Bitcoin....who's gotten into it?

[jono]

He just needs a trusted third party.

This guy seems to be about to enter a real bet for $1M (or 2 bets for $1M each?) to $26k that Botcoin is going to be valued at more than $1M USD within 90 days:

Attachment 452322
https://twitter.com/balajis/status/1...sR_NcRK2VkCfkg

Byates, Stalefish, which side of that bet you taking?

[J. Barron DeJong]

He just needs a trusted third party.

One thing the crypto bros are good for: a guys already programmed a smart contract and posted it for public review.

[byates1]

https://youtube.com/live/hQzcrylvJiA...SIkaIECMiOmarE

Reasonable discussion.

Prob not 1M BTC in 90 days or whatever but hey, I'll buy all the haters bogner one pieces if it does..

[stalefish3169]

Not sure BTC is going to a million dollars in 90 days. Lol

But getting a nice weekly close above the 200 W MA in a few hours will be cool.

Sent from my Pixel 6 Pro using Tapatalk

[byates1]

Credit suisse. Huh.

[J. Barron DeJong]

Moving forward:



Love to see a Democratic Socialist taking $1M from a crypto bro. Like taking candy from a baby.

[bennymac]

The suspicion is that he will benefit more from the Bitcoin pump than he will lose in the bets - therefore coming out ahead.

He’ll be lauded by cult members for his moves without any of them reflecting on the irony that his profits will be coming out of their pockets.

[stalefish3169]

It'S jUsT A fEW SmaLL reGIoNal BanKs wItH toO MUch CrYpTo ExpoSURe.

https://twitter.com/ecb/status/16375...fDPvH1Hdg&s=19

Sent from my Pixel 6 Pro using Tapatalk

[MultiVerse]

Oh good, crypto catastrophists have finally showed posting in miXedD CaPs. Was wondering what was taking so long

[byates1]

He's been doing that for years. You new here?

BTC 35k by weeks end?

[MultiVerse]

Does it matter? We were promised first $500K and then a $1million. Is a measly $35k the rapture we were promised? This just sounds like gold bugs circa 2010. I am disappoint

[byates1]

Ye of little faith

[J. Barron DeJong]

It'S jUsT A fEW SmaLL reGIoNal BanKs wItH toO MUch CrYpTo ExpoSURe.

https://twitter.com/ecb/status/16375...fDPvH1Hdg&s=19

Sent from my Pixel 6 Pro using Tapatalk

I don’t know that anyone said that?

Did anyone claim SVB failed because of crypto exposure?

Anyway, the liquidity guarantee is costless - if it works to calm the panic. Kind of like FDIC insurance, it keeps the catastrophe from happening in the first place.

[MultiVerse]

Somebody did claim the banks were shut down because regulators wanted to send a very strong anti-crypto message... but that was before the messaging switched to fomenting a panic hoping to induce individuals to radically shift to BTC. All for their own gains. It's really quite despicable.

Hmmm interesting... "“I think part of what happened was that regulators wanted to send a very strong anti-crypto message,” Frank said. “We became the poster boy because there was no insolvency based on the fundamentals.”

That's why dunking on Bitcoin billionaire Balaji's bet is giving him what he wants. Balaji doesn’t so much believe it will happen, as it is he’s trying to make it happen. If all that comes out of the grift is a pump and dump that's fine too.

[stalefish3169]

Somebody did claim the banks were shut down because regulators wanted to send a very strong anti-crypto message... but that was before the messaging switched to fomenting a panic hoping to induce individuals to radically shift to BTC. All for their own gains. It's really quite despicable.




That's why dunking on Bitcoin billionaire Balaji's bet is giving him what he wants. Balaji doesn’t so much believe it will happen, as it is he’s trying to make it happen. If all that comes out of the grift is a pump and dump that's fine too.

So what is your take on Powell and Yellen? Do you honestly think they are doing a good job?



Sent from my Pixel 6 Pro using Tapatalk

[Bunion 2020]

1. Ask again late this Friday.

2. Watch the Frontline special on Easy Money Era.

[J. Barron DeJong]

So what is your take on Powell and Yellen? Do you honestly think they are doing a good job?

Sent from my Pixel 6 Pro using Tapatalk

Given the uncertainty of the situation the economy was in, the information available, and the tools available to them, yes, they have generally done a good job. There are other Fed’s in history that would have done much worse.

What would you have done differently? When? What would you have been basing those decisions on? What would your alternative outcome looked like?

[neufox47]

So what is your take on Powell and Yellen? Do you honestly think they are doing a good job?



Sent from my Pixel 6 Pro using Tapatalk

Herein lies the problem. We’ve got self described monetary experts, whose knowledge all comes from YouTube and Twitter, that want to scapegoat the easiest target.

If things aren’t going perfectly then they did a shit job. When things are going well they are in spite of them.

I’m sure Stalefish would have brilliant ideas for the Fed like buying Bitcoin or let the banking system collapse.

[jono]

Given the uncertainty of the situation the economy was in, the information available, and the tools available to them, yes, they have generally done a good job. There are other Fed’s in history that would have done much worse.

What would you have done differently? When? What would you have been basing those decisions on? What would your alternative outcome looked like?

2020: Could have sold more long treasuries to keep the housing bubble from going crazy and saved us some deficit interest at the same time. They needed short term juice, not long term.

Not unprecedented, either: they managed to differentiate long and short in the great recession. But this time someone needed a real estate bubble. Can't recall his name.

They could be doing a lot worse now, but history will not be kind to all the actions of 2020.

[LeeLau]

So what is your take on Powell and Yellen? Do you honestly think they are doing a good job?



Sent from my Pixel 6 Pro using Tapatalk

It goes back further than Powell and Yellen. The Fed could have ( and should have) been gradually, slowly been raising interest rates from say 2012 onwards back to historical mean

[shera]

Gah I missed so many pages, but feels like I missed nothing at all. Is bitcoin dead yet?

[J. Barron DeJong]

It goes back further than Powell and Yellen. The Fed could have ( and should have) been gradually, slowly been raising interest rates from say 2012 onwards back to historical mean

You wanted them to start raising rates when unemployment was still ~8%?

[J. Barron DeJong]

I was going to post saying those complaining solely about the Fed let’s those who are in control of fiscal policy off the hook to easily: monetary policy can only do so much, especially in response to rapid changes in economic outlook, due to ‘long and variable lags’.

But Yglesias has a post that’s much better than I can do:

”The collapse of Silicon Valley Bank is in part a story of mismanagement and poor regulatory supervision, but it’s also in an important sense a consequence of the decision by the Federal Reserve and other major central banks to fight inflation by raising interest rates. Which in turn should put on the table the long-ignored question of why exactly interest rate hikes have become the world’s preferred anti-inflationary measure. A big part of the answer is simply that raising interest rates is a thing that central banks have the legal authority to do, and there’s widespread belief that it makes sense to delegate macroeconomic stabilization to central bankers. But if you step back from that aspect of institutional design, there’s a strong argument that taxes are a superior inflation-fighting tool, one that would slow inflation in a more direct and more predictable manner. If the main problem with fiscal policy as an anti-inflationary measure is that the main inflation-fighting institution isn’t allowed to use it, then maybe optimal policy would involve adding a fiscal dimension to the Fed’s authorities.”

https://www.slowboring.com/p/tax-inc...-best-cure-for

[LeeLau]

I was going to post saying those complaining solely about the Fed let’s those who are in control of fiscal policy off the hook to easily: monetary policy can only do so much, especially in response to rapid changes in economic outlook, due to ‘long and variable lags’.

But Yglesias has a post that’s much better than I can do:

”The collapse of Silicon Valley Bank is in part a story of mismanagement and poor regulatory supervision, but it’s also in an important sense a consequence of the decision by the Federal Reserve and other major central banks to fight inflation by raising interest rates. Which in turn should put on the table the long-ignored question of why exactly interest rate hikes have become the world’s preferred anti-inflationary measure. [COLOR=#333333][FONT=Merriweather]A big part of the answer is simply that raising interest rates is a thing that central banks have the legal authority to do, and there’s widespread belief that it makes sense to delegate macroeconomic stabilization to central bankers......

I thought I posted an answer but one of the most recent forum glitches killed it. Basically what you said above but along these lines (bullet points)

- rates are the Feds biggest tools in their kit
- effects of rate changes lag
- better for small changes over longer periods of time than bigger changes over short periods of time
- better to have room to either cut/increase rates (which Fed didn't have at effective zero)

[schuss]

Turns out having a relatively non-functional congressional partner in fighting inflation forces the use of crude tools.