News BITCOIN, Heists, Thefts, Hacks, Scams, and Losses

  • Thread starter Thread starter nsaspook
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Bitcoin
AI Thread Summary
The discussion highlights significant security issues surrounding Bitcoin exchanges, particularly focusing on the infamous Mt. Gox, which suffered a major theft leading to its bankruptcy. The exchange's management ignored critical warnings about its software's security flaws, resulting in millions lost and a tarnished reputation for Bitcoin. Other exchanges like Flexcoin and Canadian Bitcoins also reported substantial losses due to hacks and social engineering attacks. The conversation underscores the ongoing risks associated with Bitcoin transactions and the need for improved security measures in the cryptocurrency space. Overall, these incidents illustrate the vulnerabilities within the Bitcoin ecosystem that can lead to significant financial losses for users.
  • #251
BWV said:
BTC was actually a better inflation hedge than gold this latest investing cycle.

It's up a little over 2x since February 2020 right before the pandemic and little over 3x off the March lows.

Gold's been flat (pretty much same price) and did next to nothing when inflation was raging. That's why many have said BTC has become a legit competitor to gold in that role. It's price cannot be manipulated by big bank spoofing (which many have admitted to and been caught for), even if it's much more volatile than gold.

Not saying it cannot go to $0 or has any intrinsic value at $20k...$60K...$500K, etc. But, it does have a big network effect and "enough believers" behind it to give reason to think maybe this is just another blip down on the way back up to $X in the next bull run.

Isn't there a saying that BTC has never lost anyone money who bought it and held for four years? If true, maybe this is just a temporary drop?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #252
Melbourne Guy said:
Is there a way to note sources such as the Cambridge Dictionary disagree with you in a way that's not seen as me being petty 🤔
When it's not informative to the subject of the discussion, no. And given the subject matter, it'd be best to be clear and not coy about this, because it sure sounds like you're saying what BVW was joking about in post #245...except that you're not joking. If that's really what you're saying...oy vey no.
 
  • #253
kyphysics said:
Of course 1% still matters. It's just that relative to the 99% it's not that big of a loss. . .but it still matters. Over the course of an investing career - 40 years - 1% can be the difference of $500,00 easily (that's the pitch people say to not use full-service brokerages and/or financial advisors, etc. who charge 1.5-2.5% on transactions/commissions/wealth under management, etc.) for the average median income investor.
1% of your portfolio and 1% growth are very, very different things.

I guess my point here is that if you're young and economically stable and only have $100k saved for retirement, then throwing $1,000 into crypto, it isn't a big deal if it goes to zero. You could just put it in the most trustworthy exchange you are aware of and if that exchange gets hacked, well, then it probably was a losing lottery ticket anyway.
 
  • #254
kyphysics said:
BTC was actually a better inflation hedge than gold this latest investing cycle.

It's up a little over 2x since February 2020 right before the pandemic and little over 3x off the March lows.

Gold's been flat (pretty much same price) and did next to nothing when inflation was raging. That's why many have said BTC has become a legit competitor to gold in that role. It's price cannot be manipulated by big bank spoofing (which many have admitted to and been caught for), even if it's much more volatile than gold.

Not saying it cannot go to $0 or has any intrinsic value at $20k...$60K...$500K, etc. But, it does have a big network effect and "enough believers" behind it to give reason to think maybe this is just another blip down on the way back up to $X in the next bull run.

Isn't there a saying that BTC has never lost anyone money who bought it and held for four years? If true, maybe this is just a temporary drop?
except that bitcoin's gains were in 2020 and 2021 before inflation began to be a problem
 
  • #255
kyphysics said:
BTC was actually a better inflation hedge than gold this latest investing cycle.
What's an "investing cycle" and what was this last one?
But, it does have a big network effect and "enough believers" behind it to give reason to think maybe this is just another blip down on the way back up to $X in the next bull run.
How is that different from what Beanie Babies had?
Isn't there a saying that BTC has never lost anyone money who bought it and held for four years? If true, maybe this is just a temporary drop?
That's only happened 3 times. It's not much of a track record.
 
  • #256
I don't have timw to write an elaborated answer, I just see a lot of things to clarify for kyphysics. Regarding the intrinsec value of bitcoin, you can think of it a bit like a wikipedia hosted on millions of people's ''servers'', where each entry is a bank account. You can only edit your own entries, to send money to other accounts. There's no known reasonably feasible way to hack the system by taking control of ''the server'', for there is no such thing (it would mean performing a 51 percent attack). If you don't see any value to such a system, then fine, you're like millions of other people (see r/buttcoin). If you think this has value, then fine, you're also like million of people.

Regarding your hacking question, I suggest you to read about hardware wallets. The hack you mention cannot occur on them, they are completely disconnected from the host pc, except to transfer a file (that you sign using your hardware device's buttons, this cannot be keylogged, but of course there are ways to get your seedphrase). No internet connected, and you should never, ever type your seedpbrase into your computer. The seedpbrase is a ljsf of 12 to 25 words, most if nkt all of them picked randomly from a well known list of like 5000 words. Then an algorithm translates your words (and their order matters) into the private key of your wallet on the blockchain.And.a.comment regarding that bitcoin was made to be anonymous or opaque, this is wrong. Nakamoto was well aware of privacy concerns, and he found no better than to suggest the use of a different wallet for every transaction (this did not aged well), he wasn't a privacy expert. Monero came up with better ideas in that aspect.
 
  • #257
russ_watters said:
What's an "investing cycle" and what was this last one?

How is that different from what Beanie Babies had?

That's only happened 3 times. It's not much of a track record.
Expansion to recession is one cycle.

Agree on short life-cycle. It remains to be seen if BTC bull run and that pattern holds.

Beanie babies aren't practical to carry around as an alt currency. Maybe you could store them in a vault (like gold) and have units of them traded on stock exchanges. It doesn't have to be hugely different maybe. . .the point is that if enough people accept it as a currency/store of value (a la gold, U.S. dollars), the network is big enough, it can be decently portable to trade, etc. etc., then it can be an alt currency.

Might not be a great currency. . .maybe it's limited and only a minority of the global population uses it, but it can still be a medium of exchange and unit store of value. I wouldn't trust it over the U.S. dollar, gold, or even a future Federal Reserve digital currency (despite all the concerns about privacy and tracking), but I would still be willing to put a small sum of money into BTC.

Maybe 1/2 percent is too kind. . .. .I haven't decided yet. Definitely not more than 1%.
 
  • #258
BWV said:
except that bitcoin's gains were in 2020 and 2021 before inflation began to be a problem
Nah. BTC went from 8K February 2020 to 60K in 2021. It definitely did it's job.

Gold, which has historically done well with negative real yields and heavy inflation was sadly flat.

That's why there was so much debate over this.

As for BTCs latest collapse, the argument from some is that it LEADS (not lags, nor coincidental) to asset price rises and drops. So, it's "early." Institutional investors are first to drop the speculative asset when rates rise, but also quick to pick it back up when interest rates drop. . .that's one argument. If true, asset prices will soon drop precipitously just like BTC has, but BTC will lead the way up on the rebound when the bull resumes.

In that sense, though, it's not really a currency. It's way too volatile. I'm seen the argument that BTC is a more volatile supped up version of the QQQ. Or, alt currency-wise, it's a super volatile version of silver, which in turn is a super volatile version of gold (in trading terms).

Charts/pattern-wise, this does play out well. Those correlations can end anytime of course.
 
  • #259
As for why BTC (and gold) are not protecting against recent 8.3% August y/y inflation (.01 m/m), it's because of rising rates and expectations of disinflation or deflation with a very likely recession coming. It's leading.

Asset prices will fall.

Then, BTC will lead the way out once interest rates drop again and we're coming out of recession (and inflation expectations likely rise again).
 
  • #260
russ_watters said:
When it's not informative to the subject of the discussion, no. And given the subject matter, it'd be best to be clear and not coy about this, because it sure sounds like you're saying what BVW was joking about in post #245...except that you're not joking. If that's really what you're saying...oy vey no.
Was BVW joking? But thanks for the advice, I'll be clear: your call out was incorrect, most definitions of currency volatility reference exchange rates.

And yes, inflation is also a driver, but unless it's hyperinflation, we don't generally notice that as 'volatility' in our local fiat currencies. Also, for BTC specifically, those value charts are pegged to a fiat currency - usually USD - so it's 100% volatile against that measure, there is no other common reference point for a BTC having less purchasing power now than previously.
 
  • #261
I think kyphysics's allusions to Bitcoin's cycles can be seen on the famous rainbow.chart of bitcoin.

It's a bit like internet adoption or tumor growth. The price of bitcoin rose roughly logarithmically in time, with some ups and downs but overall there was a trend. The ups where correlated in time (possibly with a lag, I forgot) with the halvings, i.e. a halving in btc rewards for each mined block. So some people believe that there is a 4 years cycle that cannot be broken, just because it happened a few times in a row. And.therefore.that the price of bitcoin is obliged to rise soon.
 
  • #262
Melbourne Guy said:
Was BVW joking?
Yes...or, rather, poking fun.
Melbourne Guy said:
But thanks for the advice, I'll be clear: your call out was incorrect, most definitions of currency volatility reference exchange rates.
My call out was not incorrect. I agree with the last part, but that doesn't impact what we are discussing.
Melbourne Guy said:
And yes, inflation is also a driver, but unless it's hyperinflation, we don't generally notice that as 'volatility' in our local fiat currencies.
True. So the question is whether bitcoin would settle down if adopted and be more stable like most fiat currencies, or not.
Melbourne Guy said:
Also, for BTC specifically, those value charts are pegged to a fiat currency - usually USD - so it's 100% volatile against that measure, there is no other common reference point for a BTC having less purchasing power now than previously.
It's really hard to understand why you would say such a thing. It really sounds disingenuous. Again, we measure against other currencies for convenience. If that stops being useful we can make an artificial measuring stick such as the CPI. Nothing is stopping us from doing that now if we choose to and I did above. We can call my artificial yardstick the CAR. You can't possibly really believe that bitcoin's buying power is unchanged since last year. Per my measuring stick, it peaked at 2.0 CAR and has since dropped to 0.6 CAR.

You seem to be claiming that if all other currencies disappeared bitcoin would become stable by default due to lack of a basis for comparison, and that's just nonsense.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes Vanadium 50
  • #263
The maxi argument circa 2015 was along the lines of 'at some future point bitcoin will be worth $1,000,000 or whatever, at that point it will be widely adopted and somehow become a stable currency' (measured against the price of goods and services). How would a capitalist economy function under 100% bitcoin adoption? An economy cannot function if participants just want to hoard the medium of exchange because they believe it offers a higher return than investments in the real world. Will everyone who got rich on the ride up will realize this moment and gradually begin transacting with their hoard of BTC? The crypto bros become the new elite and the rest of us maybe can scrape by washing their Lambos. This argument is pure millennialism - the believers will be saved and the rest consigned to outer fiat darkness.
 
  • Like
Likes nsaspook and russ_watters
  • #264
BWV said:
The maxi argument circa 2015 was along the lines of 'at some future point bitcoin will be worth $1,000,000 or whatever, at that point it will be widely adopted and somehow become a stable currency' (measured against the price of goods and services). How would a capitalist economy function under 100% bitcoin adoption? An economy cannot function if participants just want to hoard the medium of exchange because they believe it offers a higher return than investments in the real world. Will everyone who got rich on the ride up will realize this moment and gradually begin transacting with their hoard of BTC? The crypto bros become the new elite and the rest of us maybe can scrape by washing their Lambos. This argument is pure millennialism - the believers will be saved and the rest consigned to outer fiat darkness.
Have a look at this 2013 reddit post (and possibly comments). , and some of the comments, to find answers to your question.

See the comment
Given your estimates, even if all bitcoins were currently mined and available they would be worth:
step 5. $1,190 step 6. $19,047 step 7. $47,619 step 8. $238,095 - $952,380
If this is true then why would anyone in their right mind do anything but horde bitcoins. And at that point you have no commerce.
and the replies.

Bitcoin was worth about 117 USD at that point.
 
  • #265
fluidistic said:
Have a look at this 2013 reddit post (and possibly comments). , and some of the comments, to find answers to your question.

See the comment

and the replies.

Bitcoin was worth about 117 USD at that point.

Yes, its the pie in the sky maxi argument. #7 was crossed last year (the market cap has since fallen below $1T), crime remains the only significant use case.
 
  • Like
Likes russ_watters
  • #266
russ_watters said:
You seem to be claiming that if all other currencies disappeared bitcoin would become stable by default due to lack of a basis for comparison, and that's just nonsense.
Nonsense how? To use BTC it has to be converted to some other currency, it's not intrinsically spendable otherwise. If it was intrinsically spendable - like a dollar in your pocket in your local fiat currency is - then it would not be seen as any more volatile than USD, AUD, GBP, etc.

And if it was the only currency, then of course it would be stable in the same way people in the United States, spending USD locally, consider their currency stable.

russ_watters said:
It's really hard to understand why you would say such a thing. It really sounds disingenuous. Again, we measure against other currencies for convenience. If that stops being useful we can make an artificial measuring stick such as the CPI. Nothing is stopping us from doing that now if we choose to and I did above. We can call my artificial yardstick the CAR. You can't possibly really believe that bitcoin's buying power is unchanged since last year. Per my measuring stick, it peaked at 2.0 CAR and has since dropped to 0.6 CAR.
Can you plot your CAR against time to show the cause and effect you're claiming? Because I think you are suggesting a CPI and BTC calculation that slashes BTC buying power by a HUGE amount in less than 12 months without any fiat currency conversion effect. Is that what you are saying?
 
  • Skeptical
Likes russ_watters
  • #267
Melbourne Guy said:
Can you plot your CAR against time to show the cause and effect you're claiming? Because I think you are suggesting a CPI and BTC calculation that slashes BTC buying power by a HUGE amount in less than 12 months without any fiat currency conversion effect. Is that what you are saying?

Yes, the buying power of bitcoin changed by a huge amount when it dropped from 60k to 20k. I don't understand how this isn't wildly obvious.

The only other possibility mathematically is the buying power of a dollar increased dramatically, and that somewhat famously did not happen.
 
  • Like
Likes russ_watters
  • #268
Office_Shredder said:
Yes, the buying power of bitcoin changed by a huge amount when it dropped from 60k to 20k. I don't understand how this isn't wildly obvious.
It is obvious, but it requires currency exchange to effect the value comparison. Which demonstrates volatility, the definition of which was the trigger for this back and forth. I'm not arguing otherwise, and never did, volatility is relative and most often, the relativity is 'other currency' based.
 
  • Skeptical
Likes russ_watters
  • #269
Melbourne Guy said:
Nonsense how?
Nonsense because that's obviously not how it works. This stuff is so self evident I'm having trouble imagining your thought process.

I don't need to know the exchange rate to know the Zimbabe dollar is wacked, I just need to know that it costs me a trillion dollars to buy a loaf of bread. Exchange rate is a convenient way to measure volatility, but it isn't what volatility is. Further, you keep saying unrelated/irrelevant things that you apparently think are connected:

Melbourne Guy said:
To use BTC it has to be converted to some other currency, it's not intrinsically spendable otherwise. If it was intrinsically spendable - like a dollar in your pocket in your local fiat currency is - then it would not be seen as any more volatile than USD, AUD, GBP, etc.
There's no magical connection there. Being spendable doesn't make a currency stable. On the flip side, being not spendable anymore hasn't made gold particularly unstable. Market forces are what is doing the work. There isn't an inherent magical switch that gets flipped to make the currency stable when it gets adopted.
Melbourne Guy said:
And if it was the only currency, then of course it would be stable in the same way people in the United States, spending USD locally, consider their currency stable.
Tell that to the residents of Zimbabwe. There's just no connection/no logic in what you are saying. It's not how it works.
Melbourne Guy said:
Can you plot your CAR against time to show the cause and effect you're claiming?
What cause and effect? I've said nothing about cause and effect. But of course I could plot the CAR over time if I feel like it. Do I really need to? Do you really believe a BTC has the same buying power today that it did at its peak? What do you need me to prove here?
Melbourne Guy said:
Because I think you are suggesting a CPI and BTC calculation that slashes BTC buying power by a HUGE amount in less than 12 months without any fiat currency conversion effect. Is that what you are saying?
Yup. That's how it works. Bitcoin is volatile. Period. It's not merely volatile with respect to the dollar. It's just volatile.

It's mind-blowing to me that you actually believe the joke.
 
  • #270
Maybe we need to back up: who decides what a loaf of bread costs, and on what basis? Is there a law of the universe that says a loaf of bread always costs exactly one dollar, euro, franc and Peso, or is there something else going on?

Does a merchant selling a loaf of bread need to check the exchange rate vs another currency (which currency?) every morning before deciding what price to sell a loaf of bread for in their local currency?

Is the price of a stock an "exchange rate"?
 
  • #271
Melbourne Guy said:
It is obvious, but it requires currency exchange to effect the value comparison. Which demonstrates volatility, the definition of which was the trigger for this back and forth. I'm not arguing otherwise, and never did, volatility is relative and most often, the relativity is 'other currency' based. [emphasis added]
If you didn't have another currency to compare to, couldn't you something else to compare to?
 
  • #272
russ_watters said:
Maybe we need to back up: who decides what a loaf of bread costs, and on what basis? Is there a law of the universe that says a loaf of bread always costs exactly one dollar, euro, franc and Peso, or is there something else going on?
I capitalism, it's the free market. I'm free to decline if your bread sucks or is priced too high.
 
  • Like
Likes russ_watters
  • #273

Celsius exposes the names of all customers and their recent transactions in court filing – including their execs​

Celsius Network is undergoing bankruptcy proceedings after its impressive implosion earlier this year. Journalists at Gizmodoobserved that the company's latest court filing was 14,532 pages long – because it contains the names and recent transactions of every user on the platform. It's not immediately clear how this came to pass, but someone messed up really, really badly.
Among those listed in the court filing were Alex Mashinsky, his wife Krissy, and various other executives. The records show that Mashinsky withdrew $10 million from Celsius shortly before the company's collapse, and his wife withdrew another $2 million. Chief Strategy Officer Daniel Leon also withdrew $7 million.

https://web3isgoinggreat.com/?id=ce...ctions-in-court-filing--including-their-execs
 
  • #274
Is it safe to assume they'll need those $10...$7 million for lawyer fees?
 
  • #275
russ_watters said:
, I just need to know that it costs me a trillion dollars to buy a loaf of bread.
More like a mole.

Scary, no?
 
  • #276
U.S. seizes Bitcoin once valued at $3.4 billion that real-estate developer stole from dark web a decade ago
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/u...-stole-from-dark-web-a-decade-ago-11667844990

Property developer James Zhong pleaded guilty on Nov. 4 to committing wire fraud after he stole Bitcoin a decade ago once valued at $3.4 billion from the Silk Road marketplace, according to federal prosecutors in Manhattan. They said Zhong unlawfully obtained 50,000 Bitcoin from the Silk Road, a dark web internet marketplace in September 2012. Investigators uncovered the Bitcoin after a raid in Zhong’s home in Georgia in November 2021, when Bitcoin was worth $60,000 (it is now was worth about $21,000 recently).

Bitcoin is down further this week. Today, 1540 EST
SymbolLast PriceChange% Change
Bitcoin USD18,566.46-1,943.34-9.48%
Ethereum USD1,324.97-230.84-14.84%
BNB USD317.99-14.51-4.36%

Stolen $3bn Bitcoin mystery ends with popcorn tin discovery​

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-63547765
The stash of 50,676 Bitcoin was found hidden on various devices in a hacker's home in an underfloor safe and inside a popcorn tin.
. . .
The police raid at Mr Zhong's Georgia home was carried out a year ago but only revealed now.
It came at the same time as Bitcoin's value peaked - the seized funds would now be worth about $1.1bn.

Officers say they found the Bitcoin dotted around his home on hard drives and other storage devices in an underfloor safe and on a tiny computer hidden inside a popcorn tin in a bathroom closet.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Haha
Likes OmCheeto and russ_watters
  • #280
Cryptocurrency, stonks, or diseased cattle. I'm trying to decide what is the better investment.
 
  • Like
Likes nsaspook and russ_watters
  • #281
Vanadium 50 said:
Cryptocurrency, stonks, or diseased cattle. I'm trying to decide what is the better investment.

Hey, he's still a billionaire, approximately. Even after this crypto has been very kind to SBF.
 
  • #282
Vanadium 50 said:
Cryptocurrency, stonks, or diseased cattle. I'm trying to decide what is the better investment.
I've got snake oil that will cure your diseased cattle! Only 11.99 a bottle! Free shipping and handling for purchases over fourteen tons!
 
  • #283
Vanadium 50 said:
Cryptocurrency, stonks, or diseased cattle. I'm trying to decide what is the better investment.
How diseased?
Office_Shredder said:
Hey, he's still a billionaire, approximately. Even after this crypto has been very kind to SBF.
Good for him (Kanye notsomuch), but I'm not so losing 96% of my net worth would smart a little more.
Drakkith said:
I've got snake oil that will cure your diseased cattle! Only 11.99 a bottle! Free shipping and handling for purchases over fourteen tons!
"Shipping and handling" is such a ripoff.

In seriousness: I'm not totally clear on what happened here. Is it simply that a major holder pulled all their money from the bank at once - with a loud public announcement - triggering a run and loss of liquidity? Is that legal how it went down? What happens if Bill Gates says "I don't think Citibank is solvent so I'm withdrawing all my money?"

And what happens to the account holders? Are they going to be able to keep/recover their holdings? If google serves, FTC is/was the 3rd largest exchange. That's a really big bank failure.
 
Last edited:
  • #284
russ_watters said:
In seriousness: I'm not totally clear on what happened here. Is it simply that a major holder pulled all their money from the bank at once - with a loud public announcement - triggering a run and loss of liquidity? Is that legal how it went down? What happens if Bill Gates says "I don't think Citibank is solvent so I'm withdrawing all my money?"

And what happens to the account holders? Are they going to be able to keep/recover their holdings? If google serves, FTC is/was the 3rd largest exchange. That's a really big bank failure.

First, it's not a bank. Some people might think of it like one, but the difference is important to keep in mind when making decisions about your risk.

I don't know the details here, but here are some possible ideas
1.) Crypto venues explicitly have a murky relationship with their customers. Ftx might have used customer funds to fund their earlier acquisitions and overextended themselves.

2.) ftx let's customers have leverage. If you deposit 10,000 dollars, ftx will key you spend 100,000 dollars on bitcoin. You pay interest for this. If bitcoin drops more than 10%, ftx loses money. They protect themselves by selling your bitcoin immediately if it drops, (picking a random number here) 5%. In theory this makes the lending safe, but they allow up to 20x leverage, so they might have lost some money on this if they weren't able to close everyone out during a bitcoin crash. In order to lend like this you need to have extra cash on hand to cover the losses. If they didn't have enough cushion, they can't pay out if their customers start withdrawing money.

3.) If you put 10k dollars in ftx, that money doesn't sit there as dollars. A safe thing to do with it would be to invest it in short term treasuries, earning ftx a little bit of interest (which they may or may not give some back to you as an incentive to park your money in ftx) of course that doesn't earn a lot. If you think crypto only goes up, you might put it in bitcoin, or lend it to a crypto venture, and make a lot not money that you keep for yourself. If those investments go bust, in theory you should have a cushion of extra cash at the exchange to cover it, but if you lose too much then you can't pay back your customers.

#3 has basically happened to a ton of crypto places this year. Ftx is somewhat famous for stepping in and covering the customer losses while acquiring the bankrupt business, which is why this failure is so surprising and ironic.

In this particular case, speculation is that ftx was using its ownership of its own tokens as equity/cash to cover possible losses as listed above, vand binance kind of announced they thought those tokens weren't worth very much, which meant ftx didn't have enough money anymore to cover those losses because the announcement made those tokens go down in the market.

What happens to account holders depends a lot on the facts. For a real bank, the central regulator would try to convince another bank to buy them and cover all the accounts. If that doesn't work, in the US and I assume other places accounts are insured - your first 250k dollars are covered. Beyond thatyou might lose money, you would be a claimant in bankruptcy proceedings and get whatever you can get.

Here, there is no regulator or insurance. Binance has announced they are going to make sure all account holders are made whole, so customers might be fine. If that didn't happen though, a couple scenarios could play out
1.) Ftx s shuts itself down and pays out as much money as possible. This was kind of happening - they had already paused anyone withdrawing money it sounds like, which is a key step to making sure that when you figure things out everyone gets a fair cut instead of the fastest people to withdraw getting their money and everyone else getting nothing.

2.) You just ride it out and see what happens. A lot of people will withdraw money as they find out there are issues, and eventually you will have nothing left. Whoever didn't withdraw gets nothing. In some outside chance, maybe you make enough money back or get additional investments and you end up not actually having a problem.

2 is kind of illegal in the US (ftx is not a US company) as you are required to declare bankruptcy if you can't pay back your liabilities instead of paying them back in a random fashion. That way a court decides the fairest way to split the money.
 
  • Like
Likes russ_watters
  • #285
FTX: Cryptocurrency market rocked by near-collapse of exchange
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-63564364

Just before the US markets open on Wednesday
SymbolLast PriceChange% Change
Bitcoin USD17,584.50-1,991.19-10.17%
Ethereum USD1,210.69-249.05-17.06%
Tether USD0.9989-0.0013-0.1306%
BNB USD296.73-27.54-8.49%

There must have been a rally last night, since yesterday, Bitcoin was about $18,566.46, or up ~$980 from this morning's $17,584.50

Jeff John Roberts's (Fortune) take on the situation
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/hell-just-happened-crypto-q-005458676.html
The two of them used to be pals, you see, and this included CZ investing in SBF's new cryptocurrency exchange. In time, CZ decided he didn't want to own it anymore, and, when he sold his stake in FTX, he took payment in a crypto token called FTT. Those tokens are used by customers on the FTX exchange to obtain trading discounts, but, unlike Bitcoin, are not especially liquid.

In hindsight, this was a foolish arrangement by SBF because it resulted in CZ owning a huge amount of FTT tokens, thus giving him power over FTX. It's as if Pepsi gave Coca-Cola a big chunk of shares that Coke could sell off any time it wanted. And that's what happened: CZ got mad at SBF and flooded the market with loads of FTT tokens.

This was devastating because SBF also owns a trading fund that has a whole lot of FTT tokens on its balance sheet. When the price of FTT tokens began to crater, SBF tried to defend its value by selling other assets in order to buy up the FTT tokens flooding the market—but it didn't work, and, as the value of FTT tanked, SBF discovered his liabilities began to exceed his assets. By Tuesday, his companies were facing insolvency, and he had to turn to his rival to take them off his hands.
 
Last edited:
  • #287
At 1400 EST
ymbolLast PriceChange% Change
Bitcoin USD16,685.47-2,063.76-11.01%
Ethereum USD1,168.28-194.40-14.27%
Tether USD1.00-0.00-0.11%
BNB USD280.93-44.94-13.79%

I'm not sure how Yahoo is calculating the change, but it's definitely negative.

https://finance.yahoo.com/crypto
 
  • #288
I was thinking of investing up to 1% of portfolio in BTC. Hadn't gotten around to it and GLAD I did not.

I think I might pass forever. This is fun watching it burn.
 
  • #289
Office_Shredder said:
First, it's not a bank. Some people might think of it like one, but the difference is important to keep in mind when making decisions about your risk.

I don't know the details here, but here are some possible ideas
1.) Crypto venues explicitly have a murky relationship with their customers. Ftx might have used customer funds to fund their earlier acquisitions and overextended themselves.

2.) ftx let's customers have leverage. If you deposit 10,000 dollars, ftx will key you spend 100,000 dollars on bitcoin. You pay interest for this. If bitcoin drops more than 10%, ftx loses money. They protect themselves by selling your bitcoin immediately if it drops, (picking a random number here) 5%. In theory this makes the lending safe, but they allow up to 20x leverage, so they might have lost some money on this if they weren't able to close everyone out during a bitcoin crash. In order to lend like this you need to have extra cash on hand to cover the losses. If they didn't have enough cushion, they can't pay out if their customers start withdrawing money.

3.) If you put 10k dollars in ftx, that money doesn't sit there as dollars. A safe thing to do with it would be to invest it in short term treasuries, earning ftx a little bit of interest (which they may or may not give some back to you as an incentive to park your money in ftx) of course that doesn't earn a lot. If you think crypto only goes up, you might put it in bitcoin, or lend it to a crypto venture, and make a lot not money that you keep for yourself. If those investments go bust, in theory you should have a cushion of extra cash at the exchange to cover it, but if you lose too much then you can't pay back your customers.

#3 has basically happened to a ton of crypto places this year. Ftx is somewhat famous for stepping in and covering the customer losses while acquiring the bankrupt business, which is why this failure is so surprising and ironic.

In this particular case, speculation is that ftx was using its ownership of its own tokens as equity/cash to cover possible losses as listed above, vand binance kind of announced they thought those tokens weren't worth very much, which meant ftx didn't have enough money anymore to cover those losses because the announcement made those tokens go down in the market.

What happens to account holders depends a lot on the facts. For a real bank, the central regulator would try to convince another bank to buy them and cover all the accounts. If that doesn't work, in the US and I assume other places accounts are insured - your first 250k dollars are covered. Beyond thatyou might lose money, you would be a claimant in bankruptcy proceedings and get whatever you can get.

Here, there is no regulator or insurance. Binance has announced they are going to make sure all account holders are made whole, so customers might be fine. If that didn't happen though, a couple scenarios could play out
1.) Ftx s shuts itself down and pays out as much money as possible. This was kind of happening - they had already paused anyone withdrawing money it sounds like, which is a key step to making sure that when you figure things out everyone gets a fair cut instead of the fastest people to withdraw getting their money and everyone else getting nothing.

2.) You just ride it out and see what happens. A lot of people will withdraw money as they find out there are issues, and eventually you will have nothing left. Whoever didn't withdraw gets nothing. In some outside chance, maybe you make enough money back or get additional investments and you end up not actually having a problem.

2 is kind of illegal in the US (ftx is not a US company) as you are required to declare bankruptcy if you can't pay back your liabilities instead of paying them back in a random fashion. That way a court decides the fairest way to split the money.
Anyone care to do a single paragraph (5 sentence maximum) Cliff Notes/tldr/"For Dummies" version of what the heck is happening across crypto for those of us who aren't super deep into the news/space/technical details?

Is there some insolvent crypto lender or trust that's causing a lot of losses for people?
 
  • #290
kyphysics said:
Anyone care to do a single paragraph (5 sentence maximum) Cliff Notes/tldr/"For Dummies" version of what the heck is happening across crypto for those of us who aren't super deep into the news/space/technical details?
You mean with the price right now? It's lack of confidence due to the failure of a large exchange.
 
  • #291
kyphysics said:
I think I might pass forever. This is fun watching it burn.
It's less fun watching your holdings go down in value, trust me.
 
  • #293
kyphysics said:
Anyone care to do a single paragraph

russ_watters said:
Binance has changed its mind and is declining to save/buy FTX:
Here you go...
 
  • #294
russ_watters said:
You mean with the price right now? It's lack of confidence due to the failure of a large exchange.
So is the reason this FTX exchange insolvent because of leverage it has in its finances?

Why the random implosion? (been watching lots of CNBC vids and still am not sure I get the technical details of what is happening - I get the broad picture, though)
 
  • #295
kyphysics said:
was thinking of investing up to 1% of portfolio in BTC
was thinking of investing gambling up to 1% of portfolio in BTC.
Fixed it for you.

Despite prodding, you have never explained what your investing goals are. Therefore, you are not investing. At best, you are hoping the asset will grow by an unspecified amount in some unspecified time frame. That isn't what investing is. (Putting a bet on 18 Red fits that description, and nobody will say that's investing)

1% of BTC in your portfolio is unlikely to make sense in any portfolio. If you believe that it is going to go up by a large factor, why only 1%? If you don't, why are you investing anything in it? If you believe there is a complex set of probabilities that result in expectation values that warrant a 1% investment and not a 1/2% or 2% investment, what are they? And how do alternatives compare?
 
  • #296
was thinking of investing gambling losing/burning up to 1% of portfolio in BTC. :oldbiggrin:

Crypto traders with remaining funds on FTX are attempting to sell their account balances for fractions of their face value.

Telegram chats facilitating small over-the-counter (OTC) markets viewed by CoinDesk reveal buyers are bidding about 10 cents to 15 cents on the dollar for the locked-up funds, while sellers are generally looking to offload their balances at around 20 cents to 33 cents.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/hostaged-ftx-funds-sold-pennies-195751906.html :))

:rolleyes:

Meanwhile - (Bloomberg) -- "Amazon.com Inc. is the world’s first public company to lose a trillion dollars in market value as a combination of rising inflation, tightening monetary policies and disappointing earnings updates triggered a historic selloff in the stock this year."
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/amazon-becomes-world-first-public-191725519.html

So it was overvalued? :olduhh:
 
  • Like
Likes Vanadium 50
  • #297
kyphysics said:
So is the reason this FTX exchange insolvent because of leverage it has in its finances?

Why the random implosion? (been watching lots of CNBC vids and still am not sure I get the technical details of what is happening - I get the broad picture, though)
It's not random, it culminated with a fight or just sabotage of FTX by Binance. Shady business practices and leverage were precursor problems. Cliffs notes will only take you so far. You should read @Office_Shredder's post and more:
https://qz.com/binance-goes-to-war-on-ftx-tokens-then-sweeps-in-to-bu-1849756069
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Likes kyphysics and nsaspook
  • #298
Vanadium 50 said:
1% of BTC in your portfolio is unlikely to make sense in any portfolio. If you believe that it is going to go up by a large factor, why only 1%? If you don't, why are you investing anything in it? If you believe there is a complex set of probabilities that result in expectation values that warrant a 1% investment and not a 1/2% or 2% investment, what are they? And how do alternatives compare?
There's no need for a complex analysis of the exact buy-in. The amount is arbitrarily small because it's a lottery ticket. Not enough bet to hurt badly if you lose, but if you win the lottery you're rich. Like betting on 18 red 3x in a row (if you keep winning).
[edit] Although at this point it's more like betting on 18 red once, since I don't think I've seen bulls predicting more than a $1m price.
 
  • #299
russ_watters said:
Shady business practices
One day it's "Keep your stinking regulations off my crypto!" and the next it's "Shady business practices! Someone should protect us!"
 
  • Like
Likes Rive and BWV
  • #300
Vanadium 50 said:
One day it's "Keep your stinking regulations off my crypto!" and the next it's "Shady business practices! Someone should protect us!"
Ultimately when the users figure out that you can't have both, it's what will finally cause crypto to die.
 
Back
Top