AP

JeromePowellLovesMe

No. It wouldn't. That fee has to cover not only their in house fee and P&L but cover custody and clearing at Coinbase but also their AP (they don't do it for free). The fee is an annualized rate. It's not 0.25% for every transaction. Around 5% of is value trades in the 6.5 hours of lit markets Monday through Friday. Even if the 29M average share volume is an in easy 100 share blocks, you are processing 290,000 transactions over 390 minutes. 743 transactions a minute of lit market. That's the average. ~$52 million in fees collected isn't enough to cover 58 million individual transactions, pay their overhead, pay the custody services and their APs.

JeromePowellLovesMe

You can't match ETF purchases and sales with Coinbase exchange data or on chain data for that matter. 1. BlackRock is a major investor in most publicly traded and private miners. They didn't self mine like Fidelity but what they did was become a major creditor and equity investor in miners. The custodian doesn't need to obtain the asset; they custody it's location. 2. The ETF only charges like 0.25% or so right now. That would not cover trade fees during lit markets based on every ETF share traded by their APs if they were matched 1:1 on CB's exchange. They likely true up only net flows throughout lit sessions as communicated by the AP. 3. As far as I know you can short the ETF. If it's a marked short ticket (open or close), they wouldn't need to true up the net outflow. Meaning rehypothecation should have no effect and, after giving this significant thought recently, options on ETFs will have little to no impact on spot.

Chum181

$AP (Agent Points) from Agent301. Telegram mini-app blowing up on Twitter and Reddit atm

coinfeeds-bot

tldr; A New Jersey court judge ruled that Coinbase shareholders can proceed with a lawsuit against the crypto exchange for misleading representations about the likelihood of an SEC enforcement action. The lawsuit, led by Swedish pension fund Sjunde AP-Fonden, accuses Coinbase and its executives of failing to accurately disclose the risks of an SEC complaint and the implications of a potential bankruptcy filing. This decision marks another setback for Coinbase in its ongoing legal battles with the SEC. *This summary is auto generated by a bot and not meant to replace reading the original article. As always, DYOR.

ScalpularComa

I was only 17 bro chill. The biggest worry on my mind was passing AP U.S. history

zetsubou_no_reddit

I came in 1st out of 5 on my AP US Gov test in high school

Generic_Globe

My point is that at very minimum the most basic use case of dApps would be a forum type thing. And we are here discussing crypto in reddit. A company that went public and censors whatever the mods of each subreddit want for whatever reason the mods want. [Turkey blocks access to Instagram. It's in response to removal of posts on Hamas chief, reports say | AP News](https://apnews.com/article/turkey-instagram-access-blocked-771ed7c9bfcd5e1019eeae6f02e59693) This type of news should not be a thing when there is a system for decentralized applications. And yet, there is nothing. The more liberating thing about decentralization is censorship resistance. All modern social media is censored. And when it can't be censored to the will of the governments of the world, it is simply banned. So why has no one taken the task to develop social media on ethereum? I feel like it's vaporware. In 2017, I believed it was too early. But I have waited 7 years and there is nothing to show. I am not a hater at all. People get defensive online. I have 779 ETH. You don't accumulate this much being a hater. But realistically, how long does it take to develop a decentralized product? Facebook started in 2004. Really blew up around 2008. I would say Ethereum has had more than enough time to show a working product.

MittenSplits

They've had outflows, but outflows have to be big enough to trigger a batch of coins actually being sold back by the AP's. I forget what the number is, but long story short. If they don't hit a certain threshold of outflow volume, then it just gets offset by the next days inflows. Then, when sufficient inflows happen, they buy a "lot" of Bitcoin all at once

ttttppp

Educate yourself. The deficit was $45B+. It’s actually much higher if you fix the roads and everything that desperately need to be fixed. Roads need to be fixed and not ignored and so does our failing infrastructure. https://apnews.com/article/california-budget-deficit-gov-gavin-newsom-8f502d57d00d551c0b6b6331367f7a25#:~:text=(AP)%20%E2%80%94%20California’s%20budget%20deficit,the%20world’s%20fifth%2Dlargest%20economy. https://www.counties.org/sites/main/files/file-attachments/fix_our_roads_fact_sheet_0.pdf Just because we are one of the top economies doesn’t mean the money is being managed correctly. Jesus I’m shocked about how so many people can’t read and understand basic stuff and think because the economy is massive it doesn’t mean that the money isn’t being mismanaged, stolen, and wasted. This is what the failure of schools look like, the same arguments you are making. Complete nonsense arguments. Both sides (liberal and conservative) completely disagree with what you’re saying.

TumasaurusTex

1219 6912 10800 financial center parkway Little Rock, AR 72211 Suite 175 5019181800 RAPE: NEW YORK (AP) — A jury found Donald Trump liable Tuesday for sexually abusing advice columnist E. Jean Carroll in 1996, awarding her $5 million in a judgment that could haunt the former president as he campaigns to regain the White House. The former president made hay of that distinction when he sued Carroll in June, alleging Carroll defamed him by saying she was raped in a media interview after the verdict. The counterattack was quickly shot down. Federal Judge Lewis Kaplan ruled in August that the jury verdict showed Carroll’s rape allegation was “substantially true” and dismissed the counterclaim. Stealing from charities: NEW YORK – New York Attorney General Letitia James today released the following statement after Donald J. Trump was forced to pay more than $2 million in court-ordered damages to eight different charities for illegally misusing charitable funds at the Trump Foundation for political purposes. Dictator desires and worship: Trump just a few days ago. “Christians get out and vote. Just this time,” he urged. “You won’t have to do it anymore. Four more years. You know what? It’ll be fixed. It’ll be fine. You won’t have to vote anymore my beautiful Christians.” Kim Jong Un: “He’s a tough guy. Hey, when you take over a country, tough country, tough people, and you take it over from your father—if you could do that at 27-years old, I mean, that’s 1 in 10,000 that could do that.” Vladimir Putin: “If he [Putin] says great things about me, I’m going to say great things about him. I’ve already said, he is really very much of a leader. I mean, you can say, ‘Oh, isn’t that a terrible thing’—the man has very strong control over a country. Now, it’s a very different system, and I don’t happen to like the system. But certainly, in that system, he’s been a leader, far more than our president has been a leader.” “You can say, ‘Oh, isn’t that a terrible thing,’ I mean, the man has very strong control over his country.” Rodrigo Duterte: “I just wanted to congratulate you because I am hearing of the unbelievable job on the drug problem.” Xi Jinping: “President Xi is a brilliant man. If you went all over Hollywood to look for somebody to play the role of President Xi, you couldn’t find [them], there’s nobody like that: the look, the brain, the whole thing.” “President Xi is like central casting. There’s nobody in Hollywood that could play the role of President Xi — the look, the strength, the voice.” Recep Tayyip Erdoğan: “Congratulations to President Recep Tayyip Erdogan on his big and well deserved victory in Turkey. I know him well, he is a friend, and have learned firsthand how much he loves his Country and the great people of Turkey, which he has lifted to a new level of prominence and respect!” Saddam Hussein: “He was a bad guy — really bad guy. But you know what he did well? He killed terrorists. He did that so good. They didn’t read them the rights. They didn’t talk. They were terrorists. Over. Today, Iraq is Harvard for terrorism.” Viktor Orbán: “There’s a man, Viktor Orbán, did anyone ever hear of him? He’s probably, like, one of the strongest leaders anywhere in the world.” The only place he’s not being prosecuted is by a judge HE appointed. Trump is charged with 40 counts of taking classified documents and obstructing efforts to get them back. Special counsel Jack Smith’s indictments show boxes full of highly secret materials sitting unsecured in ballrooms and bathrooms and closets at Trump’s private club and home, Mar-a-Lago. U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, a Trump appointee, says the entire classified documents case should be thrown out because the appointment of Special Counsel Jack Smith was unconstitutional.

Former_Friendship842

The image is not flipped, genius. It even has an AP watermark on it.

CletusVanDayum

Because commie lovers write history books. I remember my AP US history book describing FDR as a paraplegic whose battle with polio left him with a spine of steel. Like, gimme a history lesson, not a fucking love letter.

makeasnek

Decentralizing social media, particularly media platforms like YouTube has a problem: monetization. Nostr has a potential solution though. Over the last two months alone, their users have “zapped” (tipped/donated) other users around 950K (nearly 1 mil!) USD worth via lightning and that number continues to grow. And it doesn’t just make it easy to pay content creators, but to also put a portion of your “zaps” towards the relay you use or development of the software if you want. If you have a nostr account, you can easily tie it to a lightning address to send/receive tips, nostr doesn’t take a fee. Relays can also portion out a bit of their zaps for the people who publish the most engaging content on their relay. The possibilities are quite extensive. And because it’s over lightning, zaps happen instantly and for pennies or less in fees. Though, you can use nostr without zaps at all. For those unfamiliar with nostr, it’s a decentralized social media software much like ActivityPub/mastodon, the main use right now is as a twitter/instagram clone but there’s also a reddit-style section being built up as well. Video hosting itself could be done by relays or through a P2P system similar to IPFS. Moderation abilities from the perspective of the instance/relay are identical to activitypub/mastodon. But one bonus if that if your relay goes down, you don’t lose your identity, since your identity and relay are separate. And if you change apps or relays (you are typically connected to multiple relays), all your content moves with you seamlessly. And the payment/zap infrastructure is all decentralized, relays don’t ever custody or manage the payments. If you tip a content creator, it goes directly from you to them. The lightning network has basically limitless transaction capacity. If you have cash app, it supports lightning, so you can already send zaps (you will need different apps to receive zaps though because cash app doesn’t support the LNURL standard). Strike natively supports it. And because it’s lightning, it works in every country automatically. Long-term, if I am a content creator, which “fedi”-type system is going to be attractive to me? One where users can send me tips and mircopayments or one where they can’t? This is why I think nostr is going to win out long-term over AP/Mastodon. Mastodon could add this kind of functionality but I don’t get the impression they’re open to it. People may not want to commit to yet another $5/month subscription to a YouTuber’s patreon or nebula or whatever, but they are happy to tip 1-10c after watching a video. So there’s a psychological beauty to micropayments as well. As some random person I have made like 7c on tips this month, but I’ve also given out plenty to other people.

OldRedditt

[Really?](https://apnews.com/article/alaska-willow-oil-drilling-project-upheld-abf128e53eaf053005bffe771b7af574#:~:text=JUNEAU%2C%20Alaska%20(AP)%20%E2%80%94,groups%20swiftly%20vowed%20to%20fight) The Dems fight climate change no different than DiCaprio. Fly around in their private jets while trying to tell everyone else how to limit their carbon footprint. I don't want to get into a huge political Reddit fight but to me, it doesn't feel like they care. I understand if you think this type of strategy works on some people, but it feels like a lot of hot air.

MetallicGray

There isn’t a single statement you made that is true in that comment… in fact, all the statements you made regarding the election have been debunked and proven false over and over and over again for four years now.  They were not alternative electors. It was illegal, they were fake electors and broke the law (the irony in you claim there was shady stuff hopefully isn’t missed there). All the other things you listed, like I said, were proved for four years now to be false. Also, new agencies call elections… and “calls” have absolutely nothing to do at all with an election or any official proceeding. It’s quite literally just AP News calculating that “at this point, based on multiple factors and the data we have received it’s extremely unlikely that X candidate can get enough votes to win, so we call it for Y candidate”. But that means nothing for official proceedings.  Trump didn’t just decide the night of to contest too. You realize for *months* he was planning multiple avenues to overturn the election… the “shadiness” was just his lie to attempt to justify delaying it and negating it. The most damning part is *there is literal evidence and proof that Trump knew he lost and that there was no election fraud*. I’m curious why you even think Trump is pro crypto in the first place.  Also, he didn’t *just* present *fake* electors… he also went down other avenues like trying to fudge state vote numbers and using Pence to stop the official proceeding.  Like it’s not just a casual thing of “oh he just had some other people in the room, no biggie”. It’s literally for months before the election he planned and explored multiple avenues to negate the free election. And there’s hard evidence of this.  You’re not being gaslit when the reality of these things is proven over and over again. You’re being gaslit by the people who keep telling you the same regurgitated lies and have yet to provide any proof of those lies in the past four years. 

Who_is_Satoshi

Being an AP is a license to buy and sell Bitcoin. Their job related to the ETF is to arbitrage price discrepancies to keep the ETF close to underlying asset (BTC).  I never suggested the APs were gambling with ETF money. I'm saying they most likely were front running the market with their own money, because they had a license to do so, and had insider info knowing that ETFs were approved before everyone else knew.

FistyFisticuffs

No, if I used some bitboy algo you'd see something unoffensive but milquetoast for everyone reading. My question is: what is your actual critique? Because what I get is that you don't understand the philosophical framework and the implementation of said philosophical framework in practice (critique number 1), which doesn't actually conflict with the argument I'm making, but also doesn't actually address it. Describing the current implementation is all well and good but that's not the fundamental purpose of anything, that's the current implementation of a black box that may or may not have a similar fundamental purpose. I'm talking about the "why" being fundamentally in conflict with state interference, full stop. State endorsement creates the precursor to a CBDC. State prohibition creates a unilateral mandate to use prohibitionist policies and enforcement to control something it cannot, objectively, control. How cryptocurrencies accomplish its goals is inherently not monolithic and indeed, is not monolithic. BTC and the EVM chains and XMR are very different implementations of what began as a broad proof of concept. The importance, and purpose, is not about the actual manner by which it accomplishes what it sets out to do, but rather, that it is able to do so without interference or coercion, and some have done so more successfully than others. Either way, having the government picking winners and losers is, in a network that is distributed at scale and diffused sufficiently, going to be a fool's errand that would result in few winners but the hucksters and authoritarians who are the shovel-sellers in a gold rush, the arms providers to the condottiere. Oh, and also, all your examples carries the implication of "without official sanction from the state", which is my point. I can deploy code onto some chain and send a transaction or call with said code without prior permission or even knowledge. It doesn't matter if the proposed authority is currently in favor of me being able to do so. The support of the state is permission injected into a permissionless system and inherently incompatible. In fact, law enforcement in the US have had to do a lot of shoehorning to even make the smallest dent in what is a system that exists in a manner that involves millions and are spread out cross more jurisdictions that they are able to cooperate with. You are talking about what an implementation of crypto can do. You missed what it represents in the grand scheme of permissioned and permissionless transmission of data, value, or anything in a manner that is not dependent on the state saying 'trust me'. The argument against my view of legitimacy does exist, but it's incredibly rare to see anyone actually make a full throated idealist counterfactual of how statehood works. You also dangle a question that is left begging: who are "the people" that you speak of? It's an abstraction that is frequently treated as something that is more than the heuristic that it really is, but in reality the commonality of the many ways it has been defined is an inherent, top-down view from the gaze of the state, a label placed upon individuals who may or may not share much commonality otherwise except the one in question. The state, which is also an abstraction but one consisting of those who take the label up voluntarily, makes "the people" legible by reducing them down to simplified facets of complex individuals and further groups them together regardless of the consent or even knowledge of those grouped within. Are you part of "the people"? Am I? If I move to Canada tomorrow, do I cease to be a part of "the people"? If I'm working in China for the next 6 month, a country that does not naturalize except in extraordinary, individual cases and is effective designed so that the state is the absolute authority in saying who is and isn't part of "the people" as a constitutional matter - defined outside of the text itself, by the way, and in a way that is convenient to the ruling party but alien to all others who are literate, regardless of language, am I part of "the people" as you put it? I obviously have opinions, but circumstances out of my control would make it that I would need to choose between 'putting food on my table' and 'casting a vote', but my physical presence elsewhere is also by definition temporary. Plenty of individuals will cast a vote having put far less thought into the ramifications, long term implications, relevant priors, nuanced - or unnuanced, but personal views I hold. Participatory democracy alone is not sufficient, [because what you end up with is autocracy under the veneer of democracy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_democratic_dictatorship). It also justifies the sort of violence used to keep the "mass line" which allows the state to maintain exactly that: the caricatured and thin veil of representation over the abstraction that is 'the people'. Even the founders are cognizant of using 'the people' as heuristic - which explains why it's only used as dicta, rhetoric, and anywhere that is defined via contrast instead of a standalone concept. Do you really believe in what you just wrote? The legitimate use of violence transcends ideologies of systems of government in power. It also conveniently creates the outer boundaries of the exertion of power and legitimacy, irredentism aside. It's the same justification under democratic schemes as well as authoritarian schemes, from Makhnovshchina (which is probably the purest form of a diffused, participatory democracy in recent memory that was implemented over a substantial territory. It was attacked by both ultra-monarchists and Bolsheviks at the same time and was overrun within 3 years) to Mongolia under Ungern-Sternberg, which manages to be to the right of even the monarchists. The unifying characteristic is the unilateral and justified use of violence as the enforcement mechanism that backstops authority, exercised without challenge on a systemic level. You can sue (a very small subset) of federal agents, you can't sue the policymakers that ordered and enabled their deliberate bad acts. Prosecutors have absolute immunity, something never mentioned in law or the Constitution on the federal level. That is the hallmark of legitimacy - never having to say that you're sorry, or you did anything wrong at all. And I think you fundamentally misunderstand what a university is for, but many, or dare I say most, Americans make this mistake. It's not a trade school - law school, med school are trade schools, universities are not set up in that manner and make for poor venues of practical education. What it is good at is teaching you how to think, analyze, and subject your own world views first critically. The most important course, in that sense, was the 1 semester course that I took at community college when I was 16 because my general disregard for the value of busywork meant that my school decided that I couldn't take the AP tests for future savings on taking pointless college courses of little substance. The class was ENG 103, and the subject was logical fallacies. I didn't go to a "university" in that my undergrad institution was not a research institution, and my law school I regard as a trade school. At the same time, nobody gives a shit after you graduate where you went and what classes you took anyway. It's also a terrible authority to appeal to since getting into university is pretty easy, but getting something out of it, well, that's a whole other story, and I wonder if you half-assed that like you half-assed your critiques.

brianddk

Fake? I've checked 5 different sources CNBC, Forbes, Yahoo, Coindesk, AP, and not one has an image, link, or anything related to this. Found something claiming to be the campaign site on Wikipedia, but I'm not certain that is legit either. Nothing on the fake campaign site has a crypto link on it. If it is real, Trump is fighting like hell to hide the fact.

atzee

GALA commenting on its security breach -> https://twitter.com/GoGalaGames/status/1792727587460104377?t=AP78Q04OZuIBfi2qTFmHzQ&s=19

SoftChard6582

We didn't have mommy and dad to teach us. No wealthy family. No posh schools. What is AP?

penceluvsthedick

The funny thing is that the longer you are in the bitcoin space the more you realize most bitcoiners don’t know anything about how finance works. This is a very brief moment in time the 13f caught. JPM is an AP which means at times they’ll hold ETF shares on their balance sheet. They’ll also be short shares on their balance sheet too.

HBAR_10_DOLLARS

I’m thinking Hedera is involved here. There was some news leaked a few days ago from a private meeting in NYC where Citi was presenting on the topic “building the future of finance on Hedera” alongside Hedera GC members Abrdn and AP+ (look them up)

Possible-Magazine23

No exactly. JPM is an AP, aka market marker or liquidity provider. 13F filing just indicate what they have on hand as of EOD 3.31.2024. They're not really investing in it for themselves.

Terrible-Orchid-4274

James Seyffart: Just FYI everyone. JPM, Susquehanna (which also owns these ETFs and was all over this site last week) and others are just market makers and/or AP's. Their ownership isn't necessarily indicative of anything other than this is how many shares they had on 3/31/24. [James Seyffart‘s Post](https://x.com/jseyff/status/1789026505013506157?s=46&t=lGLMsTP4jO7Tki7VvM_U-Q)

soks86

Nah, the matching is done by an exchange using a retail product (the ETF itself). The Authorized Participants trade there too. The Authorized Participants will create/destroy shares based on supply/demand the price of the ETF relative to the price of BTC. There is no sell order that can force them to sell BTC because "selling" means giving an ETF share to someone who now owns the ETF. The creation and destruction is strictly a money making, statistically driven, process for Authorized Participants. The larger the premium for buying the ETF the more likely an ETF holder will sell and the more likely an AP will sell their shares or create more shares so they can sell more.

HOS-SKA

That had better not fucking be Patricia from AP, I swear... 

pdlvw

A lot of questions. Only an authorized participant (AP) deals with an ETF issuer to create and redeem shares. The AP gives money to the issuer, the issuer buys bitcoin and hands it over to the trust. The trust hands it over to the custodian. After that process, the ETF issuer hands over the new created shares to the AP. The AP sells the shares on the second market.

stanley_fatmax

Are you confident? This is the citation: *Paul Buchheit, the former Google engineer who created Gmail, works at the company's offices in Mountain View, Calif., in Dec. 10, 1999. Buchheit was the 23rd employee hired at Google, a company that now employs more than 180,000 people. (April Buchheit via AP)*

ShoulderSeason

That’s in the AP class.

FullPortDildos

Who cares that they're an AP? That's literally their job. That's what half of their business is. You think this is a business where the only products they offer are products they personall think are great? Their job is to provide access to markets. You want to buy the Bitcoin ETF? Fine, we'll sell it to you. We think it's fucking stupid, but hey ... your money. How much you want?

Professional-Swim-69

Yep I used it all the time, Hotmail was the defacto standard (not even AOL as it didn't exist), ICQ was your messaging. Linux distribution Slackware, every single technology company today, everyone, build their products on Linux (or FreeBSD), your car, your fridge, your thermostat, the WiFi AP, the firewalls and routers connecting you, the world owes Torvalds for its contribution, we have a digital economy because of him. For good and bad I know Those modems you are talking about? I set them up at an ISP, 16 modem blades per chassis and a ComputeOne multiport card to connect these to a server. Cisco 4507 to the ISP running BGP with my ARIN AS, I'm sorry I'm ranting here, miss those days

StrivingPlusThriving

They are an AP for ibit, the Blackrock BTC ETF. In my opinion, it's unfortunate. But Bitcoin is for enemies.

Brettanomyces78

I'd like to hear some actual reasons why they're not one of the best news outlets. AP and NPR are about as neutral and fact based as they come in the US (add Reuters for non-US). That's not to say they're perfect or without fault, of course, but on balance and compared to everything else? Sure.

Inthewirelain

Yes that very quote is the one I mean >The pair took refuge in the news agency’s downtown headquarters, leaving a media mob outside. In AP’s report, published late on Thursday, the alleged currency mastermind said his English was imperfect and that the Newsweek reporter misinterpreted him when he said was “no longer involved in that”. >“I’m saying I’m no longer in engineering. That’s it,” he said of the exchange. “And even if I was, when we get hired you have to sign this document, contract, saying you will not reveal anything we divulge during and after employment. So that’s what I implied. It sounded like I was involved before with bitcoin and looked like I’m not involved now. That’s not what I meant. I want to clarify that,” he said. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/mar/07/satoshi-nakamoto-denies-inventing-bitcoin So what about my other points

KindlyBlacksmith

You can just say they are completely clueless on technology. The concept of public key cryptography can be explained in 5 minutes. It is an incredibly basic concept even high schoolers taking AP comp science classes would know.

SatisfactionNo6729

Absolutely. Graduate School I was very lucky to have generous parents pay my tuition outright. I used some of the available student loans to invest in bitcoin. It was not 10k Euro but 6,500 USD. This was late 2016 and I know I ended up purchasing an even 7 BTC. I was very lucky. Overwhelmed by the most rigorous, least lucrative MA program (Sociology/Demography) at UCB; I was distracted. 2017 saw a spring where every day was a spikier spike (again I barely passed AP Econ in high school). Having been raised in the South Silicon Valley w/ its booms and busts…..I was conflicted daily on if I should sell. It was mostly pointless as things stabilized 18-19k during that time. Ultimately I sold 6 of 7 in around the Summer of 2018 for ≈ $16,500. I paid my loan immediately and managed a respectable $90,000 profit. If I had waited another year…much less…2-3 years and weeee. Either way it worked out great for me. I thought my experience was a worthy contribution since I’m in no position to give anyone financial advice. Your idea seems absolutely reasonable to me, as long as you have a 1-2 years or more and a loan that is not flat out fuckery. Good luck!

heartbleed_hack

They don’t but it so much as an AP for ETF exchanges shares for btc or vice versa to reset NAV

Jenn2895

$LINK. Chainlink are positioning themselves to be critical infrastructure. Over 2k partnerships including Univef, DTCC (stock market), Intel, Google, Oracle, IBM, Amazon AWS, Swift (world's largest financial messaging service), AP (Associated Press), Paxos, ANZ, Circle, Kraken, Binance, Bitrue, Mexc, NBA, Hyperledger, Kucoin, etc etc. Deadline for banks to transition to ISO 20022 is Nov 2025. Citi predicts Link will take prominence over BTC. When they flip the switch it's going to be wild! #CHAINLINK

heartbleed_hack

Look at how an ETF works. The price trades at a discount/premium to the NAV. ETF AP (creators/redeemers) can trade shares for the underlying and vice versa. Capital inflows require more buying of the underlying. As well if there is a mismatch from NAV the APs can do one of the actions (selling BTC to etf or buying BTC from ETF) to reset it after close.

StatisticalMan

When you (as joe sixpack) buy shares you are just buying from other investors. Blackrock doesn't rush out to buy Bitcoins because you aren't buying from blackrock. Note this is equally true of all other stocks/etfs. When net-inflows exceed net-outflows though that will cause shares to sell at a slight premium. When that happens "authorized participants" will deliver cash to Blackrock who will buy Bitcoins and issue NEW shares to the AP who will then sell them on the market for a small arbitrage profit. Both sides will you use hedging via future contracts if they want to be hedged against price fluctuations.

RiskyShift

Strictly speaking, they don't directly buy or sell in response to regular customers buying and selling on the secondary market between themselves. They buy/sell BTC when an AP (on its own behalf or on behalf of a market maker) creates/redeems ETF shares with the fund. The secondary market price movement incentivizes creation/redemption by presenting an arbitrage opportunity for APs/MMs.

Lazy-Might-5661

"Decentralizing the btc, more like giving it to the ETF' AP Coinbase.

Who_is_Satoshi

There is something called authorized participants (APs) who are responsible for purchasing the underlying asset (in this case BTC) for the ETFs. The APs are also responsible for creating additional ETF shares *with* the underlying asset they purchased in order to meet ETF share demand to ensure the ETF price tracks the underlying asset. JPMorgan, for example, is one of the AP's for either Blackrock or ARK's ETF. Likely, the APs hold extra BTC on their balance sheet in order to flex one way or another based on ETF trading so they can always make money. Very unlikely that an AP would be caught with their pants down needing to buy BTC en mass from the market in order to maintain ETF - BTC parity. In other words, when someone buys an ETF share, it does not mean that the APs go and buy BTC to reflect the person's ETF share purchase. Only when there is a shortage of shares, causing the ETFs to trade at a slight premium, do APs either use BTC they already hold to create additional ETF shares to align ETF price with BTC price, or purchase new BTC in order to create additional ETF shares to align the ETF price with BTC price. Better to look at general flows on a weekly level to understand the ETFs impact on BTC price. We did an episode on BTC ETFs recently: [https://open.spotify.com/episode/76VvEV2TDRumt7bmdlNAgv?si=6e7cbc77e133461c](https://open.spotify.com/episode/76VvEV2TDRumt7bmdlNAgv?si=6e7cbc77e133461c)

LolWhereAreWe

All those millions in crypto and you could only afford an Omega? Brutal Picked up the AP this year off of bond plays. You’ll get there one day champ.

AmongTheElect

Recently got BCUT as an AI play which is new enough it hasn't had any real jump yet. AP3, Shrapnel and Ridotto. A couple others. And there's three I like yet to be released where I'll probably sell a few current holdings to pick those up.

swordfishde

Not sure where they are getting their info. I’m not the expert. Maybe I’m wrong but I don’t think so. My impression was that they needed to go through an authorized participant. So as long as the transaction is being done by the AP it doesn’t need to be “listed”. That’s just the definition of OTC. Adding it to the exchange book to sell right away makes no sense.

DeathScythe676

Let's not forget nepotism. Gary Gensler's former mentor, Glenn Ellison, just happens to be the father of Caroline Ellison. *"The AP reported that Ellison formerly worked with Gary Gensler when the now SEC chairman taught at MIT. As a former economics professor, it's likely that Gensler reported to Ellison, the department's head."* [https://www.businessinsider.com/who-are-caroline-ellisons-parents-alameda-research-fraud-ftx-sbf-2022-12](https://www.businessinsider.com/who-are-caroline-ellisons-parents-alameda-research-fraud-ftx-sbf-2022-12) Caroline Ellison got no jail time.

Perfect_Ability_1190

Hitachi, Australian Payments Plus (AP+), and now Mondelēz International. Whose next?

MachaMacMorrigan

Pretty sure the AP *cannot* be the fund holder.

Arunav88

This is a very positive update for AP+ users.

Perfect_Ability_1190

May Lam, Chief Information Officer at Australian Payments Plus, stated, "With distributed ledgers, payments organizations like AP+ can benefit from increased transparency, enhanced security, and improved efficiency in transaction processing. AP+ has several initiatives underway to ride the wave of innovation with Hedera, unleashing the full potential of Distributed Ledger Technology to transform our organization."

coinfeeds-bot

tldr; Australian Payments Plus (AP+), formed by the merger of eftpos, BPAY Group, and NPP Australia, has become a member of the Hedera Governing Council. AP+ is a member-owned organization with over 150 partners and processed 3.9 billion transactions in 2022. It operates in the public interest and includes a diverse range of members from domestic and international banks to merchants and payment service providers in Australia. AP+ is working on initiatives to leverage Distributed Ledger Technology with Hedera to transform its operations. *This summary is auto generated by a bot and not meant to replace reading the original article. As always, DYOR.

Bred_Slippy

But he's still happy for JPM to make profits from it from being an AP for BlackRock's spot ETF. Zero consistency or principles.

DamagedHells

It was a civil case, but he was found guilty. There's no clever language involved. https://apnews.com/article/trump-rape-carroll-trial-fe68259a4b98bb3947d42af9ec83d7db#:~:text=NEW%20YORK%20(AP)%20%E2%80%94%20A,to%20regain%20the%20White%20House.

gabetucker22

I'm far left, but I don't consume mainstream news like NBC or CNN. I understand the dangers of getting information from NBC, so I consume the Economist's podcasts, AP News, video essays and interviews on YouTube, and some of Noam Chomsky/John Oliver/John Stewart's (admittedly politically biased, although rarely dishonest) work. Just because I like Sorkin as a journalist doesn't mean my main news source is NBC!

analogOnly

Isn't JP Morgan the AP on BlackRocks IBIT ETF?

AutoModerator

Here is a [Nitter link](https://nitter.net/AP_Abacus/status/1745900387570217036?s=20) for the Twitter thread linked above. Nitter is better for privacy and does not nag you for a login. More information can be found [here](https://nitter.net/about). --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CryptoCurrency) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Objective_Digit

Gensler will fight it apparently. https://x.com/AP_Abacus/status/1745900387570217036?s=20

AutoModerator

Here is a [Nitter link](https://nitter.net/AP_Abacus/status/1745900387570217036?s=20) for the Twitter thread linked above. Nitter is better for privacy and does not nag you for a login. More information can be found [here](https://nitter.net/about). --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CryptoCurrency) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Objective_Digit

The CFTC is not the SEC. It certainly won't be approved this year. https://x.com/AP_Abacus/status/1745900387570217036?s=20

StatisticalMan

That is not entirely correct. When you Joe Sixpack buy shares you are just buying from another investor. However without a balancing mechanism demand could push the price of the ETF away from the NAV (value of Bitcoins per share). So authorized participants will deliver cash to create shares as needed on demand. If inflows exceed outflows the ETFs need to issue more shares. The receive cash from AP, create new shares, and buy more Bitcoins. To be clear though ever trade doesn't result in buying more Bitcoins. All that matters is net inflows or net outflows. If there are net inflows then they will issue more shares and buy more Bitcoins. If there are net outflows they will destroy shares and sell the Bitcoins. Last week there was $800M in net inflows which is about 10,000 BTC. It remains to be seen what inflows look like this week. There was no trading yesterday but we should see net inflows updated this evening for today.

stormdelta

> Swift, DTCC, Euroclear, Clearstream, Citi Bank, BNY Mellon, BNP Paribas, Lloyds, ANZ Bank, SDX, Vodafone, Swisscom, Deutsche Telekom, PWC, AP > All working with Chainlink on the creation of an global onchain economy If I had ten bucks for every time I've heard a claim like this I could retire. What really happens in most cases is the companies make a high profile announcement, eventually realize the engineering tradeoffs don't make sense, and quietly abandon it later. In rarer cases things get far enough that it turns into a high profile failure like what happened in Australia. > Your take on Chainlink sounds like you haven’t kept up with anything they’ve done since 2018 What I'm talking about involves fundamentals of how security and trust actually work with real world software systems. Put another way, if a company claims they've invented what amounts to literal magic, I have good cause to say it's snake oil or at best highly misleading. You shouldn't take anything claimed by marketing in this space without an entire ocean of salt.

jdawg3051

Swift, DTCC, Euroclear, Clearstream, Citi Bank, BNY Mellon, BNP Paribas, Lloyds, ANZ Bank, SDX, Vodafone, Swisscom, Deutsche Telekom, PWC, AP All working with Chainlink on the creation of an global onchain economy Your take on Chainlink sounds like you haven’t kept up with anything they’ve done since 2018 Americans think the world wants to depend on its financial system but they don’t anymore because of reckless monetary policy

looneytones8

What AP would accept a private key, which has the risk of still being in possession of the provider?

analogOnly

Just because it's an interesting thought exercise. If an AP get coin from an OTC provider, but instead of making the blockchain transaction, simple provides the private key to the coin, would an off chain transaction not be considered valid to you?

analogOnly

Even if they don't they can sell shares as if they do, the AP for each provider is responsible for buying more coin to fill share orders.

appmapper

That's not really how ETF's work. >The Trust issues and redeems Baskets on a continuous basis. These transactions will take place in exchange for cash. Subject to the In-Kind Regulatory Approval, these transactions may also take place in exchange for bitcoin. The timing of the In-Kind Regulatory Approval is unknown, and there is no guarantee that NASDAQ will receive the In-Kind Regulatory Approval at any point in the future. If NASDAQ receives the In-Kind Regulatory Approval and if the Sponsor chooses to allow in-kind creations and redemptions, the Trust will notify Shareholders in a prospectus supplement, in its periodic Exchange Act reports and on the Trust’s website. Baskets are only issued or redeemed in exchange for an amount of cash determined by the Trustee on each day that NASDAQ is open for regular trading. No Shares are issued unless the Bitcoin Custodian or Prime Execution Agent has allocated to the Trust’s account the corresponding amount of bitcoin. As of the date of this prospectus, a Basket requires delivery of $998,003.28. Baskets may be created or redeemed only by Authorized Participants, who pay BlackRock Investments, LLC (“BRIL”), an affiliate of the Trustee that has been retained by the Trust to perform certain order processing, Authorized Participant communications, and related services in connection with the issuance and redemption of Baskets (“eservices”), (1) a transaction fee for each order to create or redeem Baskets(the “ETF Servicing Fee”) and (2) transfer, processing and other transaction costs charged by the Bitcoin Custodian in connection with the issuance of Baskets for such purchase order (“Custody Transaction Costs”). > >The Authorized Participants will deliver only cash to create Shares and will receive only cash when redeeming Shares. Further, Authorized Participants will not directly or indirectly purchase, hold, deliver, or receive bitcoin as part of the creation or redemption process or otherwise direct the Trust or a third party with respect to purchasing, holding, delivering, or receiving bitcoin as part of the creation or redemption process. > >The Trust will create Shares by receiving bitcoin from a third party that is not the Authorized Participant and the Trust—not the Authorized Participant—is responsible for selecting the third party to deliver the bitcoin. Further, the third party will not be acting as an agent of the Authorized Participant with respect to the delivery of the bitcoin to the Trust or acting at the direction of the Authorized Participant with respect to the delivery of the bitcoin to the Trust. The Trust will redeem Shares by delivering bitcoin to a third party that is not the Authorized Participant and the Trust—not the Authorized Participant—is responsible for selecting the third party to receive the bitcoin. Further, the third party will not be acting as an agent of the Authorized Participant with respect to the receipt of the bitcoin from the Trust or acting at the direction of the Authorized Participant with respect to the receipt of the bitcoin from the Trust. The third party will be unaffiliated with the Trust and the Sponsor. > >See “Description of the Shares and the Trust Agreement” for more details. [https://www.ishares.com/us/literature/prospectus/p-ishares-bitcoin-trust-12-31.pdf](https://www.ishares.com/us/literature/prospectus/p-ishares-bitcoin-trust-12-31.pdf) The APs make money off the arbitrage between the value of the goods in the basket and the ETF price. If the ETF was "under valued" an AP would purchase shares in the open market and redeem them for the basket of goods. The ETF makes money on fees. The APs make money via arbitrage. They don't need to be clever or risky. They were clever when they created the system in a way that guarantees they get paid. Now they just let it do it's thing. [https://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/authorizedparticipant.asp#:\~:text=This%20process%20also%20works%20in,the%20ETF%20market%20through%20arbitrage](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/authorizedparticipant.asp#:~:text=This%20process%20also%20works%20in,the%20ETF%20market%20through%20arbitrage).

genobeam

There's a lot wrong with this. Let's break it down. >Let's say we have a fund with 10 shares, and it bought 10 BTC at 20k previously. Customer A bought 1 share at 40k, and it would be his cost basis.  Let's make some definitions here to make things clear. Individual investors buy shares through an authorized participant. When you say "fund" I assume you're talking about the AP's fund. So the AP buys 10 shares at 20k and customer A buys 1 share from the AP at 40k. >Let's say the price of BTC remains 45k. If the AP redeem 5 shares at 45k, the fund would sell 5 BTC at 45k and realize 25k x 5 = 125k.  The AP already sold one share to our customer so these 5 shares have to be separate from that one. The AP can't sell a share twice. So this part is irrelevant to our customer.  >At the end of the year, the fund would distribute 125k to the remaining 5 shares The AP gets the 125k from the fund as soon as it redeems them. The customer doesn't get anything because the customer hasn't sold their share. If these shares were sold for the AP itself then the AP is liable for the capital gains. If these shares were sold on behalf of a customer the tax liability gets passed through to that customer. >Customer A would receive 25k which is taxable If customer a isn't selling, customer a doesn't receive anything. They still have their 1 share and that's it.  > price would also decrease by 25k. Why? >Therefore, if customer A sell his share before the tax year ends, he would realize 20k capital loss to offset the distributed 25k capital gain, and he only pays tax for the remaining 5k capital gains. In your scenario Bitcoin is still at 45k so if customer A sold they'd realize 5k of gains. There is no realized capital loss. There is no "distribution" from the other transaction because the customer was not a part of that transaction.

count1068

Let's say we have a fund with 10 shares, and it bought 10 BTC at 20k previously. Customer A bought 1 share at 40k, and it would be his cost basis. Let's say the price of BTC remains 45k. If the AP redeem 5 shares at 45k, the fund would sell 5 BTC at 45k and realize 25k x 5 = 125k. At the end of the year, the fund would distribute 125k to the remaining 5 shares, and customer A would receive 25k which is taxable, but the share price would also decrease by 25k. Therefore, if customer A sell his share before the tax year ends, he would realize 20k capital loss to offset the distributed 25k capital gain, and he only pays tax for the remaining 5k capital gains. However, if he doesn't pay attention and he doesn't sell his share before the tax year ends, he would need to pay tax for the 25k capital gains this year, and the 20k capital loss can only be carried over to offset future capital gains.

count1068

The customers who sell would realize capital gains at personal level. However, when the AP (Authorized Participant) redeem shares in cash to reduce the tracking difference, the fund would need to realize capital gains at fund level to pay the cash to AP. The capital gains at fund level then would be distributed to customers at the end of year and the customers would be taxed on received distributions.

klauskinski79

By definition buying and selling is always the same. It's a market. You can't have someone buy without someone selling. Thats the fun thing of an etf. Now what you can check is the net asset value of the etf. Basically what happens if an etf value has been raised above the net asset value of the underlying assets ( an etf trades for 5m in value times outstanding shares but owns only 4m ( at 40k Esch) in bitcoin ) is that specialized large investors have the ability to - buy bitcoin - sell it to the etf at 40k each getting new stocks in return ( creation Units ) - this will increase the value of the outstanding shares because there are now more - the value of the assets of the etf will also increase. This will go on until either the price of the assets rise because of the buying pressure or the demand for the stocks of the etf is satisfied it drops and you get back to equilibrium. So basically it's just one extra Step instead of buying bitcoin directly you buy the etf and the AP ( authorized Partner) buys bitcoin and gets more shares in return.

soks86

When an Authorized Participant sells shares he bought on the open market to get cash out the ETF sponsor is going to have to get money. If they don't have BTC and it went to a million the AP is gonna file a lawsuit and the ETF sponsor will end up in jail for securities fraud. I agree with you, in general, but the system is implemented with 4 middlemen between the BTC and the retail buyer. Conspiracies fall apart when you add too many people.

jchill_

Of course! So if an ETF has a creation process called “in-kind” that means the AP creates shares by directly sending in the underlying asset and getting shares in return. That’s what you are describing. It looks like these Bitcoin ETFs are generally cash creates which means they send in cash at the value of the underlying asset then get shares at the share price in return. The ETF manager then deploys that cash by either trading in the market or going OTC to buy the underlying asset. Once the creation is done, shares outstanding goes up and us plebs can go buy in the market. Also noticing the Greyscale ETF shares outstanding have gone down, which proves your theory correct. As for the mechanics behind it, APs came in and redeemed shares so Greyscale had to go sell Bitcoin so they could send cash to fund the redemptions. Probably explains the price movement today.

Disastrous-Dinner966

There's no way to buy $1million of an ETF without someone selling you $1million of the ETF. If 'Nobody initiates sells' your trade will sit there unexecuted. If your trade crosses in the secondary market, you may just be buying the shares of the ETF someone else is selling and it doesn't affect the underlying directly. If your demand is greater than the supply available at that price, you may trigger creation units. The AP buys the BTC, ships it to coinbase, alerts BR, and BR creates new shares for you. So trading in the ETF doesn't exert direct pressure on spot prices until there is a supply or demand imbalance in the ETF shares. Then new ETF shares are created or old shares are redeemed as needed, with direct effects on the spot price.

jchill_

As a guy that manages ETFs for a living you have a few misconceptions here. (1) This is likely accurate. Many ETFs do trade in the spot market but with larger volumes it is preferable to go OTC. (2) This is not really accurate. The manager of the ETF does not unilaterally trade the underlying asset to reconcile the price value of the ETF shares with the value of the underlying asset (in this case Bitcoin). Authorized participants (AP) direct these types of trades. There is a threshold for net buys or net sales and, if that threshold is crossed, an AP will come in to create or redeem shares. The manager then trades the underlying asset in response to those creations and redemptions. It is common for an ETF to trade at a premium or a discount until an AP takes action to correct the discrepancy. (3) This is correct. (4) This is opinion so can’t really speak to it. I can see the shares outstanding has not moved which means there have not been any creations or redemptions. I am not sure why since it seems like there is plenty of incentive to redeem given GBTC is trading at such a premium. (5) this appears to be correct. The number of shares outstanding in IBIT, FBTC, and ARKB have all risen which means there have been creations. I’m at work so don’t have enough time to look into the last two points. Hope this helps!

4fingertakedown

Their AP can and will. In fact, this was a condition of the SEC’s approval. In theory, this helps AP settle their baskets faster with less room for funky business (per the SEC).

lDrinkY0urMi1kshak3

Preston Pysh gave this great breakdown Here's what's happening. Let's say a guy name Mickey buys a Blackrock ETF (Bad Mickey - buy the real stuff) 1. Mickey purchases a share of the BlackRock #Bitcoin ETF through his brokerage, reflecting a portion of the ETF's #Bitcoin holdings. 2. The market price of the ETF shares can deviate from the NAV based on supply and demand. High demand can lead to a premium, while low demand might result in a discount. These price deviations signal to Authorized Participants (APs) when to create (for premiums) or redeem (for discounts) shares, aiming to align the market price with the NAV. 3. JPMorgan, as an AP, responds to market signals by creating or redeeming baskets. This process helps maintain the balance between the ETF's share supply and investor demand. 4. For new AP baskets, JPM provides cash to BlackRock equivalent to the #Bitcoin value needed for backing the new shares. 5. BlackRock uses the cash to purchase #Bitcoin from Coinbase OTC. 6. Post-purchase, the Bitcoin remains with Coinbase, which acts as the custodian. A transfer of ownership is recorded administratively, and the Blackrock ETF recognized as the rightful owner of the Bitcoin (on behalf of the shareholders of course 😏). 7. The NAV of the ETF is updated to include the newly acquired Bitcoin. JPM receives the new Basket of shares for market trading. 8. JPM releases the new shares to the market, enhancing the ETF's liquidity. This helps align the ETF's market price with its NAV. 9. The iShares prospectus specifies that the settlement deadline is on the calendar day immediately following the day the Trade Credit was extended, or the next business day if it’s not a business day​​. This suggests a T+1 settlement cycle (Trade Date plus one business day) for the ETF transactions, quicker than the standard T+2 settlement cycle for many securities. Mickey's ETF share links him to the Bitcoin held by Coinbase under BlackRock's name. His investment value is subject to changes in the ETF's NAV, influenced by the Bitcoin market and the ETF's liquidity.

LiftingandCooking

No, the ETF + AP have bought Bitcoin to back the ETF shares they issued. That's what spot means. A bitcoin futures ETF is what you describe though.

MegaSuperSaiyan

Like u/Crafty_Supermarket15 mentioned, I'm probably oversimplifying too much by treating the ETF and APs, MM, exchanges, etc. as a single entity. AFAIK, *someone* is allowed to arbitrage the daily exchange of ETF shares for Bitcoin, and they should be allowed to sell previously owned bitcoins to the ETF without necessarily buying more in the open market. Assuming there isn't excessive collusion then you're right, as APs would have no incentive to sell their bitcoins at below market price. However, I still think some of the AP's could potentially benefit from accumulating bitcoin slowly OTC if they expect volatility/price to increase significantly in the future. All just a guess, based on Bitcoin's volatility providing unique arbitrage opportunities compared to traditional assets. I don't think any of that would impact end consumers of either the ETF or Bitcoin though.

AsleepOnTheTrain

Sure, if you're an AP.