Bitcoins - about to hit $5,000 per coin today!

[Griffith]

Fixed for accuracy

Correct.

None are considered as 'securities' either..

Shanghai court confirms legal recognition of crypto ownership

Cryptocurrencies are treated by Chinese law as a class of virtual commodities with property-like features, allowing individuals to own them as personal assets.

Under existing laws, Chinese courts have ruled that digital assets can qualify as property.

Chinese citizens are legally allowed to hold cryptocurrencies, but business entities are not.

https://www.fxstreet.com/cryptocurrencies/news/shanghai-court-confirms-legal-recognition-of-crypto-ownership-202411211417

[SouJerz]

Good graph. Like you, I plan to keep stacking.

Precisely gib!   And some more food for thought.  58 million individuals can claim a net worth of 1 million or more on the planet.  Only 21 million bitcoin ever minted.  With 1 million in satoshis wallet.  If anyone thinks 100,000k is the top you need to work on your math skills.  There aren’t even enough bitcoin for every millionaire to own just one.

Also it will be the currency of the moon, mars, space….   Cash is too heavy and too expensive to put on a rocket ship.

[gib]

Precisely gib!   And some more food for thought.  58 million individuals can claim a net worth of 1 million or more on the planet.  Only 21 million bitcoin ever minted.  With 1 million in satoshis wallet.  If anyone thinks 100,000k is the top you need to work on your math skills.  There aren’t even enough bitcoin for every millionaire to own just one.

Also it will be the currency of the moon, mars, space….   Cash is too heavy and too expensive to put on a rocket ship.

That's right. And sadly, those who think BTC is "too expensive" will miss out on BTC, and instead buy "alts", thinking they are a cheaper version of BTC, not realizing that the supply is alts is literally infinite, whilst wealth is inherently finite and flow where it is best protected.

[gib]

Correct.

None are considered as 'securities' either..

Shanghai court confirms legal recognition of crypto ownership

Cryptocurrencies are treated by Chinese law as a class of virtual commodities with property-like features, allowing individuals to own them as personal assets.

Under existing laws, Chinese courts have ruled that digital assets can qualify as property.

Chinese citizens are legally allowed to hold cryptocurrencies, but business entities are not.

https://www.fxstreet.com/cryptocurrencies/news/shanghai-court-confirms-legal-recognition-of-crypto-ownership-202411211417

Guys - Whilst comments like this and Flex's are well-meaning, they demonstrate perfectly why you should not rely on a media report of a legal decision, yet one from a civil case in China, reported in English by a "financial journalist" who really has no legal training, and then re-reposted by a member on a chat forum, such as GetBig

You have to remember I have deep connections in this space across Asia. So, please believe me, when I tell you that securities laws very much apply in HK and in China. There are some decent summaries of the law in China (and HK) available if you do a little more research. For example, a good summary of the current position is set out here:

You can even find translations of the law. For example:

http://www.pbc.gov.cn/english/130721/3377816/index.html

"Organizations or Individuals Shall Engage Not in Illegal Fundraising through Coin Offering - From the date of release of this Notice, fundraising through coin offering shall be banned immediately. Any individuals or organizations that have completed fundraising through coin offering shall make arrangements to return the funds raised, and to ensure that the legitimate rights and interests of the investors are protected and the risks involved are properly managed. The government departments concerned will strictly investigate and address the coin offering activities that have continued despite the ban and the illegal activities in the projects that had completed fundraising."

"Any so-called platform that provide trading and exchange services for coin offering shall not engage in exchange businesses between legal tender and token or “virtual currency”; or engage in proprietary trading activities or trading as an central counterparty of tokens or “virtual currencies”; or provide pricing services or act as information intermediary for tokens or “virtual currencies”."

Various China-based law-firms also publish summaries of the current regulatory approach:

https://www.kwm.com/cn/en/insights/latest-thinking/tokenisation-of-securities-and-other-investment-products.html

"Since tokenisation is a “wrapper” that does not change the fundamental nature of an investment product ... [that] should not, in and of itself, affect the applicability of these PRC legal and regulatory requirements."

See also: https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/ijdlg-2024-0007/html?

"In September 2021, the Notice on Further Preventing and Resolving the Risks of Virtual Currency Trading and Speculation was issued by the People’s Bank of China, the Cyberspace Administration of China, and other ministries emphasizing that the business activities related to virtual currency are illegal financial activities. All government departments, administrative regions, and industry associations shall fully leverage various media and other communication channels to educate the public about the unlawfulness, and harmfulness, to enhance public awareness of risk prevention (PBC 2021). For the first time, overseas virtual currency exchanges providing services to Chinese residents via the Internet are also illegal financial activities."

Having said that, anywhere, but especially in China, there is distinction between the law, and the enforcement of it (which is very selective). As a result we will, at least initially, see BTC embraced, (perhaps also ETH) whilst at the same time securities laws very much enforced (which in turn apply to the vast majority of what we in the West call "crypto"). We will likely see USD stable coins discouraged (for political reasons, if not anything else). Bare in mind also, there is BIG distinction between HK, and China, in terms of legal and financial system. In HK, they have already moved to a much great greater acceptance of some types of "crypto" beyond BTC, such as ETH. But again, securities law are harshly enforced in HK.

[Flexacon]

You have to remember I have deep connections in this space across Asia. So, please believe me, when I tell you that securities laws very much apply in HK and in China. There are some decent summaries of the law in China (and HK) available if you do a little more research. For example, a good summary of the current position is set out here:

Let's look at your recent record as an expert in Securities laws ..

Tell me again about how all ALTs are going to banned by the SEC

Tell me again how Wall St cronies would never allow an ETH ETF as they chose BTC as their winner.

Tell me again how you're a securities law expert by profession and how ETH would be declared a security.

[Griffith]

Guys - Whilst comments like this and Flex's are well-meaning, they demonstrate perfectly why you should not rely on a media report of a legal decision, yet one from a civil case in China, reported in English by a "financial journalist" who really has no legal training, and then re-reposted by a member on a chat forum, such as GetBig

You have to remember I have deep connections in this space across Asia. So, please believe me, when I tell you that securities laws very much apply in HK and in China. There are some decent summaries of the law in China (and HK) available if you do a little more research. For example, a good summary of the current position is set out here:

You can even find translations of the law. For example:

http://www.pbc.gov.cn/english/130721/3377816/index.html

"Organizations or Individuals Shall Engage Not in Illegal Fundraising through Coin Offering - From the date of release of this Notice, fundraising through coin offering shall be banned immediately. Any individuals or organizations that have completed fundraising through coin offering shall make arrangements to return the funds raised, and to ensure that the legitimate rights and interests of the investors are protected and the risks involved are properly managed. The government departments concerned will strictly investigate and address the coin offering activities that have continued despite the ban and the illegal activities in the projects that had completed fundraising."

"Any so-called platform that provide trading and exchange services for coin offering shall not engage in exchange businesses between legal tender and token or “virtual currency”; or engage in proprietary trading activities or trading as an central counterparty of tokens or “virtual currencies”; or provide pricing services or act as information intermediary for tokens or “virtual currencies”."

Various China-based law-firms also publish summaries of the current regulatory approach:

https://www.kwm.com/cn/en/insights/latest-thinking/tokenisation-of-securities-and-other-investment-products.html

"Since tokenisation is a “wrapper” that does not change the fundamental nature of an investment product ... [that] should not, in and of itself, affect the applicability of these PRC legal and regulatory requirements."

See also: https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/ijdlg-2024-0007/html?

"In September 2021, the Notice on Further Preventing and Resolving the Risks of Virtual Currency Trading and Speculation was issued by the People’s Bank of China, the Cyberspace Administration of China, and other ministries emphasizing that the business activities related to virtual currency are illegal financial activities. All government departments, administrative regions, and industry associations shall fully leverage various media and other communication channels to educate the public about the unlawfulness, and harmfulness, to enhance public awareness of risk prevention (PBC 2021). For the first time, overseas virtual currency exchanges providing services to Chinese residents via the Internet are also illegal financial activities."

Having said that, anywhere, but especially in China, there is distinction between the law, and the enforcement of it (which is very selective). As a result we will, at least initially, see BTC embraced, (perhaps also ETH) whilst at the same time securities laws very much enforced (which in turn apply to the vast majority of what we in the West call "crypto"). We will likely see USD stable coins discouraged (for political reasons, if not anything else). Bare in mind also, there is BIG distinction between HK, and China, in terms of legal and financial system. In HK, they have already moved to a much great greater acceptance of some types of "crypto" beyond BTC, such as ETH. But again, securities law are harshly enforced in HK.

The judge said it is “not illegal for individuals to hold cryptocurrency.”

Here's an article from the South China Morning Post:

https://www.scmp.com/tech/blockchain/article/3287415/shanghai-court-says-crypto-ownership-legal-under-china-law-amid-bitcoin-price-surge

[gib]

Let's look at your recent record as an expert in Securities laws ..

We are going around in circles here Flex. What is the purpose of you making this post? To show that I can sometimes be wrong in my predictions I am guessing?

I have already explained to you many times now, the SEC's job is to enforce the law (not make the law), And the SEC has taken action against, and successfully prosecuted hundreds of illegal "alt" issuers as well as those who facilitate the trading thereof. Will the SEC continue to pursue ETH as a security? It seems not. Did they have good reason to? Of course they did. The SEC is well funded, with some of the best securities lawyers in the world. They don't just bring cases for fun. When do bring a case, it is obviously with very good reason for doing so. And I can guarantee Gensler knows more about you than securities law (or even me for that matter). From an academic perspective, we had very good reason for our views. Not to mention Saylor also predicted ETH would not be approved as an ETF, among many other very smart people. I would suggest you to look more at the rationale of a person who makes a prediction when assessing their expertise, rather than the outcome per se. Not just in finance, but actually in any field.

Why did the SEC decide not pursue ETH? This is a much longer discussion, but if you do your research, or even if not, it should actually be blatantly obvious why so many alts are clearly securities - essentially they are simply business (at best), with shares issued to the public in those businesses, represented by "crypto tokens". Please go and read my prior posts for longer explanations, as I don't want to repeat myself more than is necessary, but in a nutshell, you can't take a security and just call it a "token" and then think its suddenly not a security. In securities language we say "we look at substance over form" to describe this principle.

Having said that, the securities-like qualities of ETH are in part why it is underperforming BTC (down 38% to BTC just this year alone) and why it will likely continue to do so. In the long run, the market figures these things out, regardless of any investor protections which are put in place.. So, if for example, every form of shitcoin was made "legal" we might see an initial flurry of interest, and followed by a seemingly endless supply of shitcoins issues and accompanying shitcoinery - it would not end well. But out of that mess, a very small number of such coins would eventually survive, with many "investors" having learned their lesson along the way, with of course BTC simply continuing to grow more and more dominant every time such a cycle completes, for obvious reasons.

If you prefer to watch videos rather then doing your own research, here is a good clip I urge you to watch

i=eNZbmcDngyj564wO

[gib]

The judge said it is “not illegal for individuals to hold cryptocurrency.”

Here's an article from the South China Morning Post:

https://www.scmp.com/tech/blockchain/article/3287415/shanghai-court-says-crypto-ownership-legal-under-china-law-amid-bitcoin-price-surge

Griffith - I know you mean well. But a judge, in a single court in China, in a civil case, involving Bitcoin, does not, and cannot, make laws around what a "cryptocurrency" is, let along how it may be used in China - trust me on that. The commentary on issues not related to Bitcoin, (what we in latin call obiter dictum) is nevertheless of interest (and it is this what the media picked up on when reporting that "xyz is not "legal" in China). In reality it's far more complicated than that. Remember also, that to own any type of crypto in China means you need to either have created it, mined, it, purchased it (and/or be planning to sell it). All categories of which come with a range of legal risks in China, even for Bitcoin, let along any other "cryptocurrency". And it such a case, citing the obiter of a civil case, related to a dispute over the ownership of Bitcoin, of a judge in a Court in Shanghai, is not going to help you much ...

[Griffith]

Griffith - I know you mean well. But a judge, in a single court in China, in a civil case, involving Bitcoin, does not, and cannot, make laws around what a "cryptocurrency" is, let along how it may be used in China - trust me on that. The commentary on issues not related to Bitcoin, (what we in latin call obiter dictum) is nevertheless of interest (and it is this what the media picked up on when reporting that "xyz is not "legal" in China). In reality it's far more complicated than that. Remember also, that to own any type of crypto in China means you need to either have created it, mined, it, purchased it (and/or be planning to sell it). All categories of which come with a range of legal risks in China, even for Bitcoin, let along any other "cryptocurrency". And it such a case, citing the obiter of a civil case, related to a dispute over the ownership of Bitcoin, of a judge in a Court in Shanghai, is not going to help you much ...

The point is that the discussion is about cryptocurrency, to omit this and only refer to bitcoin is disingenuous.

[gib]

The point is that the discussion is about cryptocurrency, to omit this and only refer to bitcoin is disingenuous.

Ah - well I did to prevent people from taking away the wrong principles to apply from this case. This has been my aim here all along. If you want to apply this judgement in some way, in a manner that exposes you to a "cryptocurrency" investment in China, be my guest. It will very likely work out not well for you...

[Flexacon]

Ah - well I did to prevent people from taking away the wrong principles to apply from this case. This has been my aim here all along. If you want to apply this judgement in some way, in a manner that exposes you to a "cryptocurrency" investment in China, be my guest. It will very likely work out not well for you...

You still miss the point. It wasn't us "implying" anything. It was the judge dealing with the case setting new jurisprudence.

I'm sure you'll get there eventually

[gib]

You still miss the point. It wasn't us "implying" anything. It was the judge dealing with the case setting new jurisprudence.

I'm sure you'll get there eventually

You may be confusing yourself a little bit. Unlike HK, or the US, China does not have a common law system. This case you are referring to, was from a court in Shanghai, (not Hong Kong, where common law and the principle of judge made law does exist). In China, judges simply apply statutes and indeed almost always exclude case law. In other words, court cases are not law, and the judges in such cases don't create precedents. The only laws and rules applied are those codified by the legislature - ie the National People's Congress (NPC) and the so-called Standing Committee of National People's Congress. (This concept is really not understood well by the typical "financial journalist" reporters such as the ones cited, and that in turn often leads to a misunderstanding as to what the law in China actually is). The concept of "case law as we in the US understand it to mean, and which you likely have some understanding of, does not apply in China. (One reason is that the CCP does not want judges making law, for obvious reasons).

To own any type of "crypto" in China means you need to either have created it, mined, it, purchased it (and/or be planning to sell it). All categories of which come with a range of legal risks under existing Chinese law, indeed even to some extent still with Bitcoin also (although it is becoming apparent that even in China judges and more importantly financial regulators are starting to view BTC as a commodity), let alone any other "cryptocurrency" (please see my posts explaining the applicable laws above). The law is not so much changing, but rather the understanding of what BTC is and what makes it unique and then applying the law to this unique asset (such as understanding why it is not a security under Chinese law) slowly is. So, whilst the comments of the judge in this case, are nevertheless still of interest, let's not get carried away with misunderstanding and misstating what the law in China actually is, and lets not obfuscate the fundamental distinctions between Bitcoin and "crypto".

[gib]

On a related note, speaking of China (albeit HK) we now have this very positive development...

https://dig.watch/updates/hong-kongs-za-bank-launches-bitcoin-and-ethereum-trading

[affeman]

On a related note, speaking of China (albeit HK) we now have this very positive development...

https://dig.watch/updates/hong-kongs-za-bank-launches-bitcoin-and-ethereum-trading

Poor gib still soliloquizing trying to keep that thread and the hype about his imaginary coins going somehow

[gib]

Poor gib still soliloquizing trying to keep that thread and the hype about his imaginary coins going somehow

Imaginary coins that have gone from around 3.5K to 95K from the time this thread started...

[affeman]

Imaginary coins that have gone from around 3.5K to 95K from the time this thread started...

Why don't you sell then? As long as everybody HODLs and nobody sells price doesn't mean sh*t, it starts getting interesting if u wanna get real money for em

[gib]

Why don't you sell then? As long as everybody HODLs and nobody sells price doesn't mean sh*t, it starts getting interesting if u wanna get real money for em

The "real money" as you call it, continues to devalue. You are looking at things backwards. BTC is the REAL MONEY. That was the entire purpose of its creation! 466 pages and BTC going up from 3.5K to 95K since this thread started and you still don't get it? Just get on board my man. Buy, and hodl. How hard can that be? If you follow this advice now, you will be extremely grateful you did in 10 years time - trust me on that.

We sell FAKE MONEY (Government printed fiat currencies) and buy REAL MONEY (BTC). The only time one might sell BTC is if one wanted to buy something of need or desire (car, house, food, etc), and even then we should not really sell BTC, but rather simply borrow against it if possible.

[Mayday]

The "real money" as you call it, continues to devalue. You are looking at things backwards. BTC is the REAL MONEY. That was the entire purpose of its creation! 466 pages and BTC going up from 3.5K to 95K since this thread started and you still don't get it? Just get on board my man. Buy, and hodl. How hard can that be? If you follow this advice now, you will be extremely grateful you did in 10 years time - trust me on that.

We sell FAKE MONEY (Government printed fiat currencies) and buy REAL MONEY (BTC). The only time one might sell BTC is if one wanted to buy something of need or desire (car, house, food, etc), and even then we should not really sell BTC, but rather simply borrow against it if possible.

Maybe it could be worded as money with reflection of the liquidity cycle?

The reality is the bear market reflects the true value. Once excess money is thrown out, we know what we are left with. The bottom value is true value + adoption hence the value has trended up.

Once adoption slows nearing saturation, the bottom value reflects true value more accurately.

There will always be bear markets because we always have liquidity buildup. The spill over into alts is a reflection the core item has no more oomph/growth therefore it hunts for gains in Degenerate City. Once you are in Degen City, that’s the end and liquidity will exit. Then back to true value we go.

[obsidian]

@Obsidian - do you recall our prior discussion on mining costs? You were concerned BTC miners were not profitable, whereas I pointed out that many were profitable and indeed were evening using excess funds to buy BTC, and where I explained the natural mining cycle?

Well, now, exactly as I have said, you can see - average cost of mining reported by MacroMicro to be $83349. Average price of coin now $97,000. So, not only is mining profitable, hash rate at record highs, but also the mining companies have made massive gains on the BTCs they accumulated (which they can either hodl, or use for business costs of cap-ex on new rigs). Its a beautiful virtuous cycle...

Hi Gib,

First of all, congrats on BTC running up to $99,553 on 11/22. It's only a matter of time before BTC breaches $100,000 and then things will get interesting. It's possible that BTC goes to $150-200K next year. We'll see!

Yes, it is now cheaper to mine than to buy BTC. Average cost to mine 1 BTC is currently around $88K. The problem for me still is the reduction in miner rewards every 4 years. 16-24 years from now it could be problematic.

I also think Saylor needs to stop buying BTC. He will become a single point of failure. MicroStrategy's value has completely detached from the crypto's performance.

https://www.fool.com/investing/2024/11/26/short-seller-slams-microstrategy-is-the-michael-sa/

MicroStrategy is unique on the stock market because it essentially acts like a leveraged Bitcoin ETF. Chief Executive Officer Michael Saylor, one of the biggest evangelists for the digital coin, began buying it for his company in 2020, and it held 252,220 bitcoins as of the end of the third quarter.

However, one well-known short-seller is now saying MicroStrategy is overvalued and that its model is unsustainable. Andrew Left of Citron Research posted his thesis on X, saying that while his company was bullish on MicroStrategy in 2020 as a way to invest in Bitcoin, it had now reversed its position.

Citron said that MicroStrategy's value has completely detached from the crypto's performance. Citron noted that it was still bullish on Bitcoin but was hedging that bet with a short position in MicroStrategy.

The company's stock plunged 16% last Thursday when Citron published its short report.

The bear case for MicroStrategy

Left is correct that MicroStrategy's fundamentals have become detached from Bitcoin's value. It does have a small software business, but it's basically negligible as far as its valuation is concerned -- its market cap was $94.8 billion as of Nov. 22. It now identifies itself as a Bitcoin treasury company.

But its Bitcoin holdings don't justify that valuation, either, because based on its market cap and those holdings, the company is valued at $375,864 per token, which is nearly four times the price of the cryptocurrency -- $98,807 -- at the time of writing. The value of the Bitcoin held on its balance sheet is now $22.4 billion.

Currently, MicroStrategy is sitting on a gain of $49,441 per Bitcoin, with an average purchase price of $39,266. In total, it has gained $12.5 billion from its Bitcoin purchases.

The company also has $4.2 billion in long-term debt as it continues to borrow money and sell stock to buy the crypto.

[obsidian]

Purchased borrowing against  btc

Nice, but how did you pay off the money you borrowed against BTC? Did you have to sell some BTC to pay off the loan? With ETH staking you can sell your staking yields to pay off loans and your principle ETH holdings remain untouched.

[obsidian]

Why don't you sell then? As long as everybody HODLs and nobody sells price doesn't mean sh*t, it starts getting interesting if u wanna get real money for em

If he sold 56 BTC it would not affect the price. There's enough liquidity to absorb that. An exchange with high liquidity would probably be the best place. He doesn't live in the US so he could use Binance. US customers have to use Binance.US which has a lot less volume so trades may take longer.

https://coinrivet.com/guides/trading/is-volume-important-for-cryptocurrency-exchanges/

[obsidian]

Maybe it could be worded as money with reflection of the liquidity cycle?

The reality is the bear market reflects the true value. Once excess money is thrown out, we know what we are left with. The bottom value is true value + adoption hence the value has trended up.

Once adoption slows nearing saturation, the bottom value reflects true value more accurately.

There will always be bear markets because we always have liquidity buildup. The spill over into alts is a reflection the core item has no more oomph/growth therefore it hunts for gains in Degenerate City. Once you are in Degen City, that’s the end and liquidity will exit. Then back to true value we go.

Good post. Perhaps the bottom and top meet each other half way over time.

[obsidian]

[obsidian]

Ethereum inflation has been 0.315% the past 30 days. It may go deflationary again once blob space is filled and an increase in transaction volume. L2 fees are now very low after the Dencun upgrade. It reduced the amount of ETH burned. Before Dencun Ethereum's inflation was around -0.5%.

Note that Bitcoin's current inflation is around 0.83% which is more than double the Ethereum inflation. Solana's inflation is around 6-7%. There's also a 11.16 million token (2.35% of supply) unlock next year in March. That might affect the price.

https://solana.messari.io/token-unlocks

https://ultrasound.money/

[Mayday]

Good post. Perhaps the bottom and top meet each other half way over time.

If it’s the bottom it’s mean reversion and should correlate to the Money supply expansion over a period of time the more mature it gets.

Once mean reversion is completed, it should begin trending up and correlate to liquidity.

The larger it gets the greater the odds it breaks The 4yr cycle. The ETFs likely changed the structure as it’s S&P flow related. The S&P doesn’t crash -85% every 4yrs and they are the biggest consistent buyers now.