bubbles popping tend to have far wider reaching impacts than just the investors. On that we both agree. Take 2008 or 2001 as examples of that.

I guess the bit we disagree on is that Crypto is its own bubble. I don't believe that it is, I believe its a bolt on to the existing speculative asset market which includes Housing, Equities and Crypto (and to an extent commodities) and that the entire bubble there is going to crash due in part to rampant Capitalism and in part to crazy monetary policy by every Western ruling government in our lifetimes (I'm assuming we are around the same vintage just from a few previous comments).

Crypto will contribute to that, I completely agree, but it wont be the only reason. You just have to look at the SPX, DOW and NASDAQ to see the bubble that's been building in those since 2008, where we appear (as a civilisation) to have learned nothing. Those bubbles are just as big as Bitcoins.

FWIW I think in the next 18 months there is the potential for the largest worldwide financial catastrophe since the 1920's, but that's a different discussion.

Anyway, to sign off, I don't think you and I have particularly differing opinions (based on what I've read from you), we just have slightly different takes on the nuances.

I know crypto is a speculative, bubble building, problem ridden, rug pulling, scam ridden, volatile asset class and I accept that because I can trade it the same way I can other markets which suffer many of the same issues.

You know crypto is a speculative, bubble building, problem ridden, rug pulling, scam ridden, volatile asset class and choose not to be involved in it for those reasons.

And thats absolutely fine.

The bit I don't get is why you guys cant accept that those of us in it (for the most part) know all this and dont (or certainly I dont) try to deny it. All I'm doing is embracing it to make money and have fun with my (incredibly boring) hobby.

And I don't get the reluctance to accept that speculative assets, whatever class they reside in, can be traded the same way.

I get the fundamentals are different, but as I said in my last post, I'm not a fundamentals guy so that makes no ends to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Netflix has lost value because of the issues the business has. They have hit a plateau with subscribers and have a significant issue with password sharing reducing their revenue. The end of Covid restrictions has lead to people binning Netflix accounts. There is also a lot more competition in the pay TV space - Disney Plus, Peacock etc - from some more established players, who have become more competitive in the last year or so.

What are the reasons for the various crypto currencies crashing?  I genuinely don’t know, what’s the story?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, gaz5 said:

Backtesting showed that getting stopped out but keeping target at 1:3.2 was most profitable in my moddeler. Basically I win less but over time return more. I average at 1:2 because I take partial profits at set levels to lock in the trail the stops.

So, as I say, you can look at it like horse racing if you want to. But for me, given I don't trade anything discretionary at all, there's no "form guide" or favourite or horse that could break a leg, I don't see the comparison.

You simply can't do Backtesting  without some form of "Form Guide"

A "favourite" for the purposes of this comparison is simply a potential investment where the potential upside is small but likely while the downside is relatively large but unlikely (for instance backing Motherwell to lose at Parkhead or assuming that this next "dip" won't be the one followed by an outright collapse).

The problem with modelling normal behaviour on just a couple years data is that things that it don't happen very often can have a massive impact.

I'd recommend "The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable" (2010) by Nassim Nicholas Taleb for a more in depth exploration of that concept

A more nuanced and confusing issue is that even if your method of analysing of "Normal market behaviour" is good then it's going to attract other players and that in and of itself will alter the behaviour of the market. In a game where the optimum strategy is to be in the minority there's no stable optimum strategy.

Don't they teach this at Economics school these days

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, gaz5 said:

Of course its a speculative bubble. Who has ever claimed otherwise? All bubbles are speculative.

Including this one, which took me 30 seconds to find. A Blue Chip stock losing 95% of its value in 77 days, 90% of that in the first 13 days. It actually fell as low as 99.8% in the end.

image.thumb.png.52e934f38b207193640cd6fee738d0fa.png

 

What caused this company to lose such a significant amount of value?

Another victim of crypto.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



You simply can't do Backtesting  without some form of "Form Guide"
A "favourite" for the purposes of this comparison is simply a potential investment where the potential upside is small but likely while the downside is relatively large but unlikely (for instance backing Motherwell to lose at Parkhead or assuming that this next "dip" won't be the one followed by an outright collapse).
The problem with modelling normal behaviour on just a couple years data is that things that it don't happen very often can have a massive impact.
I'd recommend "The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable" (2010) by Nassim Nicholas Taleb for a more in depth exploration of that concept
A more nuanced and confusing issue is that even if your method of analysing of "Normal market behaviour" is good then it's going to attract other players and that in and of itself will alter the behaviour of the market. In a game where the optimum strategy is to be in the minority there's no stable optimum strategy.
Don't they teach this at Economics school these days


You guys really like to tell people who do this day in, day out, while you don't, what they can and can't do and how they can and can't do it, dont you. [emoji1787]

I'm fairly sure you don't fully understand what backtesting is, how you do it or why you do it. Or that you know what comes after backtesting. But it's neither here nor there.

Here's an idea though, why don't we just leave this. You can go on with your life, having spent zero time doing this, thinking it's all pointless, it could never work and that I'm a moron for doing it.

I'll go on with mine knowing how well it actually works, for me at least, through thousands of hours of experience and continue making money by applying it, we can both be happy.

How's that sound?

As much as I like being told by random forumites things that I know to be wrong as if they are fact, it serves little purpose. I'm not trying to convince you to take up trading. TBH you shouldn't, it's definitely not for everyone. And you're never going to convince me that the sky is green.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, DiegoDiego said:

Heap of bullshit? You'll need to expand on that for me, I'm afraid.

Here's a photo of one in Montana. 1602f1d0263a44d58aa65468bb5a034e.jpg

You do realise that these metal pipes with gas being burned are flares?

There is no evidence that anyone has successfully reduced flaring by converting gas that would be flared into commercial electricity.  Even the most vocal proponents of this such as Crusoe Energy have not actually succeeded in reducing flaring nor do they make any money.

Meanwhile back to your original claim that the bulk of crypto mining had moved from Chinese sources to US gas that would have been flared, how many millions of  cubic feet are we talking about that has been used to power crypto?  What turbines are being used to convert these massive amounts of gas.

I'm guessing that a quick Google search won't get you the answers to this fictional energy transition.

Edited by strichener
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What caused this company to lose such a significant amount of value?
Another victim of crypto.
I dont understand your point?

Are you saying Crypto tanked this equities value 9 years BEFORE Bitcoin was invented?

I know I humourously quoted Doc Brown earlier in the thread, but I'm sure you don't mean Crypto jumped in the Delorean and fired it up to 88 miles per hour to tank a company stock before it was even born?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am no expert on crypto far from it so I could be talking shite or stating the obvious that deosnt need said but looking on from the outside. It seems its still in that phase where no one knows what its true value is. Until that phase passes, some of the cryptos collapse and disappear and the ones that are stable remain. The remaining will be those that have some value thats understood and is probably linked to something external.  

Edited by BigDoddyKane
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, gaz5 said:

Of course its a speculative bubble. Who has ever claimed otherwise? All bubbles are speculative.

Including this one, which took me 30 seconds to find. A Blue Chip stock losing 95% of its value in 77 days, 90% of that in the first 13 days. It actually fell as low as 99.8% in the end.

image.thumb.png.52e934f38b207193640cd6fee738d0fa.png

Did LUNA happen faster than that? Of course. Do we know the reasons for that? Yes we do. Is it likely to happen again in both Crypto and the Stock market? Absolutely yes, which is what my Netflix example was intended to show. That this isn't a problem limited to Crypto. Thats all.

 

9 hours ago, virginton said:

There's really not cases of blue chip regulated stocks dropping 99%+ of their value in a day or two. The volatility is of a completely different order of magnitude. 

The above still applies to your latest bait and switch tactic. And it is absolutely not likely to happen to both crypto and stock markets. For all the many, many flaws of the latter, the prospect of a 99% collapse overnight because some Walter Mitty pulled the rug on the fictional 'company' you claim a piece of is not realistic - never mind happening across the board. 

The magnitude and scale of the contagion risk is on an entirely different level for crypto and no amount of either foolish or deliberately obfuscational what about Netflix claims actually cover for this. 

PS: I don't usually write War and Peace efforts like your original post from above, for something that's just a fun wee hobby. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, BigDoddyKane said:

I am no expert on crypto far from it so I could be talking shite or stating the obvious that deosnt need said but looking on from the outside. It seems its still in that phase where no one knows what its true value is. Until that phase passes, some of the cryptos collapse and disappear and the ones that are stable remain. The remaining will be those that have some value thats understood and is probably linked to something external.  

No, that's what the bubble participants want you to think. The whole libertarian strand of the crypto world all along was that their products wouldn't be linked to 'something external' that pesky institutions like regulators and nation states could manipulate (from the crypto libertarian view). Which is why some of the self-declared 'stable' coins are already going down with the openly speculative ones. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, topcat(The most tip top) said:

You simply can't do Backtesting  without some form of "Form Guide"

A "favourite" for the purposes of this comparison is simply a potential investment where the potential upside is small but likely while the downside is relatively large but unlikely (for instance backing Motherwell to lose at Parkhead or assuming that this next "dip" won't be the one followed by an outright collapse).

The problem with modelling normal behaviour on just a couple years data is that things that it don't happen very often can have a massive impact.

I'd recommend "The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable" (2010) by Nassim Nicholas Taleb for a more in depth exploration of that concept

A more nuanced and confusing issue is that even if your method of analysing of "Normal market behaviour" is good then it's going to attract other players and that in and of itself will alter the behaviour of the market. In a game where the optimum strategy is to be in the minority there's no stable optimum strategy.

Don't they teach this at Economics school these days

Why study Economics when you can just 'do your own research' and get your PhD in the form of a jpeg collectible?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...