It's the definition of a flash crash. Happens all the time, just that the magnitudes a far bigger in crypto.
Lolz Somebody got a bargain, already doubled their money and some.
That is a great example of how you panic sell.
It's the definition of a flash crash. Happens all the time, just that the magnitudes a far bigger in crypto.
Someone who lies about the little things will lie about the big things too.
The liquidity on poloniex is poor daily volume is in the hundreds of thousands, rather than millions. I make the assumption an idiot set off a market sell order for a huge amount then the few noobs that keep tokens on exchange with limit order got wiped out.
Nature of the beast. 24hour markets with low liquidity carry this risk.
At least my crtypo exposure is just my men's toys money and my pension is in stocks , wait ......
Amazing how bitcoin holds up here. Monster selling, but tons of new tethers created to absorb. This could bounce heavily if it succeeds. But obviously, all these new positions will need to be sold back into the market, so it's only borrowed time eventually.
Someone who lies about the little things will lie about the big things too.
There are a couple of twitter accounts that are following it, every time there are new coins created and transferred.
https://twitter.com/whale_alert/stat...37699769274372
Also, 95% of all tethers in circulation have been created since the 2020 selloff.
https://jacobinmag.com/2022/01/crypt...centralization
Someone who lies about the little things will lie about the big things too.
No doubt, we are living in a simulation.
Someone who lies about the little things will lie about the big things too.
Whats your prediction for the next few hours[mention]Raffe [/mention]?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Probably nothing.
The Biden administration is preparing to release an executive action that will task federal agencies with regulating digital assets such as Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies as a matter of national security, a person familiar with the White Houses plan tells Barrons. The national security memorandum, expected to come in the next few weeks, would task parts of the government with analyzing digital assets and assembling a regulatory framework that covers cryptos, stablecoins, and NFTs, or non-fungible tokens, this person said. This is designed to look holistically at digital assets and develop a set of policies that give coherency to what the government is trying to do in this space, the person said. The State Department, Treasury Department, National Economic Council, and Council of Economic Advisers would be involved in the initiative. The White House National Security Council would also be involved, the person said, since crypto has economic implications for national security. Along those lines, the administration would instruct agencies to work on harmonizing regulations of digital assets between countries.
Barron's
Someone who lies about the little things will lie about the big things too.
Agreed.
https://youtu.be/zg0-uN2V1Kc
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Well yes apart from the fact the US gov might be able to confiscate crypto without due process the rest is good
Someone thought I might be interested in this Board position and referred me - what an opportunity to change the world and make $$ billions at the same time!
This role is for a passionate GLOBAL INVESTOR (M/W) that aims to leave a legacy for society and have a stake in the next TRILLION DOLLAR GLOBAL UNICORN.
Our genuine global business culture is 100% fully decentralized with 60 team members, growing every month and spread out over more than 20 countries.
We are looking for a Global Investor with access to the Global Investment Community and Board position experience.
I think I'll have to pass though, wouldn't have enough time left to police Sales Corner and really cannot give up on that.
Anyone else interested and I can put you in touch?
Someone who lies about the little things will lie about the big things too.
A full 60? To big for me, needs someone like Bezos to manage that size of op
Everytime I read one of these stories, I am asking myself whether they are agreeing a fixed BTC amount and are taking the risk or if it is a pure gimmick of buying bitcoin with the Dollar/Euro salary and then changing it back. As I cannot see any commune taking the risk of bitcoin going through the roof, and salaries need to be fixed in terms of local currency, I bet you all of them are of the latter variety - meaning its a pointless stunt for the headlines only.
Someone who lies about the little things will lie about the big things too.
Reading the article, I dont think hes being paid in Bitcoin, it says hes converting his salary to Bitcoin, which makes it even more of a non story.
Cheers..
Jase
Maybe more relevant this address has remarkable success buying high selling low,
Sold 1500 BTC and 67k and now buying again
https://bitinfocharts.com/bitcoin/ad...PQUpe554WKDfHQ
Intel backing BTC
Intel will produce a Bitcoin Miner called Bonanza mine, to compete directly with all the Chinese companies (Bitmain, Antminer etc.). Already sold some to a partner, so it's not a rumor.
There's what appears to be a halfway decent analysis of Intel's recent teasers for their yet to be publicly announced/acknowledged SHA256 chips here.
Im not so sure you can say Intel are backing BTC on the back of this story
In the California gold rush, the people selling the shovels made more money then most of the prospectors
I see it as more mainstream adoption / acceptance which is worth more in the long run
Just my view of course
Back over 38k, that GMT is getting more expensive by the day
I feel my offer is looking more and more reasonable 😉
When in trouble, double!
https://twitter.com/saylor/status/1488498422495817728
Michael, why are the transactions getting smaller and smaller? Why not go in with a whole billion like you did when bitcoin was trading at $58,000?
What, you got no money left to buy? How unfortunate!
* prepare for major MSTR pump today and tomorrow as Michael Saylor hosts MicroStrategy World 2022 conference. Sign up for free here.
Someone who lies about the little things will lie about the big things too.
They are also due to release the Q4 financial results which will doubtless be read with interest in some quarters, as much for the presentation as the contents.
Request/Instruction/Diktat:
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/d.../filename1.pdfOriginally Posted by Securities and Exchange Commission
Reply:
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/d.../filename1.htmOriginally Posted by MicroStrategy
Oh look, $831 million bitcoin-related impairments. Turns out buying funny assets at inflated prices comes with real consequences. Can't wait until they do all their accounting in bitcoin, or go bankrupt - whatever comes first.
Hilarious.
Someone who lies about the little things will lie about the big things too.
Can you explain why its called an impairment charge? It sounds like its some sort of fine that they have to pay to the SEC or Fed, but surely not.
Is it just a charge that has to be shown on paper due to the archaic SEC accounting rules?
If they were allowed to show the BTC gains and not ONLY the losses, their accounts would look rather healthier.
Sure. Let's change the internationally agreed accounting rules until they fit the special needs of your hero. I suppose we could also change the way that capital increases are accounted for so that they create less dilution? How about generally making sure numbers can only go up?
I am ignoring the first part of your question, I am sure your Google will be able to solve that for you.
Someone who lies about the little things will lie about the big things too.
This article written a couple of days ago discusses the point you make, or at any rate attempts to show how difficult it can be to incorporate 'digital assets' into current financial reporting practices.
Very helpful and interesting article, thanks Pete.
It certainly seems very odd, unfair even, that public companies with crypto on their balance sheets have to account for (paper) losses, but can never include subsequent gains if the value of their assets goes back up again.
What a nonsense.
The rules have been the same since forever, why would an exception be created for MicroStrategy? There have always been assets on balance sheets that have to be marked to lowest, and many technology companies have had problems with this. Another example is accounting for goodwill, which has led to similar SEC actions in the past.
And let's not forget that Saylor has previous, been charged for accounting fraud back in 2000 when Microstrategy materially overstated their revenues and the stock price fell 99% over the next two years.
Someone who lies about the little things will lie about the big things too.
Nice pay day for someone
https://cryptopotato.com/solana-woes...e-bridge-hack/
But it's sEcUrE and tRuStLeSs.
https://twitter.com/solana/status/1314190920024125440
Someone who lies about the little things will lie about the big things too.