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

[obsidian]

ETH at 10K equals a market cap of 1.3 trillion, so SOLANA's market cap will be at least 400 billion, so get your bag ready, especially if SOL flips ETH right after FireDancer rolls out.

If ETH goes to $1.3 trillion and SOL to $400 billion how does it flip Ethereum? I agree though that it may provide bigger returns because it has a smaller market cap. The same way ETH will potentially offer bigger returns compared to BTC in a full on bull run.

Solana is fairly centralized though and there are rumors they are counting voting as transactions to inflate their numbers. I recall Binance's BSC were accused of fabricating their transactions as well. Apparently Solana's hardware requirements is insane. That centralization poses a risk if something were to happen to their infrastructure. Hardware fail all the time. And the Solana network has gone down over 10 times. Big institutional investors can't risk that. But I guess retail don't care.

https://thechainsaw.com/defi/altcoins/solana-down-network-freeze-ten-times-recover/

Note, since the article linked above was released Solana went down in February and May 2024. So that comes to 12 outages. In one outage a tech issue was throttling transactions and the blockchain started to unexpectedly fork!

[obsidian]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/the-sec-tries-to-put-the-ethereum-toothpaste-back-in-the-tube/ar-BB1khShm

The SEC tries to put the Ethereum toothpaste back in the tube

The stakes in the bitter war between the Securities and Exchange Commission and the crypto industry just got higher. As Fortune reported on Wednesday, the agency is going after Ethereum, issuing subpoenas to U.S. companies that require them to supply all records of their dealings with the foundation that oversees the blockchain. This is a big deal since so much of the crypto industry is built atop Ethereum—not just applications but entire secondary blockchains like Polygon. If the SEC goes ahead with its plans to declare that all of Ethereum is subject to its securities laws, it will have broad and unpredictable consequences.

The most curious thing about the SEC's gambit is not so much why the agency is doing this, but why it's doing it now. Leave aside the hypocrisy of Gary Gensler stating back in 2018, before he was SEC Chairman, that Ethereum is not a security (you can see it on video here). Consider instead that the Ethereum network will be a decade old next year, and that the time to regulate it would have been during the ICO mania of 2017, when grifters used it to launch a wide variety of scams. Every year since then, the network has become bigger and more disbursed and for the SEC to exert control over it today is like trying to stuff the proverbial toothpaste back in the tube.

People familiar with the investigation told me they suspect the timing has to do with Ethereum's switch to a proof-of-stake model in late 2022. For anyone not fluent in crypto, this entailed switching to a different mechanism for confirming the legitimacy of blockchain transactions that relies on a disbursed network of validators. Previously, Ethereum had relied on the Bitcoin model, which entails guzzling tremendous amounts of energy to solve random math problems. The change meant that Ethereum cut its carbon emissions by over 99% but, as proof no good deed goes unpunished, it appears to have invited legal trouble. The new argument is that the validator model means Ethereum is now a series of stock-like investment contracts. Or something.

This argument is not a strong one, it doesn't help the agency's case that numerous people have relied on the SEC's earlier signals that Ethereum is not a security. If push comes to shove, the agency will almost certainly lose in court. And yet the SEC, rather than walk away or help devise a new regulatory framework for decentralized blockchains, is heating up an investigation. Why?

The best answer is politics. Justin Slaughter, one of the more astute crypto watchers in D.C., has pointed out that Gensler is taking heat from hard-core progressives—who are every bit as fanatical as the worst crypto loon. Slaughter points to an editorial in the lefty touchstone Prospect that takes the step, unusual for them, of denouncing Gensler for letting Bitcoin ETFs go ahead in January. Even though a unanimous appeals court all but ordered the SEC to approve the ETFs, Prospect says Gensler should have kept "fighting and let the chips fall where they may."

Such language suggests an ideological fixation, but these are key allies of Gensler's de facto boss, Sen. Elizabeth Warren. Some of their concerns about crypto are legitimate, but it's a losing battle when it comes to trying to exert control over Ethereum. That horse left the barn long ago.

[BEEFCAKE]

shitcoin Ethereum is fake like the US dollar

[obsidian]

shitcoin Ethereum is fake like the US dollar

You're clueless. How much money do you manage, compared to say Blackrock? 

I agree the USD is a shitcoin. All cryptos are better than FIAT, which is guaranteed to go to zero.

[BEEFCAKE]

You're clueless. How much money do you manage, compared to say Blackrock? 

I agree the USD is a shitcoin. All cryptos are better than FIAT, which is guaranteed to go to zero.

Blackrock can push a button on the table and make shitcoin Ethereum disappear overnight 

[obsidian]

Blackrock can push a button on the table and make shitcoin Ethereum disappear overnight

Their actions indicate the complete opposite lol! First they filed for a spot ETF and now decided to launch an  Ethereum based tokenized fund.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/blackrock-is-launching-its-first-ethereum-based-tokenized-fund/ar-BB1kipTV

[BEEFCAKE]

Their actions indicate the complete opposite lol! First they filed for a spot ETF and now decided to launch an  Ethereum based tokenized fund.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/blackrock-is-launching-its-first-ethereum-based-tokenized-fund/ar-BB1kipTV

i think your missing the point...

[obsidian]

https://twitter.com/iampaulgrewal?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

Per Chief Legal Officer @coinbase

Sigh... again with the ETH misinformation as we await a decision on ETH ETPs. Ok--let’s talk about some basic facts about Ethereum. Millions of Americans hold ETH; it has been vital to crypto since its 2015 launch; and ETH is a commodity, not a security. 1/10

The SEC has taken this position for years. 2/10

Ex. A. Senior SEC officials have said ETH is not a security, see e.g. SEC Director of Corporation Finance Hinman’s statement 3/10

Ex. B. Before he was SEC Chair, Gary Gensler himself testified before Congress that ETH is not a security, see his testimony
https://www.congress.gov/115/meeting/house/108562/witnesses/HHRG-115-AG00-Wstate-GenslerG-20180718.pdf 4/10

Ex. C. And even very recently, the SEC’s trial lawyers continue to compare ETH to BTC, see https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.551082/gov.uscourts.nysd.551082.87.0.pdf 5/10

The CFTC and federal courts have consistently confirmed that ETH is a commodity. 6/10

Ex. D. ETH futures contracts started trading on CFTC-regulated futures exchanges in 2021. 7/10

Ex. E. The Howey test doesn’t determine ETH’s status, and as we have explained in depth in other proceedings, digital assets like ETH that do not involve an ongoing contractual obligation related to a business enterprise are not “investment contracts” or otherwise “securities.”  https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/akpeaaozrpr/frankel-secvcoinbase--coinbasemotionforjudgment.pdf 8/10

Ex. F. Even if we were to apply Howey, ETH utterly fails that test, and nothing about the merge changes that conclusion. 9/10

The SEC has no good reason to deny the ETH ETP applications. And we hope they won’t try to invent one by questioning the long established regulatory status of ETH, which the SEC has repeatedly endorsed. That’s not how the law works. And Americans deserve better. 10/10

[obsidian]

i think your missing the point...

Elaborate for the plebs will you?

[Mayday]

So is everyone here still thinking it’s going to 300k in a few months?

Gib promised the price would go up thousands of dollars everyday but shortly after it then dumped almost -20%.

Saylor changed his mind and says you only need 0.1BTC to achieve ascension yet at the same price in 2021 he said you needed 1BTC. Why is he saying BTC has lost -90% of its value?

[French]

I mean at best SOL flips ETH and will be worth over 2K per coin and conservatively SOL will be at 800.

Individuals and institutions prefer fast and profitable transactions, even if once a year there is an interruption of a few hours.
Reminder that the mainnet is in beta mode and they are learning every time after each outage to improve resiliency and that volumes have exploded.
Firedancer will be a game changer for Solana to address the latest concerns.

[Flexacon]

So is everyone here still thinking it’s going to 300k in a few months?

Gib promised the price would go up thousands of dollars everyday but shortly after it then dumped almost -20%.

Saylor changed his mind and says you only need 0.1BTC to achieve ascension yet at the same price in 2021 he said you needed 1BTC. Why is he saying BTC has lost -90% of its value?

Way too early to take a victory lap, but a healthy dose of reality is always a good.

The move down wasn't entirely unexpected, but the exit from GBTC and disappointing flows into the other ETFs was less expected. BTC price is still holding up pretty well though.

This would be another sit on your hands and do nothing situation for me if I was in BTC or ETH and that's because the bullish blow off trendline is still intact. Lower than somewhere like mid 50k and it's broken. My guess is it won't get to that trendline. Either 61K was the low or a visit to the high 50Ks and then a reversal with the up trend resuming.

[Flexacon]

The top isn’t in yet. I have a day and price now but let’s see.

The grayscale price suppression was entirely expected, one of the easiest calls for me to make. People downplay it and ignore it but that’s what prevented price from going to 100k. I said Grayscale will be the wrecking ball of this crypto cycle and so far it’s bang on. I posted ages ago Barry got popped.

I’d like to be wrong on this peak because the nightmare scenario comes into play.

It's a bit of a stretch calling it a wrecking ball when Bitcoin is up about 50% since ETF's and GBTC selling went live. It also hit an ATH before the halving which hasn't happened before.

Barry was in the hole for a couple of extra $billions more than he let on. $3B in total I think. People think the size and steady exit in GBTC this week is probably a liquidation or bankruptcy. Possibly Barry, Gemini/Genesis or whoever got rekt on the MSTR short.

You have the halving supply shock, GBTC "suppression" half done plus their cheaper ETF due, more brokers giving their customers access to ETFs. ETH ETF delay (bullish for everyone, but ETH holders) Wealth effect from indices being at ATHs. This is a golden bull run like 2016/17 IMO until market conditions change (rate cuts) I'll chart it later if it helps.

[obsidian]

Individuals and institutions prefer fast and profitable transactions, even if once a year there is an interruption of a few hours.
Reminder that the mainnet is in beta mode and they are learning every time after each outage to improve resiliency and that volumes have exploded.
Firedancer will be a game changer for Solana to address the latest concerns.

Institutions prefer secure over fees. And an attractive tokenomics. The Solana supply inflates over 5% every year. Ethereum is still deflationary after the Dencun upgrade. The lower fees are on the L2s, not L1. Higher fees need to remain on L1 to ensure deflation.

https://ultrasound.money/

Someone did a test and I know this may be because so many transactions are occurring on Solana that it bogs down. Still, in this example with the Coinbase L2 Base it is 15 times slower.

Also note that Solana includes voting transactions in the total transaction count. The other networks don't. To really get an accurate count of the number of transactions you need to subtract the votes, SerumV3 and System transactions. Some estimate that reduces the number of transactions by almost 99%.

https://www.reddit.com/r/solana/comments/qfip2l/solana_transaction_breakdown_are_90_transactions/

https://solanabeach.io/

Here's a screenshot I just took showing the failed transactions. You can see it for yourself on Solana Beach - I posted the link above.

[obsidian]

https://coinmarketcap.com/academy/article/why-does-solana-have-so-many-transactions

Why Does Solana Have So Many Transactions?

If you have been paying attention to transaction figures, you maybe noticed that Solana has a lot more daily transactions than other L1/L2 blockchains combined:



Is Solana the most popular blockchain? Or is the data wrong? Let’s take a look at how to meaningfully compare transactions between layer-one/two blockchains.

The Two Types Of Solana Transactions

There are voting transactions and non-voting transactions. Voting transactions are submitted by validators for network consensus. Non-voting transactions are the transfer of SOL between different Solana accounts or smart contracts. Both incur network fees in SOL, however, non-voting transactions are used when comparing Solana to other L1 or L2 blockchains.

Solana’s Transaction Riddle

Solana boasts more than six times as many transactions as Polygon: 18.9 million non-vote transactions to only 2.9 million transactions. At first glance, it would seem that Solana is processing a lot more volume and is thus a lot more popular. But the answer lies in the source of the transactions.

On Solana, non-voting transactions have always been significantly higher than on the other L1 blockchains. This is due to an overload of the Solana blockchain because of two particular types of non-voting transactions: arbitrage and minting bots. Solana has a much higher ratio of arbitrage bots and NFT minting bots than other blockchains. These transactions are not due to human users — think of them like spam mails: they merely clog up the system.

That also partially explains why Solana, dubbed a high-speed and high-throughput blockchain, experienced several outages in 2022.

Only a small portion — roughly 7% — of Solana’s non-voting transactions can be traced to transactions related to DeFi and NFT usage.

Data from Nansen shows the following breakdown of Solana transactions over the last week:

Unknown: 46M
Pyth Oracle: 39M
Zeta Markets (DeFi): 3.5M
Raydium (AMM): 2M
Orca (DeFi): 1M
Tulip (DeFi): 842K
Lifinity (DEX): 371K
Saber (AMM): 184K

Conclusion

It may be confusing to see Solana transaction figures mooning. But the inflated numbers can be easily explained when you compare the transaction sources. In reality, Solana’s figures are broadly comparable to other blockchains. This article should help you understand how to compare L1/L2 transactions meaningfully in the future.

[obsidian]

So is everyone here still thinking it’s going to 300k in a few months?

Gib promised the price would go up thousands of dollars everyday but shortly after it then dumped almost -20%.

Saylor changed his mind and says you only need 0.1BTC to achieve ascension yet at the same price in 2021 he said you needed 1BTC. Why is he saying BTC has lost -90% of its value?

I read that the other way. He is saying you need 90% less BTC because it is worth 900% more. 1 - 0.1 / 0.1 x 100% = 900%.

[obsidian]

It's a bit of a stretch calling it a wrecking ball when Bitcoin is up about 50% since ETF's and GBTC selling went live. It also hit an ATH before the halving which hasn't happened before.

Barry was in the hole for a couple of extra $billions more than he let on. $3B in total I think. People think the size and steady exit in GBTC this week is probably a liquidation or bankruptcy. Possibly Barry, Gemini/Genesis or whoever got rekt on the MSTR short.

You have the halving supply shock, GBTC "suppression" half done plus their cheaper ETF due, more brokers giving their customers access to ETFs. ETH ETF delay (bullish for everyone, but ETH holders) Wealth effect from indices being at ATHs. This is a golden bull run like 2016/17 IMO until market conditions change (rate cuts) I'll chart it later if it helps.

Don't you think the ETH ETF denial is already priced in? People are already saying the approval chance is 35% - 0%.

[Flexacon]

Don't you think the ETH ETF denial is already priced in? People are already saying the approval chance is 35% - 0%.

Yeah it's been priced in for a while. The delay to the ETH ETF means all of tradfi eyes stay on the BTC. ETH delay is bullish for BTC and BTC pairs.

The GBTC outflows have been linked to the Genesis settlement. That still leaves an explanation for the thinning inflow in the other ETFs. My guess is it's probably just relating to end of quarter rebalancing that typically goes on in tradfi. If that's the case then inflows pick up again next month.

[French]

Thanks for your feedback!

[obsidian]

Yeah it's been priced in for a while. The delay to the ETH ETF means all of tradfi eyes stay on the BTC. ETH delay is bullish for BTC and BTC pairs.

The GBTC outflows have been linked to the Genesis settlement. That still leaves an explanation for the thinning inflow in the other ETFs. My guess is it's probably just relating to end of quarter rebalancing that typically goes on in tradfi. If that's the case then inflows pick up again next month.

Interesting comments by the former Commissioner of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission of Federal government of the United States, Brian Quintenz.

A futures contract on a security is in both the SEC’s and @CFTC ’s jurisdiction. A futures contract on a pure commodity is only in the CFTC’s jurisdiction. There is a currently a futures contract on #ETH. It is only under the CFTC’s purview which makes ETH a non-security commodity

https://twitter.com/BrianQuintenz?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

Reminder:

1/ When the SEC allowed ETH Futures ETFs to trade on its regulated security exchanges, it explicitly acknowledged the status of the underlying, ETH, as being a non-security and outside of its jurisdiction.

2/ Importantly, this ETF approval decision in October 2023 occurred well after Ethereum changed to PoS in Sept of 2022; meaning that to the SEC, ETH, in its present state as of Oct 2023, was not a security.

3/ If the SEC had any doubt about the regulatory treatment of ETH in Oct 2023, it wouldn’t have approved the ETF.  If ETH were in fact a security, then the CFTC-listed futures contracts (on which the ETFs were based) would be illegal, as any derivative on ETH would be considered security futures contracts and subject to different rules, listed on different exchanges and subject to joint SEC/CFTC jurisdiction.

4/ Moreover, if ETH were a security, then the ETH Futures ETF would be an illegal instrument. The SEC cannot approve an illegal instrument to trade over a national securities exchange.

5/ It will be interesting to watch what, if any, excuse the SEC uses if it were to delay or deny an ETH ETF given it has already informed the market on ETH being outside its jurisdiction.

6/ The SEC's conduct in refusing to acknowledge these facts is causing confusion and actively harming the public.

Question:
How would you respond to their argument that it was an acknowledgment of its commodity status (and therefore the legality of a CFTC regulated futures based product), but not the nonsecurity status of the underlying? Gensler has gone to great lengths to never concede ETH’s nonsecurity status, though he does concede that it is a commodity as well. We know they will try to back into the most damaging legal argument they can find if it has any chance of winning in lower courts, since their political goal is to inflict maximum damage on the industry domestically.

So what specifically is the slam dunk/smoking gun in the statutes or paperwork trail that prevents them from making this hybrid instrument argument with a straight face? An unwritten jurisdictional norm that has never been violated is not enough to constrain this SEC. They relish losing in court because that signals to the party bosses that they are being “tough” on partisan policy priorities.

Answer:
As I showed in the thread, a commodity is deemed to be a non security if there is a CFTC-regulated futures or swaps contract on it.

[SouJerz]

Interesting comments by the former Commissioner of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission of Federal government of the United States, Brian Quintenz.

A futures contract on a security is in both the SEC’s and @CFTC ’s jurisdiction. A futures contract on a pure commodity is only in the CFTC’s jurisdiction. There is a currently a futures contract on #ETH. It is only under the CFTC’s purview which makes ETH a non-security commodity

https://twitter.com/BrianQuintenz?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

Reminder:

1/ When the SEC allowed ETH Futures ETFs to trade on its regulated security exchanges, it explicitly acknowledged the status of the underlying, ETH, as being a non-security and outside of its jurisdiction.

2/ Importantly, this ETF approval decision in October 2023 occurred well after Ethereum changed to PoS in Sept of 2022; meaning that to the SEC, ETH, in its present state as of Oct 2023, was not a security.

3/ If the SEC had any doubt about the regulatory treatment of ETH in Oct 2023, it wouldn’t have approved the ETF.  If ETH were in fact a security, then the CFTC-listed futures contracts (on which the ETFs were based) would be illegal, as any derivative on ETH would be considered security futures contracts and subject to different rules, listed on different exchanges and subject to joint SEC/CFTC jurisdiction.

4/ Moreover, if ETH were a security, then the ETH Futures ETF would be an illegal instrument. The SEC cannot approve an illegal instrument to trade over a national securities exchange.

5/ It will be interesting to watch what, if any, excuse the SEC uses if it were to delay or deny an ETH ETF given it has already informed the market on ETH being outside its jurisdiction.

6/ The SEC's conduct in refusing to acknowledge these facts is causing confusion and actively harming the public.

Question:
How would you respond to their argument that it was an acknowledgment of its commodity status (and therefore the legality of a CFTC regulated futures based product), but not the nonsecurity status of the underlying? Gensler has gone to great lengths to never concede ETH’s nonsecurity status, though he does concede that it is a commodity as well. We know they will try to back into the most damaging legal argument they can find if it has any chance of winning in lower courts, since their political goal is to inflict maximum damage on the industry domestically.

So what specifically is the slam dunk/smoking gun in the statutes or paperwork trail that prevents them from making this hybrid instrument argument with a straight face? An unwritten jurisdictional norm that has never been violated is not enough to constrain this SEC. They relish losing in court because that signals to the party bosses that they are being “tough” on partisan policy priorities.

Answer:
As I showed in the thread, a commodity is deemed to be a non security if there is a CFTC-regulated futures or swaps contract on it.

ETH to $14,000?

[Flexacon]

Interesting comments by the former Commissioner of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission of Federal government of the United States, Brian Quintenz.

A futures contract on a security is in both the SEC’s and @CFTC ’s jurisdiction. A futures contract on a pure commodity is only in the CFTC’s jurisdiction. There is a currently a futures contract on #ETH. It is only under the CFTC’s purview which makes ETH a non-security commodity

There are several very wealthy and well resourced entities who would love nothing more than to be able to take the SEC to court over all this. Most of them want a clear guidance on what they're allowed to do and not allowed to regarding tokenisation and staking in crypto, but the SEC won't give them this. If it ends up in court they get this one way or another. Also just remember that the SEC lost the XPR case and XRP was magnitudes worse than anything the SEC can try throw at ETH.

Short term this stuff is bearish ETH, but longer term it will bullish. Either way a bullish BTC takes ETH up with it regardless.

[gib]

There are several very wealthy and well resourced entities who would love nothing more than to be able to take the SEC to court over all this. Most of them want a clear guidance on what they're allowed to do and not allowed to regarding tokenisation and staking in crypto, but the SEC won't give them this. If it ends up in court they get this one way or another. Also just remember that the SEC lost the XPR case and XRP was magnitudes worse than anything the SEC can try throw at ETH.

Short term this stuff is bearish ETH, but longer term it will bullish. Either way a bullish BTC takes ETH up with it regardless.

The law is already very clear. And the SEC has been clear all along - every issuer and operator of exchanges of such securities in the US must comply with the law.

The SEC cannot be expected to rule or comment on every single of an infinite number of security tokens. But it can re-iterate that the law must be complied with (which is has done, countless times).

[Flexacon]

The law is already very clear. And the SEC has been clear all along - every issuer and operator of exchanges of such securities in the US must comply with the law.

The SEC cannot be expected to rule or comment on every single of an infinite number of security tokens. But it can re-iterate that the law must be complied with (which is has done, countless times).

If the law is already clear and the SEC was clear all along then why did the SEC end up losing their XRP case? Seems you like to bury your head in the sand about what happened there. Don't worry though you aren't the only one who is in complete denial about that, lots of experts in Securities on X were the same way and now it seems Gensler has joined team in denial.

And the pre Gensler SEC has already commented on ETH as has the CFTC which is why any action he tries to take will end up him losing in court again. That doesn't even include several US states that have already objected to Genslers over reach.

[obsidian]

The law is already very clear. And the SEC has been clear all along - every issuer and operator of exchanges of such securities in the US must comply with the law.

The SEC cannot be expected to rule or comment on every single of an infinite number of security tokens. But it can re-iterate that the law must be complied with (which is has done, countless times).

The SEC already approved an ETH Futures ETF post-Merge. ETH is not a security. It fails the Howie Test. You want ETH to be a security because you don't want it to infringe on your BTC gains.

ETH is actually being held back at the moment because of all the FUD. A lot of blood and guts hard work has gone into the Ethereum project over the years. Way more than Bitcoin. Bitcoin is almost on autopilot. If Bitcoin ever hopes to become a smart contract platform they will have to get in the trenches like the Ethereum developers and get shit done. It will be a long road ahead. This shit doesn't happen overnight.