SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]

https://twitter.com/SECGov/status/1744837121406349714

by pawelduda • 3 years ago

102 485 3 years ago

pawelduda3• 3 years ago

From tweet:

Today the SEC grants approval for #Bitcoin ETFs for listing on all registered national securities exchanges.

The approved Bitcoin ETFs will be subject to ongoing surveillance and compliance measures to ensure continued investor protection.

altairprime9• 3 years ago

(The above tweet was posted to the compromised account by an unauthorized third party, and has been denied as valid by the SEC.)

qingcharles7• 3 years ago

The Tweet is now gone from the @SECGov account, which lends credence to the rumors it was hacked.

monero-xmr• 3 years ago

Widely believed Ethereum ETF coming in Q2. Will make it much easier to put 401k / IRA money in, and capitulation by SEC makes a Bitcoin and Ethereum ban in the US basically impossible.

xur17• 3 years ago

I'm curious if they will allow staked assets within the ETF.

tossl5683• 3 years ago

You think they're going to approve an ETF for a premined unregistered security scam? Ethereum is to Bitcoin as dogshit is to gold.

wmf5• 3 years ago

Ethereum is kind of too big to fail at this point.

max_• 3 years ago

What exactly will the ETFs holds? Bitcoin? Or Derivatives?

trompetenaccoun4• 3 years ago

They're spot Bitcoin ETFs. So yes, Bitcoin.

TacticalCoder• 3 years ago

What exactly will the ETFs holds? Bitcoin?

BlackRock said its Bitcoin ETF would be backed by actual Bitcoins in custody at Coinbase (a HN unicorn btw).

altairprime9• 3 years ago

Nothing, as it isn’t an actual thing (see above).

CSMastermind• 3 years ago

As someone completely out of the loop what was preventing ETFs from including Bitcoin? Is there some regulation about what types of assets can or cannot be part of an ETF?

Can I go make an ETF for magic the gathering cards? How about restaurant reservations or taylor swift tickets?

wmf5• 3 years ago

Blatant market manipulation was preventing the ETFs. Then a court ruled that since the SEC mistakenly approved Bitcoin future ETFs they also have to double down and approve Bitcoin spot ETFs.

altairprime9• 3 years ago

Their Twitter account was compromised, no doubt in service of blatant market manipulation; they have not approved Bitcoin spot ETFs.

andrewla4• 3 years ago

Each ETF needs to be approved by the SEC. You are welcome to submit an application for your restaurant reservations.

Historically the SEC has refused these grants for Bitcoin ETFs on the basis that the underlying asset does not have well-established spot markets and credit mechanisms. See for example [1].

Greyscale finally sued the SEC for applying arbitrary and capricious standards, and prevailed in federal court. But even so the SEC has not approved spot bitcoin ETFs (that is, ETFs that "physically" hold Bitcoin) but had only given guidance for cash-settled Bitcoin tracking ETFs. That makes this announcement a very unexpected surprise.

[1] https://www.sec.gov/rules/other/2018/34-83723.pdf

EDIT: And it does in fact appear that this is too good to be true. Looks like there was a brief spike up to $48k from the $46k baseline so somebody made out nicely on this little scam. Also goes to evidence that Bitcoin markets might be a bit too sensitive to manipulation to be suitable for inclusion in an ETF.

altairprime9• 3 years ago

This announcement is not valid, which may allay your surprise somewhat (see above).

derangedHorse5• 3 years ago

Also goes to evidence that Bitcoin markets might be a bit too sensitive to manipulation to be suitable for inclusion in an ETF

I don’t understand how you came to that conclusion. $2k is a relatively small fluctuation. Do you think other securities wouldn’t be subject to the same fluctuations given positive news? If not, there shouldn’t be laws against it like there are now

trompetenaccoun4• 3 years ago

Since they're exchange traded it's the SEC in the US (or other regulators in other countries) who decide if an ETF is approved or not. If you can convince them that magic the gathering cards are traded in a market that's sufficiently compliant with their regulations, I don't see why not. Maybe if BlackRock & co were really into MTG card trading, they'd be more compelled to approve. Seems to have helped Bitcoin because it many have filed and all were rejected until those big name asset managers got in ;)

rvz2• 3 years ago

I don't think so.

To Downvoters:

The Twitter / X account of the SEC was compromised: [0]

The @SECGov twitter account was compromised, and an unauthorized tweet was posted. The SEC has not approved the listing and trading of spot bitcoin exchange-traded products.

You all got manipulated very easily.

[0] https://twitter.com/GaryGensler/status/1744833049064288387

qingcharles7• 3 years ago

And the @SECGov Tweet is gone now too, so looks like it was a hack... crazy.

dmitrygr• 3 years ago

How do I make sure that my 401k has zero exposure to this?

ska• 3 years ago

self direct?

thejteam• 3 years ago

Invest in a standard index fund (like S&P500, etc)

altairprime9• 3 years ago

Do nothing, as it was a hack, not a legitimate SEC ruling.

astura• 3 years ago

Most 401ks let you choose the funds to invest in.

tossl5683• 3 years ago

"How do I ensure I don't make any money from a flood of money pouring into an absolutely scarce digital asset"

I'm sure your performative nocoinering will feel really good in a year when you're wrong yet again.

pants24• 3 years ago

The @SECGov twitter account was compromised, and an unauthorized tweet was posted. The SEC has not approved the listing and trading of spot bitcoin exchange-traded products.

https://twitter.com/GaryGensler/status/1744833049064288387

trompetenaccoun4• 3 years ago

Amazing.

pawelduda3• 3 years ago

Lmao, can admins update the title to reflect this or remove the listing altogether?

SEC twitter getting hacked is the last of scenarios I'd expect

altairprime9• 3 years ago

Yes, if you email them using the footer Contact link.

zepton• 3 years ago

Maybe @SECGov wasn't compromised, but instead @GaryGensler was?

wmf5• 3 years ago

The sec.gov site has no press release about the approval.

qingcharles7• 3 years ago

I was thinking the same, but the @SECGov Tweet has now disappeared. What a hack if it's true!

derangedHorse5• 3 years ago

Not probable considering the tweets the hacker liked immediately after posting

paulpauper17• 3 years ago

womp womp. floor falling out. fraud means more delays probably

paulpauper17• 3 years ago

Btc crashing because this will probably lower the odds of approval. this is why tech stocks are so much better . no need to have to worry about these shenanigans. The SEC cannot approve when there is so much fraud.

The fake news problem has gotten so bad on twitter. total shitshow. sub 30k soon on delay, imho

wmf5• 3 years ago

You could absolutely manipulate tech stocks by hacking Twitter accounts. For example, you could hypothetically pump JNPR by 25% by leaking an upcoming acquisition.

paulpauper17• 3 years ago

I mean a diversified etf like QQQ, which was up 50% or TQQQ, up 150%. Why deal with individual stocks at all when the leveraged tech etfs have less risk and more upside.

ryandrake• 3 years ago

Why would someone buy this vs. just holding the Bitcoin? ETFs are interesting when 1. they bundle multiple securities together to diversify or 2. they are backed by an asset (like gold and barrels of oil) that is physically difficult for an individual to hold. Is this just for people who can't figure out how to open an account at a Bitcoin exchange?

dageshi2• 3 years ago

Presumably the etf could be held in a variety of tax free accounts?

staplers• 3 years ago

Traditional IRAs can have ETF positions. This would allow pre-taxed earnings to purchase Bitcoin.

andrewla4• 3 years ago

Holding equities through a brokerage and using their interfaces are a well-understood problem. Managing a bitcoin wallet requires a bit more effort (though hopefully not too much more). Even worse is managing KYC & identity verification through existing Bitcoin exchanges, and navigating the scams and frauds from the real spot markets, and being able to transfer money in and bitcoin out from those markets.

Same reason gold ETFs are big -- people want exposure to the price of gold, but managing physical gold requires effort that many are not willing to put forth.

On a systemic side, ETFs have a number of advantages; notably a credit market (share borrow, etc.) which can lead to effective shorting of the price of the underlying, something that is difficult to pull off without getting suckered in by the next FTX. Plus inclusion in other ETFs, inclusion in various retirement schemes, and generally the wide availability of liquidity in equity markets.

jekrb• 3 years ago

Two reasons.

1. Low fees. I think five of the ETF filers even have 0% fees for first 6-12 months. Compare this to Coinbase, where the fees will seem astronomical in comparison (maybe this drives Coinbase fees down.)

2. There is a non-zero number of people in the family office investing world that don't want to deal with learning new tech and just want to call up their stock person on the phone to buy them something.

wslh4• 3 years ago

https://archive.is/XQCRk

wslh4• 3 years ago

How SEC would protect investors if they are hacked with a supply chain attack!

paulpauper17• 3 years ago

Yeah this is really bad for BTC longs. now it will probably be delayed. it's obvious that there is too much fraud and manipulation.. The SEC cannot in good conscious allow an ETF to protect investors (yes, ETFs which have lost all value like UVXY have been approved). Whoever did this furcked over wall street and these funds. Wow. never a dull moment.

fullshark• 3 years ago

I think an ETF is inevitable do you not?

paulpauper17• 3 years ago

all of the hype is over approval this week. approval eventually could mean 2025 or later .

enlyth• 3 years ago

You don't seem to understand the purpose of UVXY. It's not meant to be held for longer periods of time, it's a financial product for traders to make short term volatility plays.

paulpauper17• 3 years ago

Yeah but a lot of people have probably lost a lot by holding and not understanding how it works or underestimating the decay. Same for leveraged gold miners, which have also lost all value. A BTC etf is probably safer than UVXY.

IKantRead2• 3 years ago

Who in the world is still long on crypto?

In the past few years we've seen ample evidence that crypto is largely a complete scam, and likewise strong evidence that none of crypto's hoped for value will come to fruition (we didn't see it useful for fighting inflation, it's not being used to avoid sanctions, it certainly isn't being used as a currency, etc).

The fact that crypto still has any market value, and that companies like coinbase not only exist but have had a stellar year defies the imagination.

I get a few years back when there was still a lot of speculation/optimism, but clearly today everyone see that it is just a con. Today even my most cynical view of markets seems naive.

paulpauper17• 3 years ago

Agree. I would not touch it. Poor risk to reward ratio compared to stocks or other alternatives, too much risk.

sneak• 3 years ago

I’m still long bitcoin. Digital permissionless money is useful.

There is no evidence to support your “complete scam” claim.

JamesLefrere• 3 years ago

I’ve used DeFi for as long as it’s been around and will continue to do so. It’s safer and can be more profitable than TradFi, even with stablecoin yield. It’s a larger area than you might realise, and there is a lot more to it than degen gambling.

altairprime9• 3 years ago

Just because it’s obviously a con, doesn’t negate the possibility of get rich quick outcomes for blockchain participants. Human beings are quite well known for being easily suckered into lazy profit opportunities, and for rationalizing away complex ethical concerns when complicit in suckering others. Otherwise pyramid schemes would never work.

smeej2• 3 years ago

I'm short "crypto," but long bitcoin.

Most of the ecosystem is scammy garbage, but I think there's still going to be enough demand for sound money that a currency that can't be artificially manipulated by a central bank will do well, relative to currencies that can.

Perhaps I'll be wrong, but that's why I'm not heavily leveraged and I hedge my bets.

I don't think the entire ecosystem is garbage. I do think there are a few useful ideas other than bitcoin. But I can easily support the assertion that more than 99% of the "crypto" things that exist are worthless and/or outright scams.

codegeek2• 3 years ago

In my opinion, only the scammers OR people who truly believed in the promise of crypto and still are delusional to think it will materialize some day. Either way, it is terrible. I can't believe that a digital currency that cannot be used by most people is worth $xx,0000. But may be I am dumb.

Shosty123• 3 years ago

Takes like these are so moronic it hurts. I just paid an artist across the globe for some icons; the transaction took seconds to resolve and cost me cents to send via SOL. The closest I've come to that is Canada's eTransfer system, but it only works in Canada.

Workaccount23• 3 years ago

For a 3% gain that they might well have missed holding out for more, lol.

paulpauper17• 3 years ago

leverage, options, etc. more than 3%

infotainment• 3 years ago

I love watching crypto people obsess about the fabled Bitcoin ETF. You'd think it was some kind of religious movement.

"Oh glorious SEC, once thou bestowest thine blessing, Crypto shall rise a thousandfold! Glory to Bitcoin!"

zaphod420• 3 years ago

Crypto people are more like: "Honey badger don't give a fuck. Not your keys, not your coins."

mamonster2• 3 years ago

Reminds me a bit of how whenever a stock starts getting rumors of being included in an index there are HF guys bidding it up to dump on the index ETFs.

viraptor• 3 years ago

More approved use means more standard financial industry products using BTC, means more overall volume/value in BTC, means higher price. Of course people holding BTC will like that.

Barrin922• 3 years ago

Of course people holding BTC will like that.

Given that the original Whitepaper is titled: "A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System" and a news article describing the 2009 bank bailout is literally baked into the very first block people celebrating slow morphing of Bitcoin into a traditional finance product is at least a little bit funny. Instead of a hedge crypto is now just effectively a correlate of the financial markets.

dogman1443• 3 years ago

Yes. If in the space long enough, this is a mainstream indicator of institutional adoption, paired with the inst trading volumes already there.

Suggesting either could happen would get someone laughed out a room really not too long ago.

If you were around for $3k btc, those intervening years saw:

* first national current adoption (ES)

* futures contracts from CME

* institutional trading volumes CEXs and DeFi

* first rounds of crypto being able to pull FAANG-types for jobs

* countries approving it for contracts (Argentina)

* looks like an imminent ETF

* funding UKR war efforts faster than US govt could manage - $50m overnight iirc

* arms deals via aforementioned funding

A lot has happened! Bodes well

codeflo• 3 years ago

It’s not irrational: an ETF would make it a lot easier to buy Bitcoin, which would increase demand. It’s funny though, because if Bitcoin would work as well as advertised, a traditional exchange shouldn’t offer this kind of advantage.

paxys12• 3 years ago

an ETF would make it a lot easier to buy Bitcoin

How? Serious question. What would it enable that hasn't already been possible for many years now?

paulpauper17• 3 years ago

A lot of people are expecting to get rich off Bitcoin. They still think it's a ticket to financial freedom even though returns since late 2017 have been mediocre. Relative to volatility, they would be better off with 3x tech etfs like TQQQ or TECL, which have more upside and less risk compared to Bitcoin for the same amount of volatility.

rthnbgrredf• 3 years ago

The TQQQ ETF hasn't experienced a downturn as severe as the 2000 crash. Market crashes recur; it's unrealistic to expect a perpetual bull market. In a major crash, TQQQ could plummet by 99.9%, turning $1 million into $1,000. Being swap-based and not replicated, TQQQ could potentially drop to near zero and face delisting, as seen with some 3x leveraged ETFs before.

renewiltord• 3 years ago

Original Post: https://twitter.com/garygensler/status/1744833049064288387?s...

dcolkitt3• 3 years ago

The price of BTC initially jumped 3% on the hacked tweet. That's $25bn+ of market cap. The irony is the SEC itself is probably now responsible for the largest crypto pump and dump in history.

mulmen3• 3 years ago

How is the SEC responsible for fraud committed on Twitter?

lxgr• 3 years ago

By using Twitter as a communications channel for official announcements, they are at least legitimizing it.

If they have any reason to be concerned about the security of their account (and it looks like they should have at least from now on), they should arguably reconsider their choice of platform.

sebzim45002• 3 years ago

Because it's their account?

huy77• 3 years ago

how do we know if this website is spreading truth from the SEC itself, then?

ksjskskskkk• 3 years ago

maybe trust the almost useless SSL certificate merchants, instead of the really useless 8 bucks blue checkmark merchants? i dunno.

LeoPanthera• 3 years ago

You don't. Verify any tweets at the SEC's own website: https://www.sec.gov/page/news

And if it's actually important, a third source from a trusted media outlet wouldn't hurt either.

paxys12• 3 years ago

Twitter/X is not an authoritative source of news, regardless of whether it is an "official" account doing the Tweeting or not. Anyone can get a blue check by paying $8/mo.

TaylorAlexander• 3 years ago

The SEC twitter account has a grey check, which you cannot get by paying $8.

https://twitter.com/SECGov

psychlops2• 3 years ago

And getting 500 thousand followers. Easy peasy.

supermatt• 3 years ago

Theres a few different colours now: https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/profile-label...

seydor2• 3 years ago

what is an authoritative source? does it come with a certificate?

Eji17003• 3 years ago

We really really really need some legislation about governmental agencies using privately owned companies to announce things.

There was already some for radio/early news, but the landscape has changed so much, and it bothers me a ton that these platforms are being used.

unleaded2• 3 years ago

Imagine your bank balance is suddenly worth half as much because someone wrote a tweet. How is cryptocurrency still taken seriously?

mewpmewp23• 3 years ago

I am not a fan of crypto, but I don't think tweet affecting something like that is an indicator of anything.

Something big can happen and only a very little information can reveal it to have happened. That is the power of speed of information and the scale.

hyperhopper• 3 years ago

Imagine your bank balance is suddenly worth half as much because somebody dropped a bomb? How is fiat currency still taken seriously?

mschuster91• 3 years ago

Imagine your bank balance is suddenly worth half as much because someone wrote a tweet.

That's just as possible with regular stocks, which Twitter's owner has (unrelatedly) demonstrated multiple times in the past with both Tesla and Twitter... or, a bit slower, in the early covid months.

Stock markets are insanely sensitive to "insider" information and breaking news in general, which is why the regulations around them are so strict.

solardev9• 3 years ago

How is Twitter still taken seriously?

derangedHorse5• 3 years ago

“Half as much” is unnecessary exaggeration. All assets with a high reading volume can be manipulated with a tweet. News of a Bitcoin ETF is no different than positive news for any other asset. I think your bias is making you ignorant to general market mechanics.

bogota• 3 years ago

So im guessing you feel like tesla shouldn’t be taken seriously as well?

sebzim45002• 3 years ago

The price moved ~3% as a result of the tweet.

There have been many flash crashes in traditional markets bigger than that, triggered by similarly stupid events.

paulpauper17• 3 years ago

The price of BTC initially jumped 3% on the hacked tweet. That's $25bn+ of market cap

more than that. all the alts went up too

addicted• 3 years ago

This is quite literally not a pump and dump by the SEC.

A pump and dump would require the same entity to be doing the buying, pumping up, and then dumping the asset.

The SEC didn’t buy, nor did it sell, nor did it pump up the price (someone pretending to be the SEC pumped up the price).

Even assuming that the “largest pump and dump” claim is correct, at most, the SEC was used for that purpose and isn’t “responsible” for it.

altairprime9• 3 years ago

Even if the hacking entity did the pump and dump, then their statement is valid: the SEC’s incaution made this possible.

wlesieutre• 3 years ago

They didn't say the SEC did it, they said the SEC was "responsible" for it.

Which may or may not be true, if they were using "password123" then sure that's negligent and they'd bear some of the responsibility, but it might not have been the SEC's fault at all.

psychlops2• 3 years ago

I'm sure many people can use this as their defense. "I didn't buy and sell on the news, my friend did!"

nodesocket• 3 years ago

The SEC didn’t buy, nor did it sell, nor did it pump up the price (someone pretending to be the SEC pumped up the price).

How do we know it's not an inside job? Pretty tempting to pull a twitter account takeover and make potentially millions if you a lonely cog in the SEC wheel.

MCUmaster2• 3 years ago

It IS, look at who traded LOL.

Workaccount23• 3 years ago

Who cares about $25bn?

These guys hacked the SEC, made huge announcement tweet, and only got a 3% move from that. More over, they only had a 10 minute window to close whatever positions they had before BTC crashed through it's pre-hack price.

There is a fair chance that they actually lost money on this play, lol.

yreg• 3 years ago

The expectation is that the ETF is going to be approved very soon, so it's priced in.

dannyw• 3 years ago

Should have tweeted something like filing charges against Ethereum for being an unregistered security.

nullandvoid• 3 years ago

You can 100x leverage on a lot of sites, that 3% now = 300% gain.

As you say though 10 mins is a small window, but they could have easily set a Conservative stop on doubling their money with only a 1% gain.

mekster• 3 years ago

This wasn't a pump and dump. If they wanted to, they should've posted about a rejection when it was 95% surely going to be approved and with a long squeeze happening along the way, they could've easily gotten a 10% movement down and back up.

Powdering7082• 3 years ago

3% gain on BTC is really not that much for crypto, it's the size of the movement within a given timeframe that makes it impressive (e.g. it was within a minute or two). It would have been very easy to take out a leveraged long position in defi & profit off this.

John238322• 3 years ago

How is the SEC responsible because they got hacked? Are you responsible for fraudulent charges on your credit card (you'll contrive some yes, but the answer is no)?

dcolkitt3• 3 years ago

Generally I would expect a higher degree of security from an agency with a $2bn budget whose primary purpose is the integrity of communications about financial markets than an average person with a credit card.

Certainly you will admit at some size, responsibility and level of funding the organization should take responsibility for protecting itself from hacks. If the Department of Defense got hacked and nuclear secrets were leaked, I certainly hope people would get fired rather than sympathized with.

nprateem3• 3 years ago

POW crypto should be globally banned on ecological grounds.

krunck• 3 years ago

Then so should GPU powered generative AI. Just kidding.

Just because you do not derive utility from something does not mean it a waste and should be banned.

kevingadd5• 3 years ago

Who derives utility from the PoW component of PoW crypto? Is the work doing something useful to you? Is the utility "I feel good about using electricity to do nothing"?

snapcaster3• 3 years ago

People say this all the time, but why don't they say that about videogames? or actual mining? I also think access to and freedom to use electricity as you wish is really underrated as a freedom. Maybe consider that if you start this precedent people will end up policing your energy use too

solardev9• 3 years ago

Because even video games have more worth than crypto?

kevingadd5• 3 years ago

Are you claiming that video games waste more electricity than crypto mining PoW? Do you have evidence to support that? It's a pretty strong claim, since most of the power being used to play a video game is doing something (rasterizing images/synthesizing audio/simulating physics in order to provide the game experience) while most of the power used to do PoW mining is Wasted On Purpose.

cesarb• 3 years ago

People say this all the time, but why don't they say that about videogames? or actual mining?

The difference is that, for videogames or mining physical rocks, the power use is an undesired side effect, so the incentive is to minimize it, while for POW cryptocurrencies, the power use is an essential component of the mechanism they use to prevent double spending, and the incentive is to use as much as possible.

nprateem3• 3 years ago

Probably so they aren't deflected.

POW could be replaced by the more efficient POS, but network effects make that highly unlikely without government intervention.

tromp2• 3 years ago

You wouldn't say that if bitcoin used no more power than it did in its first 4 years, before all the speculative use that drove up prices and energy use.

Zaskoda6• 3 years ago

This is a tired complaint built on a faulty analysis of Bitcoin's power usage. There are a lot of things that use more power than the Bitcoin network, such as all of the idle electronics in the USA. Or christmas lights during the season. In the case of Bitcoin, the power used to mine is often power that would otherwise be wasted. Excess power from hydroelectric damns as well as gas being burned off in the oilfield are both used to mine Bitcoin. Bitcoin isn't robbing anyone of power they need for anything else because the moment the cost of power goes up, Bitcoin mining leaves town. Because Bitcoin creates a market for power and can be mined anywhere with power and Internet, it creates unique opportunities to improve our power grid. We can now build power stations in areas where there are not yet enough residential customers to fund it by using the excess power for Bitcoin mining. Net result is that Bitcoin is a value add for our power infrastructure and the negative impact of Bitcoin mining is grossly exaggerated. The current banking system has a significantly worse impact on the environment.

nprateem3• 3 years ago

Deluded

dageshi2• 3 years ago

I am glad to see the cyberpunk future of hackers impersonating government agencies in order to pump and dump digital currency has finally arrived.

thewanderer19833• 3 years ago

Unlike the long history of price manipulation in traditional markets?

phailhaus• 3 years ago

Yes.

cubefox• 3 years ago

Unlike conventional science fiction.

IKantRead2• 3 years ago

The old crypto chants were that crypto would lead us away from the ills of traditional markets/finance.

Glad to see that it's been watered down to "just as bad as" arguments.

boeingUH60• 3 years ago

Crypto guys will never stop whataboutery..

jayd16• 3 years ago

Is it surprising that cybercrime is just crime in cyberspace?

QuantumGood• 3 years ago

Barely makes an impression in the parade of crime that is web3isgoinggreat.com/

a_JIT_pie• 3 years ago

Can you explain how web3 is responsible for all the crypto nonsense for a layman?

appplication• 3 years ago

That’s a fun site.

happytiger• 3 years ago

It’s such a reasonable thing to expect any level of hacking. Consider the idea that w3 is the transition of assets into literal Internet money. We digitized wealth and w3 concentrated those supplies into readily available large quantity targets.

The idea that there would be anything but a massive acceleration of crime and fraud as a result of the digitization of actual money is actually hilarious.

It’s a fact that North Korea relies on hacking it for funding critical imports at this point…

The real question is who and how this massive financialization and tokenization exercise will benefit, because it’s increasingly clear that the old guard has designs on how to control it pretty effectively and it’s not actually as free or anonymous as many people think. Some exceptions apply.

Zaskoda6• 3 years ago

Bitcoin != Web3

Bitcoin == Web5

yeahsure• 3 years ago

They would have made more money by tweeting the ETF got rejected. My guess is this was a mistake by an intern or something like that.

lozf• 3 years ago

They sure managed to regain control of the allegedly "hacked" account in short order.

yieldcrv6• 3 years ago

you know those amateurs at the SEC were trying to schedule a post and accidentally pressed send

gensler freaked out and said it was compromised

chaps• 3 years ago

The 2023 Chicago mayoral candidate, Paul Vallas, did very similar. He was found to have liked a bunch of posts and claimed it was hacked. It was clear almost immediately that he was lying about it, since it kept happening on his other accounts.

trompetenaccoun4• 3 years ago

It is a bit weird the tweet went out exactly a day before the approval is supposed to happen.

Let's assume it was the SEC's fault, either by accident or otherwise, could they be charged with market manipulation? Which agency would have authority to investigate? Quite a few people were tricked into buying right before the price dropped like a rock. Shorters have made a killing.

qingcharles7• 3 years ago

The @SECGov X account was compromised, and an unauthorized post was posted. The SEC has not approved the listing and trading of spot bitcoin exchange-traded products.

https://twitter.com/SECGov/status/1744837121406349714

dang• 3 years ago

Thanks! Submitted title was "SEC approves Bitcoin ETFs" (which I assume was reasonable at the time of submission). We've changed it now.

Edit: since the original tweet (https://twitter.com/SECGov/status/1744829327294837236) no longer exists, I've changed the URL to your link above.

traeregan3• 3 years ago

This is so wild. Assuming it was financially motivated, wouldn't the involved party stand to benefit more by shorting and posting that the ETF was denied?

paulpauper17• 3 years ago

no, because they make money on both ways: on the pump and then shorting. The account being hacked lowers odds of approval.

paulgb4• 3 years ago

You could still make money on the way down and then the way back up. And you’d probably move the market more than the ~3% that it was moved because the market consensus already gives a high probability to an approval this month.

I get your point that it may not rebound quite as much because the hack itself lowers the odds of approval, but imagine the optics of Gary Gensler saying “it's not true that we denied the ETFs” -- bitcoin boosters would read that as a signal that it will be approved.

fulladder• 3 years ago

It could be a trader who was already long and looking to exit the position. Figured this was a good way to goose returns. Who knows?

rhyperior• 3 years ago

And that's why the most likely answer is that the message was queued to go out and sent prematurely.

traeregan3• 3 years ago

Perhaps. There were an odd couple of "likes" made by the SEC X account during the same time period though (they've since been "unliked"), and Chair Genlser + a follow up post by @SECGov both specifically say that the account was compromised.

qingcharles7• 3 years ago

The message was really official looking too, which is how they fooled me.

paulpauper17• 3 years ago

The fact BTC is a lot lower means that the odds of approval have fallen.

Manifold markets still giving 90% odds.

https://manifold.markets/123Newsletter/will-a-spot-btc-etf-b...

this would be a good short but no liquidity

josu3• 3 years ago

Here you go: https://polymarket.com/event/bitcoin-etf-approved-by-jan-15

SketchySeaBeast• 3 years ago

Well this certainly makes them seem more legitimate.

jakderrida2• 3 years ago

I know making millions off crypto doesn't make me an authority, but... It's not an investment. I made money off people speculating by taking advantage solely off an inefficient market. There's nothing else to it. Money put in is not used to generate more wealth. Whether it's going to be used as an official currency in the future in no way would make an investment, nor would it mean it should even go up an value.

droopyEyelids3• 3 years ago

This is half a joke, but maybe there is demand for a vehicle for speculation that isn't tied to anything real, at all.

It achieves some sort of purity of concept. Plenty of people _gamble_ on the stock market but there has always been some sort of link to reality. With crypto, you can cut that tether and really treat it like gambling, rigged odds and all.

jakderrida2• 3 years ago

but maybe there is demand for a vehicle for speculation that isn't tied to anything real, at all.

I'll go with completely agreeing with this statement, the way it's written. Let's be honest...There's nothing semantically or generally wrong with it to argue against.

As far as the "gambling" part... My objection would be that speculative vehicles aren't really on the "stock market" as much as they are the "derivatives market", if anything. Problem here is that the derivatives are, by definition, tied to the value of something else that could be called an investment. I'm not opposed to people trading. I made my money with market making algorithms and will make more as people keep trading. I'm just saying that classifying it as an "investment" poses quite a few issues for the SEC in terms of regulating it. Introducing it into an ETF that does nothing but hold crypto will be viewed by the public (that doesn't understand what crypto is) into presenting it as an investment. There are issues with that.

wmf5• 3 years ago

There is absolutely demand for that, especially when you add in artificial scarcity.

paxys12• 3 years ago

Is this fabled Bitcoin ETF really going to be the "to the moon" moment that everyone in the ecosystem seems to be expecting? From personal experience, I can't think of anyone who wants to buy Bitcoin but hasn't been able to by now. It takes a few clicks on Coinbase/Robinhood or a similar exchange. Plenty of 401k/IRA managers (including Fidelity) offer it as an option. So what exactly changes once this ETF is live?

paulpauper17• 3 years ago

Right, at this point, exposure to bitcoin is easy . this is not 2012 anymore.

droopyEyelids3• 3 years ago

I'd expect some upward pressure on price because the ETFs will own bitcoin.

But to your larger, exaggerated ("everyone"), question: It'll make it easier to include bitcoin as a part of larger trades when it can be bought and sold and used as collateral like a regular stock. It'll be another tool used by professional traders. I don't think it'll be a world-changing event, and like you said, it's probably not going to increase aggregate demand as trading desks will shift out of complicated ownership structures to use the ETF instead.

smeej2• 3 years ago

Being able to buy it in a run-of-the-mill tax advantaged account would be a very big deal.

It's possible to do it now, but not easy.

paxys12• 3 years ago

Why is it not easy? Your fund manager has to click a button to enable it. You have to click a button to buy it. How will an ETF make it easier?

mamonster2• 3 years ago

The main thing I think is that if there is an ETF then this could be the green light for big MMs to open/re-open crypto MM activities, on its own term and as part of being APs for the ETFs. Wintermute/Portofino/etc are good but if the big guys come in liquidity/order book depth will probably get way better.

mrsilencedogood• 3 years ago

ETF's are so pervasive because they're so easy. VIX futures can be held, but people still buy VIXY and similar products. You can buy literal physical gold, but people still buy GLD et al.

And it hardly matters that wrapping it in an ETF makes it potentially really weird (like how GLD and other gold ETFs are only barely nominally like holding gold, and VIX ETFs often hold cash-settled futures based on the value of a formula that is based on another formula that takes in various parameters of the prices and durations of options which themselves are priced based on the price movements of various equity securities and .........). The depths of weirdness have already been pretty well-explored by existing weird ETFs. A bitcoin ETF wouldn't even be particularly notable levels of weird, imo.

So, just the fact that it makes it really easy is typically a big boon to people getting exposure to whatever financial force the ETF holds.

paxys12• 3 years ago

It's the "it makes it easier" part that I am debating. Yes buying into a gold ETF is obviously easier because going out and buying physical gold takes more effort. But for a bitcoin ETF you are trading two clicks on one site vs two clicks on another. And in the ETF case you don't actually get to own any Bitcoin. So where's the advantage?

initplus4• 3 years ago

Bitcoin futures ETF's already exist - I'm not convinced that a spot price ETF is any huge breakthrough.

akira2501• 3 years ago

This all reminds me of someone explaining the reason World War 1 started.

Workaccount23• 3 years ago

There already are bitcoin ETFs you can trade anyway, they track bitcoin futures.

$BITO and $BITI

MBCook• 3 years ago

It’s very important because if you don’t like the standard finance system and want to use an alternate one that isn’t corrupted by greed and incumbents, the best way to do that is… to buy it through the current financial system?

It gives credibility to the thing that explicitly does not want credibility. Or at least didn’t. Maybe it does now. I don’t know.

newshackr• 3 years ago

Isn't crypto corrupted by greed though? It seems inevitable in anything that centers around betting on the growth of a number.

Legion• 3 years ago

There are two kinds of people who declare a crypto is going "to the moon":

- The ones who don't believe it, and sell off their inflated coins after the price jumps

- The ones who do believe it, and are the rubes the first group is counting on

x86x872• 3 years ago

I should save this and come back to it in 10 years.

initplus4• 3 years ago

Bitcoin futures ETF's are already allowed - several exist and they track the BTC:USD rate relatively accurately. I'm not sure that a spot price ETF is really a huge breakthrough in terms of actual mechanics.

But approval is an opportunity to create hype and buzz around cryptocurrency.

okwubodu• 3 years ago

several exist and they track the BTC:USD rate relatively accurately

They are terrible assets with severe discount/premium swings reaching the high 40%s [0]. The ratio's only tightening now that a potential arbitrage opportunity is on the table.

[0] https://ycharts.com/companies/GBTC/discount_or_premium_to_na...

dcolkitt3• 3 years ago

Bitcoin futures are correlated but nowhere near a 1:1 proxy for spot markets. Crypto markets are known for very steep "contango" in the curve, and it's not unusual for the price of the 30 days futures to be more than $1000 away from the current Bitcoin price.

The issue isn't just additional volatility and tracking error, but the fact that the con tango creates a "roll yield" which affects the long-term returns of the strategy. To keep constant maturity exposure, the futures ETF has to constantly "roll" its positions into further dated contracts. In particular because the market tends to be in contango it means further dated futures tend to be higher priced than near dated futures. So usually the futures ETFs in their daily rebalancing are selling cheap near dated contracts for more expensive longer dated contracts. Hence the roll yield tends to be negative. Then add all the transaction costs from daily rebalancing. It should be clear why the futures strategy has inferior returns to simply holding spot.

Spot Bitcoin ETFs truly are a game changer compared to futures ETFSs.

derangedHorse5• 3 years ago

401k accounts at Fidelity don’t generally allow one to hold Bitcoin even if they do have a self directed account. With a Bitcoin ETF people don’t need permission from their employer anymore. I’m also skeptical of their current plans and whether they actually allow people to hold Bitcoin. Employees I’ve spoken to in the department have told me the most Id be able to get in a retirement account is “exposure” to the broader crypto market which is undesirable to those who are just interested in Bitcoin.

yieldcrv6• 3 years ago

and anyone could get a mutual fund

and anyone could get an annuity

and anyone can buy spot gold

and yet

m25n2• 3 years ago

This is likely going to be for certain large institutional funds where there are many restrictions on what can be bought. Buying an ETF is often the easiest path for them. Also, retail folks that like the idea of the SEC signing off on it (I think this is a silly reason but I can empathize with why that might be comforting for some).

gumballindie• 3 years ago

I see, ai and crypto currencies pulling in all the good folks.

droopyEyelids3• 3 years ago

I wonder if the fact that their account was hacked for this will influence their decision about whether to actually allow Bitcoin ETFs

cempaka5• 3 years ago

From a Slack of market observers I frequent: "Right now, someone is explaining to the BlackRock board, 'you got rugged, it happens all the time in crypto.' "

AustinDev2• 3 years ago

It'd be funny if it wasn't a $45k to $45.7k change for a +$700 delta.

cempaka5• 3 years ago

I have a hard time seeing the SEC not delaying until at least March after that fiasco (or even pushing back against the tweet itself if they were intending to approve anyway), but I guess tomorrow will tell the tale. It's fees BlackRock cares about, not the Bitcoin price.

paulpauper17• 3 years ago

Blackrock is huge. This is a rounding error to it. The people who got rugged were retail who bought into the hype since October.

disruptalot3• 3 years ago

You may be misreading the effects - Bitcoin is trading above what it traded yesterday, and 50% higher than october.

scrlk• 3 years ago

"Careful what you read on the internet. The best source of information about the SEC is the SEC."

https://nitter.net/SECGov/status/1714020932509982771

...until the SEC's account gets hacked?

0x4572• 3 years ago

Unless specifically indicated otherwise, social media content expresses the author's views only and not necessarily those of the Commission, other members of the Commission, or other staff. Content posted to social media is not a rule, regulation, or statement of the Commission, and the Commission has neither approved nor disapproved of such content. Retweets, follows, or likes by SEC social media accounts should not be construed as an endorsement of any individual, group, or entity by SEC staff or the Commission. Paid for by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission.

SEC's twitter isn't SEC. What they mean is this: https://www.sec.gov/news/pressreleases and even that should be verified across multiple outlets if you want to be sure.

hanniabu3• 3 years ago

SEC's twitter isn't SEC.

So whoever is using the account is committing fraud

wnevets• 3 years ago

"this is good for bitcoin"

johnea• 3 years ago

This is exactly why official agencies should have their own mechanismm of public communication, and not rely on 3rd party corporate chat platforms...

How the FED, SEC, and any government office thought having a faceplant or twit account was good idea is beyond me...

Of course, those who throw themselves gushingly at every corporate slime to crawl out from under a rock will have a hard time understanding this opinion. That is also part of the problem...

PlatinumBench• 3 years ago

I wish these platforms that are used to distribute information had the option for important organizations to re-centralize their communication.

Instead of a Twitter account that could be hacked, why not let the SEC post to a feed hosted by themselves that Twitter can poll against and post to Twitter for them? Then you get the benefits of centralization for dissemination of information but decentralization for security? Then these important accounts can invest as much as they want in their own security?

It seems like the only benefit that Twitter actually gives vs the SEC just posting on their site is that centralization.

chucknthem• 3 years ago

How does it change things if they had their own communications platform and someone hacked that to send this message?

Hash-Basher• 3 years ago

Anybody else not buying the fact that they got hacked? Seems more like they fat fingered the tweet, we'll see tomorrow.

60secs• 3 years ago

I'm sure Gensler will use this as another excuse of no BTC etf since digital security is hard.

givemeethekeys• 3 years ago

Is anyone else wondering what the password was?

mike_d• 3 years ago

I'm pretty sure Elon just as a "Tweet as this account" button by now.

cempaka5• 3 years ago

Matthew C. Klein pointed out on Twitter: "the owner/operator of this website has a longstanding grudge against America's securities regulator."

drzaiusapelord2• 3 years ago

Also this should be a massive warning to companies, non-profits, and governments who think "Sure, Elon is mismanaging this and platforming the worst people and making it a cult of personality, but its not that bad. We get to reach a lot of people, so its still good for us."

Now they have to worry about whether Elon is in the mood to give your account proper security or if your password hash leaked "by accident" by a "junior dev." Or just the everyday incompetence of all personality-cult organizations. Elon went from being sued by the SEC to hosting its humiliation.

Elon is chuckling it up right now. The problem with personality-led companies is that if you get on the bad side of that personality, then anything goes.

roughly• 3 years ago

Not just companies.

Bureaucracies get a bad rap, but the idea that everyone needs to follow the same process for every case is pretty novel in human history.

93po2• 3 years ago

This is some ridiculous level fear mongering

mecsred• 3 years ago

Are we seriously suggesting that the password was intentionally leaked? The crackback against twitter and Musk with even a shred of evidence would be devastating. The idea that anyone's creds would be intentionally leaked is unbelievable to me, much less the creds of a US govt institution.

Shekelphile• 3 years ago

Why not? Musk has a history of direct personal attacks against people who criticize him (he just recently purged a bunch of people from twitter today, no less) as well as a history of directly pump and dumping shitcoins for him and his crony's personal gain.

It seems so likely that it should probably be assumed that this is the case imo.

ckbishop3• 3 years ago

Yeah, and in fact, it was my first thought. He's an emotional man-baby with a God complex. Leaked credentials? Probably not. Those are hashed because competent engineers created the platform before he got there.

Made the account easier to be hacked? Yes, probably. That would be my assumption. Changed password, changed MFA, changed owner e-mail, etc. They no longer have a real support team, but I'm sure the support mechanisms are still all in place.

josu3• 3 years ago

Here is a tweet from one of the main ETF experts:

@EricBalchunas "On TV right on talking about this.. and yes, I think someone prepped a planned tweet and put wrong date, bc the tweet would have made PERFECT sense tomorrow at this time. The language sounds legit SEC-ish IMO vs a crypto knucklehead pulling a prank but I guess we'll see.."

https://twitter.com/EricBalchunas/status/1744835562643595652

paulpauper17• 3 years ago

nope. this is 100% a hack. the sec would not make such a post using that picture. why would there be a picture of Gensler? that makes no sense. it would be a press release of some sort, maybe followed by a tweet.

yup

https://twitter.com/EricBalchunas/status/1744841094997680477

why would the SEC 'like' random accounts? hacked

josu3• 3 years ago

Yeah, you are right. They actually liked a couple of random tweets too. Most likely hacked.

moose_man7• 3 years ago

This is icing on the cake of this manipulated attempt to restart the crypto craze. These morons are so greedy that they undermine themselves.

Zaskoda6• 3 years ago

It's a cycle. It's going to restart. And then die. And then restart again. For a while.

m25n2• 3 years ago

Yeah, you definitely shouldn’t buy Bitcoin because it’s going to crash: https://youtu.be/XbZ8zDpX2Mg?si=PyP8bPAOUftVyAcS

moose_man7• 3 years ago

Crypto schemers are trying so hard to restart crypto hype.

koolba• 3 years ago

The market manipulation and legal drama for crypto is truly the most entertaining thing in finance. The only sure bet are popcorn futures.

neilv3• 3 years ago

Why do government agencies even have accounts on proprietary walled-garden online platforms? Those are for purposes like celebrity publicists, influencer brand promotion, disreputable mob behavior, and astroturfing.

The SEC doesn't need brand promotion, nor to be caught up in nastiness like pervades X/Twitter. The SEC already has the authority, they do their job with it, and presumably they value respectability.

Earlier Web showed us how to do this right, before commercial entities steered the influx of the newbie masses back towards being captive to proprietary walled gardens.

Stop choosing proprietary walled gardens to endorse with the government seal of approval.

Put press releases on your .gov open-systems Web site. Optionally do supplementary alerts with an open-systems email announcements list and/or Atom feed. Let journalists, citizens, and lawmakers take it from there.

JoshTriplett2• 3 years ago

There is value in government agencies engaging with people where they are. Even the SEC gets some value out of promoting their activities, even if it's just awareness of their existence and function and corresponding public support.

That said, now that the Fediverse exists, ideally all of those government agencies would self-host their accounts, either individually or via a server for many different agencies of the same government. It makes sense for the SEC to be @sec@sec.gov or @sec@usa.gov rather than example.com/SECGov . (Which, of course, does not prevent them from having security issues.)

shp0ngle• 3 years ago

SEC cannot run their own twitter account without being hacked, what makes you think they can securely run their own Mastodon instance?

sokoloff2• 3 years ago

While your point is perhaps valid for publishing information, it doesn’t (for me) extend to not even having an account.

Companies have cited that their Twitter account is an official source of company comms and that gives the SEC a reason to have an account and access that information as part of enforcing securities laws.

neilv3• 3 years ago

Good point. I should've said "presences" rather than "accounts".

krapp• 3 years ago

Why do government agencies even have accounts on proprietary walled-garden online platforms? That's for purposes like celebrity publicists, influencer brand promotion, disreputable mob behavior, and astroturfing.

You're describing some of the behaviors that occur on those platforms, not their purpose. Governments have accounts on those platforms because it makes communicating with their constituents easier, because that's where the people are. It would be grossly irresponsible in this day and age for a government not to have any social media presence at all.

lowercased• 3 years ago

Should agencies never have published information to privately owned corporate newspapers? After all, you could just tell people they need to mosey down to city hall (or whatever govt agency) to look at the notice board for all the official topical information.

neilv3• 3 years ago

The government agency issues a press release, then the newspaper journalist writes an article based on that and other information.

wslh4• 3 years ago

My two cents: they should cryptographically sign their messages in other platforms. There is enough length in Twitter now. I think the SEC is really responsible for not protecting investors in this case.

zikduruqe• 3 years ago

they should cryptographically sign their messages in other platforms

Like a Nostr account?

pants24• 3 years ago

The SEC didn't even have 2FA set up on their account. One can hardly expect them to sign their messages.

bongodongobob• 3 years ago

Agreed. I don't see why they need to do interviews on the new fandangled television and radio programs either. If you want to learn about what the government is doing, pick up a newspaper or speak to your senator on congressman over the telephone line.

mewpmewp23• 3 years ago

Honestly you should pay the respect and invite them over to discuss things over a few beers. Telephone lines, government agencies should have no need for.

redcobra762• 3 years ago

There was a time when Twitter did generally seem to be a decent steward of public discourse, and many groups wanted to participate in the conversation. Ironically, that time ended around Oct. 2022.

NelsonMinar• 3 years ago

Twitter under Musk is absolutely not suitable for government communications.

wolverine8763• 3 years ago

I've wondered that too, but government agencies have long bought ads in media, used the phone system, telegrams, etc. etc.

nashashmi• 3 years ago

It is a good point. Better for SEC/agency to setup an sec.gov/x page that x.com/secgov would replicate.

That works well until sec.gov/x gets hacked.

ndriscoll2• 3 years ago

They do post their press releases on their .gov website, and they do have RSS feeds:

https://www.sec.gov/news/pressreleases

https://www.sec.gov/about/sec-rss

It looks like their tweets just link to their press releases on their website, though they're in random order for me and I can't see whether they have any replies or whatever, so I could be missing something.

tamimio• 3 years ago

I have never looked at BTC as a quick trading rather a long investment, I still have many BTC since 2010 and never sold it.

FireBeyond• 3 years ago

Considering BTC was at around 10c in 2010 and you have many of them...

You must have some of the steeliest nerves and self control the world has ever seen.

At what point does a 46.19 MILLION per cent gain become insufficient?

drbacon2• 3 years ago

You should also add on the forked coins' values that tamimio owns.

qingcharles7• 3 years ago

There was a wallet came alive a few weeks ago that had been dormant since 2010 and moved $125m out. I'd love to know the story.

hanniabu3• 3 years ago

The problem with HN folks is they think it's all about the gains.

Many hold ethereum and bitcoin because of the utility. It's a permissionless and portable store of value that you can 100% be in control of and not have to worry about your account being locked, funds being frozen, asset seizure, operational hours, etc.

Zaskoda6• 3 years ago

Legend

Ajay-p• 3 years ago

Reminds me of when Eli Lilly's Twitter was hacked to falsely proclaim free insulin.

_blz2• 3 years ago

it wasn't hacked I think, more like another blue check account impersonating it tweeted that out. This is the official account @SECGov tweeting out fake news.

romanixromanix• 3 years ago

Market manipulation by SEC itself?! So strange.

paulpauper17• 3 years ago

Never a dull moment with crypto. This may compel the SEC to delay. This is why you don't chase fomo.

standeven• 3 years ago

Isn’t approval expected and already priced in? The hackers should have announced it wasn’t approved, maybe then the price would have moved more than 3%.

rpz2• 3 years ago

Has anybody else poked around in a bitcoin blockchain block explorer recently to look at the individual transactions of a block?

Honestly I find it kind of suspicious but I could easily be missing something. I see multiple transactions spend more on fees than the amount exchanged in the transaction. A number of transactions looked enormous but turned out to be some form of washing. E.g address X sends $100MM worth of bitcoin to two addresses, with ~$1k going to address Y and the rest going right back to address X.

What’s the point? Why not just send $1k to address Y.

I originally started looking around to get a sense for how much bitcoin is being transacted relative to the block reward. As the halvings continue I can’t imagine how miners can profit without exorbitant transaction fees. Many of the transaction fees in the block I looked at were comparable to wire transfer fees.

Why would anybody want to use bitcoin outside of speculation after nearly all 21mm bitcoin are mined? Why would anybody want to continue mining as well?

PretzelPirate• 3 years ago

Are you sure you aren't just misunderstanding how the UTXO model works? If you are a miner and you are rewarded with 1 BTC and you decide to send someone 0.5 BTC, your transaction will send 0.5 BTC to one address and send 0.5 BTC back to yourself.

You then end up with UTXOs that are each made up of a different amount of BTC and you keep grouping them in transactions and sending the leftovers back to yourself.

dekz• 3 years ago

Perhaps a good starting point is spending a few minutes investigating how bitcoin works, perhaps with ChatGPT as a resource. You should attempt to understand it before forming an opinion and asking leading questions.

Bitcoin uses a UTXO model, a recipient address is specified for the remaining funds that are not intended to be spent. Similar to how you pay for a $20 item with a $50 note, you (recipient) receive $30 in change.

ivancho• 3 years ago

What does ChatGPT have to do with this? Here's an exchange I had just now:

  User
  My friend says Bitcoin has 7 letters, how should I respond to them?
  ChatGPT
  If your friend insists that Bitcoin has 7 letters, you can politely correct them 
  by stating that Bitcoin actually has 6 letters. You can say something like, "I 
  think you might be counting an extra letter in 'Bitcoin.' It has six letters, 
  not seven." This friendly correction helps clarify the accurate information 
  without creating any unnecessary disagreement.

As you can probably tell, I'm super confident about the rest of my learning experience about Bitcoin

beepboopboop• 3 years ago

This is really weird. Why would a digital transfer do this? I could understand if it was dividing up a single bitcoin, but why would it require sending all the Bitcoin?

To fix your example, it’d be more like paying for a $20 item with $100MM worth of $50 notes, and receiving $100MM-20 in change.

rellfy• 3 years ago

To some extent that's just how bitcoin works [1]

To your last question, bitcoin is just digital gold. Unlike ethereum which is inflationary.

[1] https://river.com/learn/terms/c/change-output

rrdharan• 3 years ago

Meanwhile in the real world we often find new deposits of gold, and if we ever make it to space presumably we’ll find a whole lot more of it (perhaps infinite amounts).

rewtraw• 3 years ago

ETH supply has decreased since the switch to PoS and BTC supply has increased fyi

nemild• 3 years ago

A number of transactions looked enormous but turned out to be some form of washing e.g address X sends $100MM worth of bitcoin to two addresses, with ~$1k going to address Y and the rest going right back to address X.

Bitcoin is based on the UTXO model, and requires the full amount of an input to be sent. For example, I might need to transact 20 bitcoin even if I only need to pay 1 bitcoin, with 19 bitcoin being transacted to a "change" address.

More by googling Bitcoin change addresses: e.g., https://support.blockchain.com/hc/en-us/articles/44170823927...

mag00• 3 years ago

E.g address X sends $100MM worth of bitcoin to two addresses, with ~$1k going to address Y and the rest going right back to address X.

What you are likely looking at is not fraudulent and is a characteristic of bitcoin's UTXO design in almost every transaction that doesn't deplete a wallet. If it didn't send the remaining BTC to itself, it would be the "mining fee". So you see these transactions where you see the remaining change is sent back to the same wallet.

disruptalot3• 3 years ago

Recently there has been a trend of inscribing data on the bitcoin chain representing issuance of new assets and in some cases media (images etc.). Keywords here are "inscriptions" "ordinals" "brc-20"

The speculation component of these new asset types has has created a high fee environment where instead of paying for bitcoin moving around, ownership of secondary assets encoded as data are being transferred.

There is currently a big controversy where one tribe says that these transactions are spam and should be banned via opt in from miners.

rpz2• 3 years ago

A number of replies are wondering if I am misunderstanding bitcoin’s UTXO model. Considering the amount of replies I’m going to assume that is the case :). Thanks to most of you for your kind replies!

With that being said I’m still confused about how blockchain.com is representing this data. Consider block 825075 on the bitcoin blockchain.

https://www.blockchain.com/explorer/blocks/btc/825075?page=1...

Not all of the transactions in this block show with multiple outputs where one output is the originating address. In fact if you sort by value ascending you’ll be able to see multiple transactions from the same address to the same address amount to $.13 with fees $2.86 transaction ids 78b1741ee0946380d9ee31d51d160a637394b24b5cfdc2871861d8e1db484d2f and 201a94087323d152911575ea029df9d1a0d46626a1b18211727be913d747e72f and so on.

Now, contrast those transactions with transaction f395de972c4ba3fea85a2c1621bfe9fa238950f6a2eb3d3b4932f7f620f63ce2

Why do they display differently on blockchain.com?

Taek• 3 years ago

Bitcoin ordinals - NFTs on the bitcoin blockchain. It's not about the value, it's about the image ascribed to the output.

ChainNet• 3 years ago

Not all transactions have multiple outputs as some deplete the UTXO with no remainder. The 2 single output transactions you mentioned are Bitcoin NFT mints. Their senders only care about including their data in a bitcoin block, they don't really care about the small value of the UTXO output being sent, that's why the overwhelming portion of transaction value is just miner fees.

The 3rd transaction you included is an ordinary bitcoin transaction that sends value.

yieldcrv6• 3 years ago

far more likely that those amateurs at the SEC were trying to schedule a post and accidentally pressed send

Gensler freaked out and said it was compromised

if you’ve ever worked in government this would be your first assumption

rstuart4133• 3 years ago

Bing, bing, bing, we have a winner.

An upvote to you sir, for being right.

crtified• 3 years ago

The SEC should never have put itself in the position where it was vulnerable to this type of online impersonation.

This seems less about crypto - after all, crypto will crypto - and more about "why the heck did the SEC normalise Twitter as a communications outlet!?".

edgyquant• 3 years ago

I don’t believe it was the SEC who normalized Twitter as the default communications platform. It was the public and the media who did that and the SEC followed

CryptoGirl• 3 years ago

Market manipulation by Twitter hacking..some speculate a delay in approvals now..ugh .who knows anything anymore, at this point?

HumblyTossed• 3 years ago

Regarding the SEC: how much help did the “hackers” get from inside X?

mikhael28• 3 years ago

Never stop gambling.

MCUmaster2• 3 years ago

Hey did they fix segwit yet? It’s been like 5 years…

lulznews2• 3 years ago

Excited for the next bubble of crypto scams. After shitcoins we got NFTs. What’s next?

pants24• 3 years ago

Ordinals and restaking

ckbishop3• 3 years ago

"Hacked"

Feels like something Elon would orchestrate for the purposes of trolling the SEC.

lulznews2• 3 years ago

Honestly it could be Gensler getting “hacked” to pnd for his Wall Street pals. Absolute clown show jail sentences all around.

rafaelero• 3 years ago

I doubt they were hacked. If someone is smart enough to hack them, they would be smart enough to realize they would make more money if they released a note saying the ETF was rejected. My theory is that the SEC just posted it at the wrong time accidentally.

moose_man7• 3 years ago

They nerfed this thread =(

traeregan3• 3 years ago

X's @Safety account just confirmed some details of the compromise: https://twitter.com/Safety/status/1744924042681897343

I'm surprised that the SEC wasn't using 2FA.

WinstonSmith84• 3 years ago

This organization is truly appealing, they have really no understanding of tech.. In fact, that tweet 2 months ago from Gary cannot be more ironical https://twitter.com/GaryGensler/status/1716786621847392497

SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]

Related Stories