[SERIOUS] Solana-based BONK token had went up over 4000% and today is still easily above 10x its initial price , yet has atrocious tokenomics. Only 5% of tokens are explicitly allocated(at least initially) to liquidity on the open free market.
Caroline Ellison and Gary Wang turned on SBF, rattling him out to the Feds. The SEC’s civil (non-criminal) complaint is built on their participation and gives us our first “insider’s account” of the FTX disaster, see 12 takeaways below
According to this video, SBF gave Binance 2.1 billion USD of crypto (mostly FTT). Since Binance dumped the FTT, are they responsible for returning funds to any of the people who lost money on FTX? This seems like the responsible thing to do if you're CZ.
Since it is quite obvious by now that the cryptocurrency market, just like its sister the stock market thrive in no to low interest rate environments, it is my belief that the bear market we are currently in could last a whole lot longer... here's why:
I disagree with a lot of your arguments: > ✔️DCA strategy has been mostly recommended due to the assumption that the market is overvalued . At some point of time it will start diving and touch the rock bottom before a bounce. So people investing at higher prices bring there average down by investing consistently with the falling market but what if the market doesn't fall and keeps climbing ? We will be waiting for it to turn directions but what if that doesn't happen ? So a lump sum investment would have been really beneficial for this scenario. That's not the point of DCAing at all. If people have been telling you that, they've been lying or don't understand the point of DCAing. You DCA to get an average cost. This protects you from buying in an unopportune moment when the price was high. If you lump sump at the wrong time you can have losses for a long time. DCAing protects you from this. The point of DCAing is not to increase your profits, but to reduce your risk. With DCAing it's a guarantee you didn't lump sum at the ATH, but it's also a guarantee you didn't lump sum at the ATL of this cycle either. DCAing guarantuees you didn't get the worst price at the cost of not getting the best price. So you're reducing your risk. Furtheremore, with DCAing you're buying more crypto when the price is low and less when the price is high. So in this regard you'll have a better average price than just buying the same amount of crypto each month. (Which is another method to reduce your risks.) ​ > ✔️The worst problem i have faced is calculating my average price , the sheer amount of transactions if you are DCAing daily and that too manually , is a pain in ass. This makes analysing the true return a difficult job. There's no advantage to DCAing daily. Monthly is frequently enough. ​ >✔️One important thing that a lot of people have to realise is that DCA cannot save you from LUNA,FTT and whatnot. Yeah DCAing eliminates the worry to a significant level but it cannot be thought as a substitute to DYOR. You will still loose money if DCAing in bad projects. Well lump sum investing won't protect you either. > A lot of times i have witnessed that a significant amount of money rarely goes into the market if it changes directions and ends up going opposite to your expectations . That's not DCAing. With DCAing you invest, no matter in which direction it goes. ​ >⚡Now comes the big reveal - I have been DCAing and using my own strategy for as long as my money has been in the market. Something that i would recommend to fellow users is to practice patience as it is a key part of my strategy. So when market is going down , hovers at a point for long enough and reddit is filled with suicide hotlines i invest a lump sum. It would be like 50% of my DCA cash goes all in at once. It has really been beneficial to me atleast. Timing the market requires good knowledge of the market. Especially for new users it's far better to tell them to DCA.
There's a lot I disagree with here. >DCA strategy has been mostly recommended due to the assumption that the market is overvalued . At some point of time it will start diving and touch the rock bottom before a bounce. So people investing at higher prices bring there average down by investing consistently with the falling market but what if the market doesn't fall and keeps climbing ? We will be waiting for it to turn directions but what if that doesn't happen ? >So a lump sum investment would have been really beneficial for this scenario . Sure, no one knows the future so I don't disagree here. >✔️The worst problem i have faced is calculating my average price , the sheer amount of transactions if you are DCAing daily and that too manually , is a pain in ass. This makes analysing the true return a difficult job . Yeah, I don't analyze. It will be tough knowing what my biggest wins are. Who cares. I'm just buying til I'm rich. >✔️One important thing that a lot of people have to realise is that DCA cannot save you from LUNA,FTT and whatnot. Yeah DCAing eliminates the worry to a significant level but it cannot be thought as a substitute to DYOR. You will still loose money if DCAing in bad projects. These two things aren't even related. Obviously if you're DCAing Luna it won't save you. Neither will lump sum. >✔️ Although it ia related to the 1st point but we can say the amount of time your money spends in the market is very less compared to a lump sum investment since e dollar-cost averaging method encourages people to hold a significant amount of their investments in cash. A lot of times i have witnessed that a significant amount of money rarely goes into the market if it changes directions and ends up going opposite to your expectations . You think DCA "encourages people to hold a significant amount of their investments in cash."???? They don't have cash! DCA is for people who are paycheck to paycheck. We don't have the lump sum so we DCA. I feel like this argument is treating the strategy as a strategy by choice when it's a necessity for most.
1) Inflation rate. Dont buy coins that have an inflation rate above 10%, especially if you plan on holding them for longer time. By the time the next bullrun happens, your ass will be left with a super cheap coin that needs more than its triple market cap to reach it ATH again. 2) Functionality and usefulness: buy a useful coin with a clear purpose that will still be useful in the future. meme coins are a gamble, expect whatever money you put in them to never come back. 3) Decenteralized: avoid centralized coins like BNB, CRO, or XRP, those can easily dump if any of their companies fall. Its whats currently happening with the FTT token.
tldr; Binance CEO Changpeng "CZ" Zhao, the founder of the world's largest crypto exchange by trading volume, declared he would sell a pile of FTT, the in-house token created by rival exchange FTX and its founder Sam Bankman-Fried. "We are not against anyone. But we won't support people who lobby against other industry players behind their backs," he tweeted. *This summary is auto generated by a bot and not meant to replace reading the original article. As always, DYOR.*
FTX/Alameda borrowed crypto (BTC and ETH I believe) from Voyager using FTT and SRM as collateral back in late 2021 early 2022. In other words it was a secured loan, if they repay it they get their collateral back. I don’t know how the collateral was valued at the time or whether it was considered to be “over collateralized”, but likely it was. Later on in 2022, when it became obvious that Voyager was going to file bankruptcy, FTX/Alameda freaked out because a court could potentially dig in to *their* finances and order repayment of that loan, which FTX knew would be a net loss for them because they knew the FTT collateral was largely worthless compared to the BTC and ETH they borrowed. FTX then tried to play the savior and buy out Voyager *outside* the bankruptcy process in order to avoid all that scrutiny, but it failed and eventually they were forced to make a bid *inside* the bankruptcy process. As part of that bid, the court *ordered* them to repay that loan and take their collateral back, and the terms of that repayment were that it happen by late September 2022 regardless of whether the buyout deal went through or not. FTX went along with it thinking they’d end up owning Voyager anyway so they’d just get that crypto right back (along with all other Voyager customers assets too), but the deal fell through leaving them holding just their FTT and SRM collateral. Now that FTX/Alameda is itself bankrupt, FTX/Alameda lawyers are in court portraying that loan repayment to Voyager as an unsecured debt, and portraying it as an arbitrary choice FTX made to repay Voyager instead of other creditors (ie claiming it was a “preference” under bankruptcy law that can therefore be reversed by clawbacks). In other words they’re blatantly lying because they’re desperate to get their hands on any assets that still have actual value, like the BTC and ETH, because now the FTT they used as collateral (which they themselves originally claimed had enough value to secure a loan) that was returned to them is worthless, entirely due to their own actions. As icing on the cake, the motion FTX/Alameda lawyers filed in court is full of deluded ranting blaming everyone else, including Voyager, for FTX/Alameda lying to everyone and committing fraud.
He did have a considerable amount of FTT/BTC held in FTX, immediately causing the bankrun that crashed the exchange. These kind of shenanigans are how stablecoins get depegged and I believe it's intentional. It's one thing to have animosity between competitors, another to use market techniques to crash another network.
That happened to happen on my birthday.. but it wasn’t me. I was in the Bahamas at my buddy sams house. He’s the worlds most generous billionaire. He let me in on a secret. $FTT is guaranteed to hit $60,000 each by EOY 2022. So naturally I trusted him. I mean NasDaily said he’s the world most generous billionaire. How can’t you trust a generous billionaire. Is Nas getting any kind of backlash for promoting Sam? Just curious. I’m on a YouTube break.
There is 0 concrete evidence that Binance, the entity, is pumping shitcoins or buying pre-listing. One or a few insiders trading on internal information does not mean that the entity is doing it. A Coinbase employee, if you recall, was actually convicted of this, yet I don't see CB getting that much hate? Binance didnt even sell their FTT they got for cheap from FTX funding round which was worth billions due to market conflict months BEFORE FTX collapsed.
tldr; The SkyBridge Capital founder said he got "burned by Sam" after putting millions into the FTT token following a big investment by FTX. *This summary is auto generated by a bot and not meant to replace reading the original article. As always, DYOR.*
*SkyBridge received $45 million of funding from Bankman-Fried after FTX bought a 30% stake in the company, of which Scaramucci invested $10 million in FTT, before eventually selling it at a loss of $9.6 million.* As far as I see it, he is $35.4 million in profits... sponsored by regular retail investors' money
I was the "hey if i would've bought bitcoin when it first came out" guy, when they at some cases just gave you BTC for joining their portal etc... so for a long time I did not even think about dealing anything with crypto. The whole world seemed too "big" to handle (all the different chains, tokens yada yada..." In start of 2022, I started to see that investing to stocks, startups and other opportunities to retail investors, is not enough for risk management, I went to see what crypto has to offer. Quickly I saw, that there is A LOT of people choosing 2 possibilities: ETH and BTC. In stock market, my portfolio consisted of 20-30 different stocks from different sectors etc. So my thought was - if i'm going to throw some cents into crypto, that is not proper risk management. I spent hours and hours during 3 months to go through different cryptos available, and found myself a list of 10 to try out. Keeping in mind, that there should be chains for different usecases, different princibles etc. I'm in a moment where I'm 66% up past 30 days (todays morning status), whereas BTC is up 33% and ETH ticks at 26%. I watched BTC going down hard while my own portfolio also went down during past year, but the loss was not as big, as some of the investments remained more or less stable. Watched the LUNA crash and FTT fiasco etc. **This is not "i did good, someone else didnt"**, what it is, is a story of risk management. The point of this story is - if anyone of you is a newcomer to this story then: \- Twitter is your enemy, if you allow it to be your enemy \- Youtube is your enemy, if you allow it to be your enemy *Same goes for reddit (although this subreddit has been extremely useful when filtering the information using some of my own principles.* Manage. Your. Risks. Dont put all the fruits in one basket.
I find a lot of what you say both hilarious and baffling. Firstly, majority of people in crypto are in it to make money. Decentralisation is great and all, but they still need a way to turn crypto back into usable money and therefore a CEX is needed, ie Binance. Secondly, BNB is a CEX coin and anyone trading on Binance gets discounts for using it, gets bonuses for Launchpads, etc etc Thirdly, you mentioned FTX. No different when it comes to FTT and how that was a token based on nothing bar the exchange itself. Fourthly, would you feel this way about people investing in shit coins or meme coins? They don’t add to the crypto space, in fact many have caused it problems due to the rug pulls and bad reputation they generated. They add nothing bar making a joke out of crypto and most of them are centralised in the sense the creators are holding massive bags ready to dump, make their money, and run. Fifthly, BNB has had quite substantial gains over the past couple of years, especially for those who got in early. If it can make someone money, why would they not invest? Sixthly, you mention using DeFi for trading and while yes there are options, for a lot of people a CEX offers more features in one place, easier to use interface, less hassle or risk of messing up when sending coins to wallet, and generally some sort of customer support, albeit often not the best. Plenty more I am sure I could think of but anyway, it is what it is. People will invest in coins because of a picture of a dog, so don’t expect them to care about centralised or decentralised. Not everyone has the same mission in crypto
Wow sure is a lot of words to tell us how the SEC runs the world. No shit if binance went tits up it would crash like FTT. That's the risk of investing in _any company_ Crypto is a completely unregulated space. The SEC can call all crypto securities and restrict trading if they want. Makes no difference to 7.7billion out of the 8billion on the planet. And even for the US population, they can still trade any crypto they want as long as they have 2 brain cells to rub together. In my opinion crypto does need regulation to stop Muppets from taking bank loans out to buy cumcoin and stop manipulation from influencers etc. But in terms of BNB yes it functions as a security, yes it has a use case, no more can be minted and yes it can be rug pulled if binance gets in trouble, which is no fucking different to corporate stocks if they get in trouble. As a financial institution it should be regulated and maybe the FTT fuck up couldve been avoided by regulation and auditing.
I don't advocate that the SEC should control crypto at all. I'm saying if a central party mints a coin and that party holds a majority control over it, it is closer to a security. Binance must approve BSC nodes and likely runs a good amount of them internally. On top of that, BNB price is closely related to the success of binance the exchange. BNB would likely not pass the Howey test should the SEC decide to make moves. In fact, it's debatable that many other L1 coins would not pass the test either and be listed as a security. Why? Because they are centralized. It's no different than if Visa randomly said, "oh, by the way, we're just gunna mint new money that we have total control over." The point of crypto was to avoid that shit, but instead we're just doing it all again and pretending it's decentralized. Bitcoin and ethereum, for example, would not be labeled a security because it was not minted by a central authority and is not connected to any central authority. Their success is not tied to a company's success. If Binance exchange went belly up, so would BNB. Just the same as FTT did when FTX collapsed. And CEL and so forth. BNB and any other L1 that still holds the main keys for code development and has very few nodes may end up categorized as securities by the SEC whenever they decide to regulate. This is not even remotely far-fetched and could 100% happen, but this sub just likes to remain in blissful ignorance.
I own some BNB to get 50% off fees (if this still works IDK). Other than that I use it as a l2 for ethereum, since metamask supports it and I like pancake swap. I think 90% of cryptos are worse than BNB, most coins that claim to be decentralized have a backdoor or checkpoint, for the founders to urge in case of hacks. Also BNB has a marketcap so big because binance its propping it up. Like FTX did with FTT. But binance proved itself after the ftx collapse, if it survivied all the withdrawals then, it should be fine in the future also.
r/cc never learns. BNB has literally the same function as FTT and can/will fail in a similar manner. A sharp selloff where Binance will be forced to sell it in order to cover their asses in some other shenanigans. BNB is neither crypto nor decentralized.
Well - some people never learn from FTX and FTT. Ask FTX customers about their bills now. It is the tech that makes the difference - you can trust an unregulated "exchange" doing bank stuff and its profit optimizing expenditures like BNB - or use real crypto by choosing decentralized chains without a single owner controlling the system. It's not hate it is all about facts and history.
He used it as a trading platform. And as a holder of FTT chunk he had no trading commissions. That is why FTX was chosen. How else would you trade large sums if not on the exchange? Do you expect him p2p half a mil from retail every time his team sells or buys tokens? To do any operations you need platform with enough liquidity. It means, for a large portfolio he could use only a large exchange as a base of operation. Think.
When using BNB to reduce fees, one has to buy it. Creating BNB did Binance cost nothing. When one buys BNB it gives BNB value which can be used by Binance to make additional profit. This overcomes the 25% fee reduction multiple times. Again - I have nothing against Binance itself - I am just not a fan of using CEX coins (in general not just BNB) to bind customers to their services and have them investing in their controlled coins instead of "real" crypto currencies. Just imagine having 47B$ (the current market cap of BNB) unloaded onto decentralized real world projects. Instead of following FTT at some time in the future.
That’s fine. But do tell me. By volume and age - what is the largest and longest standing exchange? Before you answer: I don’t use binance. I don’t trust binance. I’m just acknowledging the fact that they have been around longer than almost any other exchange and comparing BNB to FTT is not comparable lol.
I think we are at a very dangerous place. The Howey test used to determine if a token is a security or commodity is looking increasingly outdated. But for the moment, Bitcoin is the only clear commodity as by the Howey test a security has to have all four of: 1. An investment of money 2. In a common enterprise 3. With the expectation of profit 4. To be derived from the efforts of others Number 2 has Bitcoin clearly in commodity status as their is no central enterprise/organization with Bitcoin. Almost all other tokens are at least questionable, even DAO's which authorities have claimed are common enterprises/centralized organizations. Which is where the fear of claiming all tokens as securities comes from and why the SEC having claimed FTT as a security opens the door for coming against all exchange tokens and then all project tokens.
Absolutely. The Howey test that they use to determine securities was created back in 1946. It's a wonder it lasted this long. But it is very outdated. That said, careful what you wish for, as the SEC claimed FTT a security in a court letter a few weeks ago. If we say we want change, we know governments, as they can choose to take advantage of that and bend the rules to whatever they want.