What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation

[ChpBstrd]

And Juan is, of course, correct. Bitcoin halving will clearly affect the Bitcoin supply/demand balance.

Sure, of course it will have some effect, it's just rather incredible that it seems to have so much effect.

Right now there are 6.25 BTC added to the supply per block mined. There are 144 blocks mined on an average day, so that means about 900 BTC added to the blockchain per day. That represents an approximately 0.0046% increase per day of the overall supply. Within the next few months that number will be cut down to 0.0023%. Both of these numbers are essentially insignificant fractions of the overall supply, and they're also much less than 1% of the overall daily trading volume per Coinmarketcap. Furthermore each future halving is more or less scheduled already, so you'd think it would already be priced in to a large extent, rather than something people react to as if it was some sort of surprise.

I think this is the answer I was looking for. Supply inflation around 1.68% per year is expected to halve. Will that result in a shortage of Bitcoin? IDK. I'd have to know the amount of fiat currency flowing into Bitcoin (i.e. demand), plus the elasticity of Bitcoin, to answer that question. But what I can tell from this answer is that we're talking about a 0.86% slower increase in the supply of Bitcoin, not a major change.

That sort of perspective is important when thinking about something that runs on narratives of "it will go up because of this" or "it will go down because of that" and has no other real-world touchpoints to confirm things like we have with fiat currencies traded in markets. It's also a rare hard number in a world of faux transactions and bad data.

[LateStarter]

Bitcoin halving will clearly affect the Bitcoin supply/demand balance.

Exchanges conducting customer transactions internally/offChain have zero effect on the overall supply/demand balance - they're just buffers that soak up some of the to-ing and fro-ing.

Sure, less Bitcoin produced per day is less supply.  What I question is how much it matters - how much Bitcoin's price will change in anticipation of halving.  There's a lack of data, since halving happens once every 4 years.

One article claimed the May 2020 halving caused Bitcoin's price to soar compared to "two months prior".  They compared to the lows during Covid-19 panic, didn't mention Covid-19 at all, and then attributed the price gains to the halving.  To me that's very poor attribution of what caused the price gains.

Yet if we go back to July 2016, Bitcoin was faily unknown.  No futures market, no $GBTC and no $BITO.  Mt Gox was hacked 2 years before, causing a huge drop.  I could believe a halving boosted enthusiam and price in 2016, but many factors present now were absent then.

We only have the data we have. It's surprising how often that data is sufficient to validate negative characteristics, eg. volatility, yet it's never enough to validate anything positive.

I agree. On the face of it, that's a rubbish article. I'd ignore it.

If halving has an effect, it is likely to be independent of those other things. They might add to it or subtract from it, but they won't negate it.

And Juan is, of course, correct. Bitcoin halving will clearly affect the Bitcoin supply/demand balance.

Sure, of course it will have some effect, it's just rather incredible that it seems to have so much effect.

Right now there are 6.25 BTC added to the supply per block mined. There are 144 blocks mined on an average day, so that means about 900 BTC added to the blockchain per day. That represents an approximately 0.0046% increase per day of the overall supply. Within the next few months that number will be cut down to 0.0023%. Both of these numbers are essentially insignificant fractions of the overall supply, and they're also much less than 1% of the overall daily trading volume per Coinmarketcap. Furthermore each future halving is more or less scheduled already, so you'd think it would already be priced in to a large extent, rather than something people react to as if it was some sort of surprise.

I think this is the answer I was looking for. Supply inflation around 1.68% per year is expected to halve. Will that result in a shortage of Bitcoin? IDK. I'd have to know the amount of fiat currency flowing into Bitcoin (i.e. demand), plus the elasticity of Bitcoin, to answer that question. But what I can tell from this answer is that we're talking about a 0.86% slower increase in the supply of Bitcoin, not a major change.

That sort of perspective is important when thinking about something that runs on narratives of "it will go up because of this" or "it will go down because of that" and has no other real-world touchpoints to confirm things like we have with fiat currencies traded in markets. It's also a rare hard number in a world of faux transactions and bad data.

Measuring the supply of new Bitcoin vs Total Bitcoin is unlikely to be very useful imo. We know that many BTC are lost. We know that many BTC haven't moved for a long time - and should probably not be considered 'supply' in any practical sense.
Also note that, when thinking in terms of "the amount of fiat currency flowing into Bitcoin", each halving removes a greater amount of new BTC in fiat value terms.

Halving has, historically, preceded a bull run. Some Bitcoiners are expecting (assuming?) that this will be repeated in 2024 because it's consistently happened before, supply/demand, etc. Some Bitcoiners are expecting that it will not - because (i) correlation <> causation, (ii) this time it's different - it's priced in, (iii) the effect is becoming too small in BTC terms, (iv) too many are too confident of a dead cert and they will be easy pickings for big traders who can make it not so.

I'm in the "don't know" camp. Bitcoin is still deep in it's speculation stage and it will jump around on rumours, expectations and gossip about halving (and everything else) just as much as and more than other prices do. Maybe we'll see a self-fulfilling prophecy halving bull run, maybe it will be a damp squib. One thing is certain - with Halving, Spot ETFs and who knows what in the fiat world, Recessions, Debt Crises, Interest Rates, Debasements, Inflations, etc. 2024-5 is unlikely to be dull - and it will be tricky to isolate the effects of each cause.

[MustacheAndaHalf]

I'd like to do some research from on the Bitcoin miner's perspective, but I suspect our discussion of halving has run its course.

Sometimes cause & effect are clear.  The same day spot Bitcoin ETFs were handed a victory in court, Bitcoin jumped +13%.  Other gains may be debatable, but that $40 billion increase in Bitcoin's market cap is clearly tied to the events of October 20, 2023.  I guess people ignore the events two years ago, when a futures Bitcoin ETF launched and collected $1 billion in new money... then went nowhere.  Is a spot Bitcoin ETF 40x better, and unlocks $40 billion in new investments?  In my view, that is doubtful.

I have a theory that $GBTC and $TQQQ are both highly speculative, risky investments with similar returns.  That shows up when comparing their performance, with a big gap opening up during the meme stocks hype of early 2021.  Then GBTC crashed down and rejoined TQQQ again.  Keeping that same 5 year comparison, GBTC is currently 1/3rd ahead of TQQQ (Add 100%, the original investment, to their gains then divide).  My theory is that hype over a spot Bitcoin ETF will fade, causing GBTC to crash back down near TQQQ again.

A day ago I closed my short position in a Bitcoin stock.  I'm expecting the SEC to approve spot Bitcoin ETFs in 1 or 4 weeks, and I don't want to hold a short position when it happens - I want to hold a short position after it happens.

[ChpBstrd]

It could be as simple as:

Bitcoin goes up whenever there is media attention (halving, lawsuit, new investment vehicles, new platforms, celebrities, etc.) because this is what attracts new money to this particular asset.

[MustacheAndaHalf]

Rather than derail the predictions thread into crypto, I thought I'd mention what I know about ETFs and how that relates to Bitcoin.

For each ETF, a list of investment banks is authorized to keep the price of the ETF near its assets.  If the ETF is too cheap, the bank buys ETF shares and converts those into the underlying stock.  It unlocks the 500 stocks from an S&P 500 ETF to make a profit.  Their buying and selling pushes the ETF and underlying shares closer together in price.  The big bank arbitrages enough to make a profit, and its actions push ETF prices closer to their underlying assets.

On Coinbase's exchange, customers don't trade Bitcoin "on chain" - their buys and sells are not recorded in Bitcoin's blockchain.  Instead, Coinbase keeps track of who bought, who sold, and how much BTC and cash they have in their accounts.

I assume Bitcoin ETFs (which do not exist yet), will follow a combination of the above.  Some company will need to create electronic records tracking Bitcoin ownership.  They might have 3 assets, to oversimplify: Bitcoin, cash, and "Bitcoin ETF shares".  A big bank, if the ETF shares are too cheap, might do something like this:

(1) somehow lock in the amount & price of the conversion in step (3)
(2) use cash account to buy "Bitcoin ETF shares"
(3) ask Coinbase to convert those "Bitcoin ETF shares" into equivalent Bitcoin
(4) sell its new Bitcoin asset for cash

This is speculation based on what I know - again, this ETF doesn't exist, and this has never been done before.  But the above steps would tend to drive the ETF price closer to the price of Bitcoin, and the institutional investor would profit off it.

BlackRock and iShares do not need to hold Bitcoin to run an ETF.  They can use Coinbase as their Bitcoin custodian, which is what they already listed in SEC filings.  The most famous case of self-custody was the Madoff ponzi scheme, which is why I would prefer to avoid any ETF that self-custodies its own/customer assets.

[ChpBstrd]

Rather than derail the predictions thread into crypto, I thought I'd mention what I know about ETFs and how that relates to Bitcoin.

For each ETF, a list of investment banks is authorized to keep the price of the ETF near its assets.  If the ETF is too cheap, the bank buys ETF shares and converts those into the underlying stock.  It unlocks the 500 stocks from an S&P 500 ETF to make a profit.  Their buying and selling pushes the ETF and underlying shares closer together in price.  The big bank arbitrages enough to make a profit, and its actions push ETF prices closer to their underlying assets.

On Coinbase's exchange, customers don't trade Bitcoin "on chain" - their buys and sells are not recorded in Bitcoin's blockchain.  Instead, Coinbase keeps track of who bought, who sold, and how much BTC and cash they have in their accounts.

I assume Bitcoin ETFs (which do not exist yet), will follow a combination of the above.  Some company will need to create electronic records tracking Bitcoin ownership.  They might have 3 assets, to oversimplify: Bitcoin, cash, and "Bitcoin ETF shares".  A big bank, if the ETF shares are too cheap, might do something like this:

(1) somehow lock in the amount & price of the conversion in step (3)
(2) use cash account to buy "Bitcoin ETF shares"
(3) ask Coinbase to convert those "Bitcoin ETF shares" into equivalent Bitcoin
(4) sell its new Bitcoin asset for cash

This is speculation based on what I know - again, this ETF doesn't exist, and this has never been done before.  But the above steps would tend to drive the ETF price closer to the price of Bitcoin, and the institutional investor would profit off it.

BlackRock and iShares do not need to hold Bitcoin to run an ETF.  They can use Coinbase as their Bitcoin custodian, which is what they already listed in SEC filings.  The most famous case of self-custody was the Madoff ponzi scheme, which is why I would prefer to avoid any ETF that self-custodies its own/customer assets.

I appreciate this reasoning. Sounds like BLK wants to be to cryptocurrency what Levi Strauss was to the California gold rush. They'll make money on fees and they'll make money on self-arbitrage. The question is the risk they are taking with Coinbase, and the risk of getting hacked / betrayed by insiders, just like so many individual investors have experienced.

[MustacheAndaHalf]

Coinbase has 5% of all Bitcoin, from what I recall, but they keep it spread across wallets.  Given their importance as a custodian, a hack there might even result in a halt on trading of Bitcoin ETFs.

The SEC document I quoted in the predictions thread (*) shows BlackRock (BLK) will not self-custody Bitcoin for its iShares Bitcoin Trust ETF.  iShares ETFs provide better support for put/call options, and I expect them to win that niche among Bitcoin ETFs.

Everyone else is up against Grayscale Bitcoin Trust (GBTC) converting to an ETF.  They will start with both $20 billion in assets and years of experience that new ETFs can't match.  GBTC's 2% expense ratio will face pressure from newer ETFs with lower annual fees.

(*)

According to this SEC filing, BlackRock will rely on Coinbase to hold Bitcoin.

BlackRock Fund Advisors (the “Trustee”) is the trustee of the Trust; Coinbase Custody Trust Company, LLC (the “Bitcoin Custodian”) is the custodian for the Trust’s bitcoin holdings

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1980994/000143774923028549/bit20231017_s1a.htm

[Juan Ponce de León]

Even though I don't think much of coinbase what I will say is they are very good at custodying Bitcoin in cold storage wallets. 

[Metalcat]

Thought I would come back to this thread.

I chatted not too long ago with some blockchain video game developers and feel like I grasped some crypto utility, a very small example, but it clicked for me how people can think of blockchain as the new internet, ie the network that early adopters seem insane for being a big deal because in the early years it was largely useless.

I guess because I lived with a video game developer back in the day when Second Life was the "next big thing" I have a bit more intuitive understanding of why the fanboys are, well, fanboy-ing. These developers were talking about the utility of blockchain for easier, small increments exchange within their game ecosystem.

So with that little tiny nugget of "hmm...I guess I could see how this isn't totally fucking useless, but I still don't see the big picture" I then read 5 books about crypto/blockchain, which I wanted to do after reading about governments/banks looking into developing their own systems, so I just wanted to feel less ignorant about the whole thing.

I think the issue I've come across is that I see no reasonable path for investment. If I am willing to stipulate that blockchain is the next big revolutionary thing, then I came to the same conclusion that someone (I don't remember who) already stated earlier in this long thread: it's still wild speculation unless and until the utility becomes clear, because just like the dot com disaster, you can't just broadly invest in the concept.

Even if I have total faith in crypto changing the world (I don't), I have no idea which investment vehicle would be a good idea. And if it does end up being crucial to the economy as a whole, it's value will be picked up in my index investing. Because whether *I* put money directly into blockchain tech or not, the entities I'm invested in will.

Just like with the dot com boom and crash, I don't have the hubris to believe that I have any insight into how this could play out. I have no clue what entities could possibly end up established as dominant crypto tech forces, because I have no idea how it's potential utility could play out.

Contrary to all of the books I've read though, I'm not convinced that I should buy Bitcoin, specifically. My gut says that Bitcoin is the Yahoo of crypto, but that's pure, wild speculation with no expertise to back it up in any way, shape or form, and perhaps I will be proven very wrong and Bitcoin will find its elusive use case and become ubiquitous and factor heavily into my index investing returns. Or perhaps I will be proven right and A LOT of people will make a ton of money off of Bitcoin the same way a ton of people made money off of Yahoo. Who knows? But that's kind of my point.

Who knows...

But I won't beat myself for having missed any crypto moonshots because I'm unconvinced that anyone is making big money off of crypto at this stage because they are magically more insightful than everyone else. It's still mostly complete fucking morons in my world banging on about crypto and a few VERY smart people speaking passionately about the potential of blockchain, but conservatively about how to invest in that potential.

My sense is that it will be very difficult to invest really intelligently in blockchain itself, similar to how you couldn't really invest in the internet. Buying crypto coins and NFTs is not the same as investing based on the utility of the overall tech. It's more likely that just like with the internet, the big winners are going to be the companies that figure out how to make blockchain useful, not necessarily the specific coins/NFTs within them.

This is a bad example because MLB isn't a publicly traded company, but imagine it were, what would be the better investment, MLB NFTs because they're worth a lot, or MLB stock because they figured out how to make money off of NFTs?

...or I could still be missing something... I still don't feel like I understand any of this, but I know that I understand a lot more than the fucking morons in my life who keep hammering on about how stupid I am for not buying crypto coins. So there's that...

[FINate]

...or I could still be missing something... I still don't feel like I understand any of this, but I know that I understand a lot more than the fucking morons in my life who keep hammering on about how stupid I am for not buying crypto coins. So there's that...

So much this^^^

Your comparison to the dotcom bubble is apt. Back in those days I became increasingly concerned as those with the least competency became more vocal about their "investments." The same exact thing happened with "real estate investors" (many of the same people in my circles) before the subprime mortgage crisis. The louder the irrationality (e.g. FOMO), the more skeptical I become.

[WayDownSouth]

...or I could still be missing something... I still don't feel like I understand any of this, but I know that I understand a lot more than the fucking morons in my life who keep hammering on about how stupid I am for not buying crypto coins. So there's that...

So much this^^^

Your comparison to the dotcom bubble is apt. Back in those days I became increasingly concerned as those with the least competency became more vocal about their "investments." The same exact thing happened with "real estate investors" (many of the same people in my circles) before the subprime mortgage crisis. The louder the irrationality (e.g. FOMO), the more skeptical I become.

I'm about to short BTC bigtime. Just trying to figure out the numbers and timing today actually. May need to get in and be set as soon as the 24th before midnight.

[ChpBstrd]

...or I could still be missing something... I still don't feel like I understand any of this, but I know that I understand a lot more than the fucking morons in my life who keep hammering on about how stupid I am for not buying crypto coins. So there's that...

So much this^^^

Your comparison to the dotcom bubble is apt. Back in those days I became increasingly concerned as those with the least competency became more vocal about their "investments." The same exact thing happened with "real estate investors" (many of the same people in my circles) before the subprime mortgage crisis. The louder the irrationality (e.g. FOMO), the more skeptical I become.

I'm about to short BTC bigtime. Just trying to figure out the numbers and timing today actually. May need to get in and be set as soon as the 24th before midnight.

I gave up on this line of thinking when I realized crypto operates independently of any reasoning, evidence, or logic. Any rationalization a person can come up with for why it will go up or down is utterly divorced from what will actually happen. If we think we can identify the reasons why it goes up or down, we're probably wrong. There are no earnings, no revenue, no interest, no hard assets, no contracts, no nothing - so to use investment reasoning is to start from the wrong point of view.

It's a lot like trying to overthink a slot machine. We can rationalize about a particular machine being "hot" or "lucky" or "on a payout algorithm" but what we can't see is the inner workings of a relatively simple machine, which looks nothing like our theories about luck, patterns, behavior, etc. and is simply designed to keep the players putting more coins in.

If there's no good reason to think crypto will go up or down, but there are other ways to invest our money that do have reasons to believe they'll go up, then it makes more sense to take the probable win over the coin flip, just like it makes more sense to own stocks rather than playing slot machines.

[Metalcat]

...or I could still be missing something... I still don't feel like I understand any of this, but I know that I understand a lot more than the fucking morons in my life who keep hammering on about how stupid I am for not buying crypto coins. So there's that...

So much this^^^

Your comparison to the dotcom bubble is apt. Back in those days I became increasingly concerned as those with the least competency became more vocal about their "investments." The same exact thing happened with "real estate investors" (many of the same people in my circles) before the subprime mortgage crisis. The louder the irrationality (e.g. FOMO), the more skeptical I become.

I'm about to short BTC bigtime. Just trying to figure out the numbers and timing today actually. May need to get in and be set as soon as the 24th before midnight.

I gave up on this line of thinking when I realized crypto operates independently of any reasoning, evidence, or logic. Any rationalization a person can come up with for why it will go up or down is utterly divorced from what will actually happen. If we think we can identify the reasons why it goes up or down, we're probably wrong. There are no earnings, no revenue, no interest, no hard assets, no contracts, no nothing - so to use investment reasoning is to start from the wrong point of view.

It's a lot like trying to overthink a slot machine. We can rationalize about a particular machine being "hot" or "lucky" or "on a payout algorithm" but what we can't see is the inner workings of a relatively simple machine, which looks nothing like our theories about luck, patterns, behavior, etc. and is simply designed to keep the players putting more coins in.

If there's no good reason to think crypto will go up or down, but there are other ways to invest our money that do have reasons to believe they'll go up, then it makes more sense to take the probable win over the coin flip, just like it makes more sense to own stocks rather than playing slot machines.

Yep, the more I read the more I understand that I can stay a passive investor and still benefit from whatever utility blockchain may have down the line. It will get baked into existing systems if it's the next big thing, or the new systems will grow up and make their way into the collective larger system.

I will miss all of the huge moonshot opportunities to try and buy in before things skyrocket, but I already missed that with Google, Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Tesla. But I'm not a gambler, I feel zero FOMO about missing out on moonshots.

In the meantime, I continue on my goal to even try and understand blockchain, how and when it could be useful, and what, if anything, that could ever mean for me personally or professionally. I'm not a software person *at all* so it's all very difficult for me to grasp. I *know* a lot of software people, so I get the broad strokes of things, but despite reading multiple books on the topic, I feel like I understand quite well *why* so much of what people would say about crypto made no sense to me, but I don't necessarily feel like I really understand it...if that makes sense.

[WayDownSouth]

...or I could still be missing something... I still don't feel like I understand any of this, but I know that I understand a lot more than the fucking morons in my life who keep hammering on about how stupid I am for not buying crypto coins. So there's that...

So much this^^^

Your comparison to the dotcom bubble is apt. Back in those days I became increasingly concerned as those with the least competency became more vocal about their "investments." The same exact thing happened with "real estate investors" (many of the same people in my circles) before the subprime mortgage crisis. The louder the irrationality (e.g. FOMO), the more skeptical I become.

I'm about to short BTC bigtime. Just trying to figure out the numbers and timing today actually. May need to get in and be set as soon as the 24th before midnight.

I gave up on this line of thinking when I realized crypto operates independently of any reasoning, evidence, or logic. Any rationalization a person can come up with for why it will go up or down is utterly divorced from what will actually happen. If we think we can identify the reasons why it goes up or down, we're probably wrong. There are no earnings, no revenue, no interest, no hard assets, no contracts, no nothing - so to use investment reasoning is to start from the wrong point of view.

It's a lot like trying to overthink a slot machine. We can rationalize about a particular machine being "hot" or "lucky" or "on a payout algorithm" but what we can't see is the inner workings of a relatively simple machine, which looks nothing like our theories about luck, patterns, behavior, etc. and is simply designed to keep the players putting more coins in.

If there's no good reason to think crypto will go up or down, but there are other ways to invest our money that do have reasons to believe they'll go up, then it makes more sense to take the probable win over the coin flip, just like it makes more sense to own stocks rather than playing slot machines.

There are a few good predictive catalysts that are easy to see if you know where to look. I can tell you in my opinion that I don't think you're far off from being correct regarding your general statements above.

Understanding what moves crypto is like studying an alien language while having zero resources at your side.

However I also think I have some really good tools in my box regarding BTC and I'm very confident it'll be making a drop. IMHO I personally suspect it will either happen directly over Christmas, and if not then, very early in January.

I'm talking a heavy drop.

Let's revisit this post and see if I was right. I'll tell you exactly what my catalysts were regardless of if I was right or wrong. If it doesn't drop we can watch to see if those specific catalysts played a prime role or not when it does drop, and discuss why. I genuinely find this very interesting.

[maizefolk]

How big a drop do you need bitcoin to make to conclude you were correct? 20%? 30%? Something more or less than that?

When does very early January end? Jan 10th?

I’m interested to see if your prediction pans out or not.

[MustacheAndaHalf]

I'm about to short BTC bigtime. Just trying to figure out the numbers and timing today actually. May need to get in and be set as soon as the 24th before midnight.

You're the only person besides me who is planning to short crypto.  If you post your thesis, I will analyze it.  If you post links, I'll take a look.  I think the quality of our decisions can be improved by challenging each other's thesis.

I believe multiple spot Bitcoin ETFs will be approved within 3 weeks, per the SEC deadline for ARC21's application.  It would be unfair to give ARC21 the advantage of starting early, so I expect multiple ETFs get approved at once.

I consider it very likely BTC goes above $50k on that news ($43.5k now, so +15%).  It is probable that it rises above $60k (38% jump) in the first week, but not a certainty.  I doubt BTC doubles.

[Juan Ponce de León]

This will be interesting.  One genius planning to short crypto before the ETF approval, another will short it after.  Who will win???

[WayDownSouth]

How big a drop do you need bitcoin to make to conclude you were correct? 20%? 30%? Something more or less than that?

When does very early January end? Jan 10th?

I’m interested to see if your prediction pans out or not.

Within reason, I'm expecting (and will gladly accept my reasoning to be wrong as I'm a day trader and not a crypto trader) at LEAST 25% drop within a span of 3 days total, followed by a slight uptick and another 10% drop... I mean, there's infinite ways it could play out but let's just say for sake of simplicity, over a period of 5 to 7 days total, 30 to 40% drop. Before Jan 10th for sure IMHO.

If I'm wrong I'll have no embarrassment or shame. I'm just doing my best to deliver money to myself. Always learning, always willing to share outcomes and failures as well as wins. I'm really confident about what I'm saying but if it doesn't play out I have no excuses, only data about why I made the decisions I made. Simple, right? Stay tuned! And don't think I'm some genius and follow my prediction, PLEASE. I am not an advisor nor responsible for your losses. Never follow the trades or ideas of another. That's one reason I only share the ideas AFTER the fact.

[WayDownSouth]

I'm about to short BTC bigtime. Just trying to figure out the numbers and timing today actually. May need to get in and be set as soon as the 24th before midnight.

You're the only person besides me who is planning to short crypto.  If you post your thesis, I will analyze it.  If you post links, I'll take a look.  I think the quality of our decisions can be improved by challenging each other's thesis.

I believe multiple spot Bitcoin ETFs will be approved within 3 weeks, per the SEC deadline for ARC21's application.  It would be unfair to give ARC21 the advantage of starting early, so I expect multiple ETFs get approved at once.

I consider it very likely BTC goes above $50k on that news ($43.5k now, so +15%).  It is probable that it rises above $60k (38% jump) in the first week, but not a certainty.  I doubt BTC doubles.

Wait so you're expecting it to jump, yet you plan on shorting it?  Or are you saying you expect a rise for BTC but will short other cryptos? You need to be more clear because you sound extremely contradictory.

[WayDownSouth]

This will be interesting.  One genius planning to short crypto before the ETF approval, another will short it after.  Who will win???

1.) Both can win. Who says it won't dip heavily before approval and then rip upward prior to approval? Or simply dip heavily and stay there until approval?

2.). Who says that it's not possible to rip higher in anticipation of approval, only to fall hard weeks after approval and then rise again when MMs buy the dip of the people who bought FOMO and don't know how to hold?

On and on... The most interesting is that you seem to be the genius watching the other genuises from the sidelines. Are you taking part or are you just stirring the pot? Maybe you have a genuinely sincere interest and your sarcasm isn't sarcasm, which would be cool. Let's see what happens! Either way, I've got the money to burn and I've already invested the time. I'm quite confident but that doesn't mean jack-sh*t. Merry Christmas!

[Juan Ponce de León]

Oh I'm genuinely interested in Bitcoin, it's the hardest asset on earth and I have no doubt it will continue to appreciate over the long term vs fiat currencies printed out of thin air by central banks to steal the wealth of their citizens via currency inflation.  What the USD price of bitcoin will do over Christmas/january/thanksgiving or any other small window of time I have no idea and anyone who says they do is basically lying LMAO.

[MustacheAndaHalf]

I'm about to short BTC bigtime. Just trying to figure out the numbers and timing today actually. May need to get in and be set as soon as the 24th before midnight.

You're the only person besides me who is planning to short crypto.  If you post your thesis, I will analyze it.  If you post links, I'll take a look.  I think the quality of our decisions can be improved by challenging each other's thesis.

I believe multiple spot Bitcoin ETFs will be approved within 3 weeks, per the SEC deadline for ARC21's application.  It would be unfair to give ARC21 the advantage of starting early, so I expect multiple ETFs get approved at once.

I consider it very likely BTC goes above $50k on that news ($43.5k now, so +15%).  It is probable that it rises above $60k (38% jump) in the first week, but not a certainty.  I doubt BTC doubles.

Wait so you're expecting it to jump, yet you plan on shorting it?  Or are you saying you expect a rise for BTC but will short other cryptos? You need to be more clear because you sound extremely contradictory.

You plan to short Bitcoin now, after which I expect Bitcoin to jump, and then I will short it after the jump.

[MustacheAndaHalf]

This will be interesting.  One genius planning to short crypto before the ETF approval, another will short it after.  Who will win???

Did you slip both of us IQ tests, or is "genius" intended to be a sarcastic personal attack?

[Juan Ponce de León]

This will be interesting.  One genius planning to short crypto before the ETF approval, another will short it after.  Who will win???

Did you slip both of us IQ tests, or is "genius" intended to be a sarcastic personal attack?

In time you'll get over it I promise.

[Juan Ponce de León]

I'll tell you what guys, there are times when shorting bitcoin has been very profitable.  But 4 months before the halving is not one of those times.  In an election year with the fed possibly lowering rates, the planets are lining back up for bitcoin.  It's the greatest performing asset on the planet and shorting such an asset comes with extreme risk.  Of course you could be right and catch a dip but I believe any significant dips are going to be bought up fast.  If you do try this trade and are in profit I suggest you take it while you can.

[MustacheAndaHalf]

This will be interesting.  One genius planning to short crypto before the ETF approval, another will short it after.  Who will win???

Did you slip both of us IQ tests, or is "genius" intended to be a sarcastic personal attack?

In time you'll get over it I promise.

Making personal attacks is against the forum rules.
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/forum-information-faqs/forum-rules/

[onecoolcat]

IDK what is going to happen with the ETF decision, nor what will happen in the markets once a decision is published.  For all I know, the price action for a ETF approval is already baked into Bitcoin's price and the markets will sell off into an announcement, or the ETF gets denied and its a total bloodbath, or the ETF is approved and it sparks a massive bullrun unlike any other. 

I'm just not going to do anything and will react accordingly to any movement.  Prices collapse, I am buying.  Prices pump, I am sitting tight.  I prefer a bloodbath because I rather buy more.

[EverythingisNew]

Do you think that the SEC will issue more guidance on crypto regulation before approving the spot-ETFs? It seems to me that the SEC is letting crypto push them and their only regulation is charging “bad actors” in federal court.

[WayDownSouth]

Do you think that the SEC will issue more guidance on crypto regulation before approving the spot-ETFs? It seems to me that the SEC is letting crypto push them and their only regulation is charging “bad actors” in federal court.

I think they'll pretend that they want to issue more guidance prior to passing but will pass before they actually create anything solid. Similar to cannabis.

"Okay, so it's legal, but now what?"

And then the literal endless flow of legislation will start pouring in. This is when you'll begin to see the darker side of what crypto's "regulation" will deliver to the world.

[Telecaster]

Do you think that the SEC will issue more guidance on crypto regulation before approving the spot-ETFs? It seems to me that the SEC is letting crypto push them and their only regulation is charging “bad actors” in federal court.

I don't see why more regulations are needed, do you?   Binance and Changpeng Zhao admitted they broke of slew of existing regulations and CZ is looking at jail time as a result.   Kraken is being sued for allegedly breaking existing regulations.   SBF went to jail for breaking existing regulations.   The Winklevoss Twins are being sued for allegedly breaking existing regulations.   Mashinsky has been sued and charged for allegedly breaking regulations.    I'm no expert on securities law of course, but it seems like the existing regulations are perfectly applicable.

I don't know where the SEC's thinking is at right now, but previously they have rejected Bitcoin ETFs in part because of concerns that a small number of individuals could manipulate the price through wash trading.    Wash trading is already illegal. So what new regulation is needed? 

[WayDownSouth]

Do you think that the SEC will issue more guidance on crypto regulation before approving the spot-ETFs? It seems to me that the SEC is letting crypto push them and their only regulation is charging “bad actors” in federal court.

Another big thing about the "acceptance" of crypto regulation that a lot of people don't understand is taxes. Most of these big players brought their ideas to the SEC in a sneaky format that that the IRS deems as untaxable. Obviously, favorable for them and the average buyer, but highly unfavorable to the SEC and their friends. That's what the main arguments have really been about all this time.

Some have folded to the SEC to an extent and presented a model that IS taxable, but causes them much more potential headaches with actually bringing the product to market efficiently, to say the least.

This is why my opinion is they'll let it pass, then the never-ending regulation will occur, then adjustments will follow for government use of some of these instruments and/or their technologies in a way which they weren't originally intended for, using blanket laws and screwing the whole "regulated crypto market" into something that most crypto fans never imagined or expected.

[ChpBstrd]

Do you think that the SEC will issue more guidance on crypto regulation before approving the spot-ETFs? It seems to me that the SEC is letting crypto push them and their only regulation is charging “bad actors” in federal court.

I don't see why more regulations are needed, do you?   Binance and Changpeng Zhao admitted they broke of slew of existing regulations and CZ is looking at jail time as a result.   Kraken is being sued for allegedly breaking existing regulations.   SBF went to jail for breaking existing regulations.   The Winklevoss Twins are being sued for allegedly breaking existing regulations.   Mashinsky has been sued and charged for allegedly breaking regulations.    I'm no expert on securities law of course, but it seems like the existing regulations are perfectly applicable.

I don't know where the SEC's thinking is at right now, but previously they have rejected Bitcoin ETFs in part because of concerns that a small number of individuals could manipulate the price through wash trading.    Wash trading is already illegal. So what new regulation is needed?

Great points, but there are inherent difficulties enforcing regulations in a semi-decentralized worldwide crypto marketplace. Existing regulations work well in the format of exchanges, market makers, and brokers, all of which have accountable individuals and any of which can be fined or prosecuted. But whose neck do you choke when an account allegedly from Thailand launders dogecoin through a brand new tumbler and spits it out across a dozen international accounts which also trade with the tumbler?

Perhaps the lesson of what’s happening is that the US is prosecuting any identifiable person using crypto the way it was designed to be used - which is as a technical way to dodge regulations and commit crimes. The era of confused regulators and legal loopholes is over. Either crypto brokers follow securities laws to the letter - which may be impossible given the configuration of existing products and markets - or crypto exchanges are regulated out of existence.

[WayDownSouth]

Do you think that the SEC will issue more guidance on crypto regulation before approving the spot-ETFs? It seems to me that the SEC is letting crypto push them and their only regulation is charging “bad actors” in federal court.

I don't see why more regulations are needed, do you?   Binance and Changpeng Zhao admitted they broke of slew of existing regulations and CZ is looking at jail time as a result.   Kraken is being sued for allegedly breaking existing regulations.   SBF went to jail for breaking existing regulations.   The Winklevoss Twins are being sued for allegedly breaking existing regulations.   Mashinsky has been sued and charged for allegedly breaking regulations.    I'm no expert on securities law of course, but it seems like the existing regulations are perfectly applicable.

I don't know where the SEC's thinking is at right now, but previously they have rejected Bitcoin ETFs in part because of concerns that a small number of individuals could manipulate the price through wash trading.    Wash trading is already illegal. So what new regulation is needed?

Great points, but there are inherent difficulties enforcing regulations in a semi-decentralized worldwide crypto marketplace. Existing regulations work well in the format of exchanges, market makers, and brokers, all of which have accountable individuals and any of which can be fined or prosecuted. But whose neck do you choke when an account allegedly from Thailand launders dogecoin through a brand new tumbler and spits it out across a dozen international accounts which also trade with the tumbler?

Perhaps the lesson of what’s happening is that the US is prosecuting any identifiable person using crypto the way it was designed to be used - which is as a technical way to dodge regulations and commit crimes. The era of confused regulators and legal loopholes is over. Either crypto brokers follow securities laws to the letter - which may be impossible given the configuration of existing products and markets - or crypto exchanges are regulated out of existence.

Your last paragraph is very interesting mainly because in my long-term opinion, cryptos will be regulated out of existence - at least in the way that we know them to exist today - and reshaped into a totally different investment instrument where only the MMs get to break the rules.

I feel quite strongly that crypto technologies and blockchain will be used by corporations an establishment players as a way to implement heavy control and regulation over society - and I'm not talking about a society of investors, I'm talking about literally using the tech to "make the world safer", with similar results to the war on drugs, the war on terror... I think you get the idea. I'd be curious to hear your honest opinion on that.

[Telecaster]

Great points, but there are inherent difficulties enforcing regulations in a semi-decentralized worldwide crypto marketplace. Existing regulations work well in the format of exchanges, market makers, and brokers, all of which have accountable individuals and any of which can be fined or prosecuted. But whose neck do you choke when an account allegedly from Thailand launders dogecoin through a brand new tumbler and spits it out across a dozen international accounts which also trade with the tumbler?

The question was if the SEC would issue more guidance.   In your example, money laundering is already illegal.  No more guidance needed.  The guy with the account allegedly from Thailand broke the law. 

Perhaps the lesson of what’s happening is that the US is prosecuting any identifiable person using crypto the way it was designed to be used - which is as a technical way to dodge regulations and commit crimes. The era of confused regulators and legal loopholes is over. Either crypto brokers follow securities laws to the letter - which may be impossible given the configuration of existing products and markets - or crypto exchanges are regulated out of existence.

Is that the case?  Of the crypto exchanges that have been busted or are under scrutiny like FTX, Voyager, Celsius, Kraken, Binance, etc. all the issues are related to blatant and clearcut violations of existing laws. And even then, it took brutally flagrant criminal activity to attract attention from regulators. 

I think if crypto exchanges were reasonably compliant with existing rules there wouldn't be a problem.

[maizefolk]

Of the crypto exchanges that have been busted or are under scrutiny like FTX, Voyager, Celsius, Kraken, Binance, etc. all the issues are related to blatant and clearcut violations of existing laws. And even then, it took brutally flagrant criminal activity to attract attention from regulators. 

I think if crypto exchanges were reasonably compliant with existing rules there wouldn't be a problem.

I don't think the statement that crypto exchanges are only getting in trouble for blatant and clearcut issues correct in all cases. Binance and FTX yes.

If you look at the lawsuit the SEC filed against Kraken, one of the things Kraken is being sued for is operating as a securities exchange without registering with the SEC, and allowing trading in securities not registered with the SEC. This is both a case where the law is not clearcut, and where the SEC's current interpretation of existing rules create a can't win scenario for crypto exchanges.

Basically the SEC is arguing that cryptocurrencies like DASH meet the legal definition of securities. Security offerings need to be registered with the SEC and traded on exchanges registered with the SEC. SEC registered exchanges are also only allowed to trade securities which are also registered with the SEC.

The problem here is that it what counts as a security in the crypto space is not a question of settled law. Even the SEC has, grudgingly, agreed bitcoin is not a security. Etherium probably isn't either. At the other end of the spectrum, a bunch of ICOs issued tokens which clearly met the Howey test and so clearly are securities. That's a big part of why US based exchanges tend to list a lot fewer cryptos than internationally based exchanges. They're avoiding anything their own lawyers say might be a security. But in the last year the SEC has sued a lot of exchanges for allowing trade in tokens like DASH which have been around almost a decade and which that most people outside the SEC thought were not securities and so safe to trade.

[Telecaster]

I'll stipulate there might be some grey area as to if some tokens are securities or not, but some of them 100% guaranteed are.   Anything that had an ICO, for example.   Yet, Kraken was operating as if none of them are.   You can't use the grey area defense if you are operating without grey areas.   

And as a topper, they were charged with lots of violations that have nothing specifically to do with crypto, like co-mingling customers funds and improper lending practices.   Again, that's clear cut.  The regulations are already in place and have been for decades.   

[maizefolk]

If you agree that there are a lot of tokens where it isn’t clear whether or not they are securities then yes we need better regs because it isn’t possible for crypto exchanges to follow the law when the law is not clearly defined.

I don’t know how many cryptocurrencies were listed on Kraken, but I do know the SEC went after coinbase with the same argument and there they listed only a small fraction of the currencies out there and were doing in house assessments of which ones did or didn’t likely meet the Howey test. The SEC’s complaint even lists that one of Coinbase’s disclosures was that a major risk was that the SEC isn’t clear about what cryptocurrencies are or aren’t securities.

One of the key ways to ensure good compliance with the law is to make sure people can know what the law actually is. Currents regs don’t do that.

[Telecaster]

One of the key ways to ensure good compliance with the law is to make sure people can know what the law actually is. Currents regs don’t do that.

This is a red herring argument.   Kraken et. al. didn't get tripped up by the marginal cases.  They got busted by the clear cut cases.   The SEC only needs to prove that Kraken was trading one security before it must register as a brokerage.   

Years ago, the SEC said essentially anything with an ICO is a security.   The logic is that the founders promote the ICO as a way raise money to grow the network, which means token owners have a reasonable expectation of the token going up in value--which meets the Howey test.    Was Kraken trading more than zero tokens with an ICO?  You bet they were.   They were even trading tokens that other exchanges had been busted for.   And the founders of the tokens helpfully have made voluminous posts on Reddit, Twitter, etc. proclaiming how their ICO will grow the enterprise and make everyone rich and continued to make posts how the project's goal is to make tons of money for the adopters.   The SEC has reams of evidence that dozens of these tokens are securities and they told everybody these were almost certainly securities years in advance.   

If Kraken et. al. was in compliance with the clear cut cases (that is, the ones with reams of evidence) but out of compliance with some marginal cases, then this would probably be resolved by a sit down.   Instead, they are blatantly out of compliance with ALL of the cases.    They have been acting as if none of the tokens are securities when they knew for certain many of them were.  That's why the hammer is coming down.   

[maizefolk]

If Kraken et. al. was in compliance with the clear cut cases (that is, the ones with reams of evidence) but out of compliance with some marginal cases, then this would probably be resolved by a sit down.   Instead, they are blatantly out of compliance with ALL of the cases.    They have been acting as if none of the tokens are securities when they knew for certain many of them were.  That's why the hammer is coming down.   

It seems like we have a fundamental disagreement about the state of the facts on the ground before we even get to interpretation of how regulations need to change.

There are something like 8,000 cryptocurrencies out there. Of course many of these are incredibly niche and minor. An exchange like Binance which was trying to argue (unsuccessfully it turned out) they weren't subject to US law trades perhaps 350 cryptocurrencies, which is probably a decent proxy for the total number of cryptocurrencies any crypto exchange might like to trade in the absence of regulatory constraints.

Kraken was trading approximately 220 cryptocurrencies. Of these, more than 40 weren't accessible to US customers, presumably because Kraken had determined these would qualify as securities under US law.

Kraken was not operating as if no cryptocurrencies were securities.

[Telecaster]

Kraken was not operating as if no cryptocurrencies were securities.

Yes, they objectively were.  Kraken never registered as broker or dealer of securities, even though they were trading securities that had previously been clearly described by the SEC as securities.  Kraken also not follow required protocols required for brokers and dealers of securities. 

Kraken did not differentiate between and securities and non-securities.  All crypto was treated as a non-security.   

At no time did Kraken (allegedly) treat any crypto like a security.  That's why they are in the doghouse. 

 

[maizefolk]

Kraken was not operating as if no cryptocurrencies were securities.

Yes, they objectively were.  Kraken never registered as broker or dealer of securities, even though they were trading securities that had previously been clearly described by the SEC as securities.  Kraken also not follow required protocols required for brokers and dealers of securities. 

Kraken did not differentiate between and securities and non-securities.  All crypto was treated as a non-security.   

At no time did Kraken (allegedly) treat any crypto like a security.  That's why they are in the doghouse.

I don't think anyone has figured out how to register a cryptocurrency as a security with the SEC. As a result, any cryptocurrency that is a security is also, by definition, an unregistered security. Acting as a broker or dealer of unregistered securities would not be legal.

The way that Kraken treated many cryptocurrencies like unregistered securities was by making the decision not to provide broker or dealer services to US costumers for a wide range of crypto tokens including, but not limited to: ACA, AGLD, ALICE, ASTR, ATLAS, AUDIO, BONK, CFG, CSM, C98, GENS, GLMR, HDX, INJ, INTR, JASMY, KIN, LMWR, MC, MV, NMR, NODL, NYM, ORCA, OTP, OXY, PARA, PEPE, PERP, PICA, POL, PSTAKE, PYTH, RAY, REQ, ROOK, SAMO, SDN, STEP, SUI, TEER, WOO, YGG or XRT.

[Telecaster]

I don't think anyone has figured out how to register a cryptocurrency as a security with the SEC. As a result, any cryptocurrency that is a security is also, by definition, an unregistered security. Acting as a broker or dealer of unregistered securities would not be legal.

You are correct that it is perfectly legal to broker unregistered securities.  However it 100% illegal to broker unregistered securities to unqualified investors.  Which certainly includes a vast percentage of Kraken's customer base and probably most people on this board. 

The issue, according to the complaint is that Kraken itself was not registered as securities broker.  So even if the crypto was registered, Kraken still could not legally broker it. 

[Juan Ponce de León]

I really don't care about shitcoins and what is a security and what isn't.  But clearly the solution is just not to offer these services to Americans at all and just have Bitcoin-only exchanges.  What the Americans then do with their bitcoin, including perhaps selling it to a no-KYC offshore exchange in an anonymous way and swapping it for whatever shitcoin scam that takes their fancy, would be up to them.  Bitcoin doesn't know or care about exchanges, securities, ETFs, SEC, regulations or anything else.  Bitcoin will just keep on pumping out blocks every 10 minutes.  You can't stop it and you can't govern it, Bitcoin is true financial sovereignty from government tyranny.

[maizefolk]

I don't think anyone has figured out how to register a cryptocurrency as a security with the SEC. As a result, any cryptocurrency that is a security is also, by definition, an unregistered security. Acting as a broker or dealer of unregistered securities would not be legal.

You are correct that it is perfectly legal to broker unregistered securities.  However it 100% illegal to broker unregistered securities to unqualified investors.  Which certainly includes a vast percentage of Kraken's customer base and probably most people on this board. 

The issue, according to the complaint is that Kraken itself was not registered as securities broker.  So even if the crypto was registered, Kraken still could not legally broker it.

I said it would not be legal to broker unregistered securities. I agree my statement was too broad and there are potential workaround based on dealing only with qualified investors, but, as you point out, Kraken wasn't using those workarounds so it would certainly not be legal for Kraken to broker unregistered securities.

Since no (or essentially no) cryptocurrencies are registered as securities, there is no reason for Kraken to register as a securities broker with the SEC. The two possible outcomes are:

1) The cryptocurrency is not a security. Kraken can offer exchange services for this cryptocurrency to its customers. (Bitcoin falls into this category, ether probably does, arguably large number of other cryptocurrencies that fail to meet the Howey test, but this is where the lack of clear regulation is a problem)
2) The cryptocurrency is a security. By definition that also makes it an unregistered security. Kraken cannot offer exchange services for this cryptocurrency to its US customers. (Lots of ICOs where profit was potentially going to be returned to token holders clearly fall into this category.)

In neither of those cases can Kraken treat any cryptocurrency on this exchange as a security or register as a security broker with the SEC. It simply can't touch any cryptocurrencies that fall into category #2.

We know there were cryptocurrencies Kraken believed fell into category #2 and wouldn't let any of its US customers trade. The reason there is a lawsuit is that the SEC is looking at the same laws and regulations as Kraken and arguing Kraken didn't put enough cryptocurrences into category #2.

[Telecaster]

We know there were cryptocurrencies Kraken believed fell into category #2 and wouldn't let any of its US customers trade. The reason there is a lawsuit is that the SEC is looking at the same laws and regulations as Kraken and arguing Kraken didn't put enough cryptocurrences into category #2.

I'm going to go on record as saying that defense won't fly because Kraken wasn't tripped up by the marginal cases, they were tripped up by the flagrant cases.   It is analogous to saying "I didn't steal all the money at the bank, therefore I didn't intend to steal any of it." 

Years ago, the SEC opined that most crypto were indeed securities, especially those with an ICO.   In the complaint, the SEC listed a number of tokens with ICOs that were described by their founders in great detail in their white papers and social media as money making enterprises.  That 100% makes them securities.    This is not a grey area.   They check all the boxes.   

And it is even worse than that.  On its own website Kraken described many of these tokens as having functional utility and provided reasons why they should increase in value, therefore making money for their owners.  That is literally the definition of a security.  The notion this definition was unclear to them or they needed clarification simply isn't plausible. 

[maizefolk]

I agree that the SEC has made it very clear that, in their opinion, pretty much all cryptocurrency besides bitcoin and maybe ether are securities. If they are right, since there is no way to register these as securities, if the SEC's opinion is sustained in court, it will eventually make the trading of non-bitcoin cryptocurrency de facto illegal for US citizens. If the SEC is right and every crypto other than bitcoin in a security, there is no way for cryptocurrency exchanges that offer trading in non-bitcoin cryptocurrencies to comply with current law short of ceasing to exist.

However so far, when it comes to its views on cryptocurrency, the SEC has been repeatedly losing in court. They lost when they trying to prevent the creation of bitcoin ETFs. More relevant to our discussion, the SEC also lost when they claimed Ripple/XRP constituted a (unregistered) security.* So it seems quite reasonable that exchanges are doing their best to figure out which securities would and wouldn't fail the Howey test themselves, rather than depend on the SEC's opinions on crypto which have a history of not holding up well in court. Deciding to disagree with the SEC's opinion means the exchanges were almost certainly were going to get sued and we'll see how it works out in court.

In the absence of specific laws passed by congress, that's what we'll continue to see. The SEC will sue based on trying to squeeze existing pre-cryptocurrency laws to fit situations the writers of those laws never envisioned. Sometimes the SEC will win and sometimes they'll lose. Eventually we'll have a solid set of precedent which will at least provide clarity to future crypto exchanges (if any can legally exist under whatever those precedents end up being). It sure seems to me we'd be better off with laws and regulation passed specifically with crypto in mind that considers the tradeoffs, rather than whatever semi-accidental combination of precedents we'll end up with if we continue down the current path.

But I stand by my statement that you were incorrect to claim these are "blatant and clearcut issues."

*It's slightly more complicated than that, but for the purposes on transactions on the secondary markets like the ones offered by coinbase/kraken/etc the judge ruled that XRP was not a security.

[WayDownSouth]

If they are right, since there is no way to register these as securities, if the SEC's opinion is sustained in court, it will eventually make the trading of non-bitcoin cryptocurrency de facto illegal for US citizens. If the SEC is right and every crypto other than bitcoin in a security, there is no way for cryptocurrency exchanges that offer trading in non-bitcoin cryptocurrencies to comply with current law short of ceasing to exist.

THIS is exactly what I believe is going to happen. I also believe this is a legitimate "goal" of theirs.

[MustacheAndaHalf]

Performance over 1 year (Jan 1 2023 to Dec 31 2023) was impressive :

BTC-USD $16,547.91 to $42,265.19 , up +155%
GBTC $8.22 to $34.62 , up +321%
MSTR $145.67 to $631.62 , up +334%
COIN $36.49 to $173.92 , up +377%

https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/BTC-USD/history?p=BTC-USD
https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/GBTC/history?p=GBTC
https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/MSTR/history?p=MSTR
https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/COIN/history?p=COIN

But if you compare 2 year performance (from Jan 1 2022), not so much :

BTC-USD 46,311.75 to 42,265.19 , 2y -9%
GBTC 35.29 to 34.62 , 2y -2%
MSTR 550.61 to 631.62 , 2y +15%
COIN 256.27 to 173.92 , 2y -32%

[Juan Ponce de León]

[WayDownSouth]

Always interesting to look at any data from 2020 and see how the vast majority of major stocks & instruments made gains. Completely disconnected from the economy during a global pandemic.