Author Topic: Money, the Fed, Banking, Monetary Policy, Dollar, bitcoin, crypto, Gold/Silver  (Read 374459 times)

ya

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 759
    • View Profile
Though there was unrest in Kazakh, it did not materially affect the BTC hash rate. Infact the hash rate only took a dip when China banned BTC mining, but its now back to normal and higher than before.

https://checkonchain.com/btconchain/performance_hashrate_pricing_usd/performance_hashrate_pricing_usd_light.html

ya

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 759
    • View Profile
Small Tonga, looking to make BTC legal tender...the dominoes are falling. Probably nothin

https://twitter.com/LordFusitua/status/1481101011506774016

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 15240
    • View Profile
Re: Money and inflation, MV = PQ, Scott Grannis
« Reply #1702 on: January 13, 2022, 09:05:43 AM »
Giving this a second look:
https://scottgrannis.blogspot.com/2022/01/the-fed-is-ignoring-demand-for-money.html

I believe Scott is right all the way through academically, and the academics may be his peers, but I don't think such a roundabout way of looking at it advances our ability to simply and directly spell out cause and effect. 

There are two parts; Crafty laid out one of them and the other was obvious to anyone who received thousands in the mail for doing nothing.

**  We inject more and more money into the system without producing more and prices go up.  **

This isn't complicated but there are many follow up points to that. 

Right Way:
There is supply side economics of which Scott Grannis and people here are advocates.  Reduce the burdens of government placed on producers and more people will produce more goods and services, earn more income, buy more goods and services, save more, and invest more in a highly interconnected, dynamic economy.  Everyone benefits right down to the tax collector and the people who rely on the public revenues.  True liberals should favor that, not just small government conservatives.

Wrong way:
Then there is the demand side, magic wand side, denial of incentive-based economic science side of it that is the Democrats.

Stimulus checks, quantitative easing, Universal Basic Income UBI, Modern Monetary Theory MMT, free lunch, free health care, free Obama phone, Keynsianism (run amok), borrow more, spend more, owe more and more debt, NONE OF IT TIED TO PRODUCING MORE GOODS AND SERVICES.

More money in people's pockets but not more goods and services = inflation.  Who knew?  I don't know, everyone?  It's definitional.
« Last Edit: January 13, 2022, 09:14:34 AM by DougMacG »

ya

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 759
    • View Profile
Fidelity "History has shown capital flows to where it is treated best and embracing innovation leads to more wealth and prosperity. We also think there is very high stakes game theory at play here, whereby if bitcoin adoption increases, the countries that secure some bitcoin today will be better off competitively than their peers. Therefore, even if other countries do not believe in the investment thesis or adoption of bitcoin, they will be forced to acquire some as a form of insurance. In other words, a small cost can be paid today as a hedge compared to a potentially much larger cost years in the future. We therefore wouldn't be surprised to see other sovereign nation states acquire bitcoin in 2022 and perhaps even see a central bank make an acquisition."

https://www.fidelitydigitalassets.com/articles/2021-trends-impact


ya

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 759
    • View Profile
If you like Max Keiser...here's a good interview. As you may know, Max has been pushing BTC since a $ and is now getting out of gold. He is a bit of a showman, but over the last few years, I have come to respect him.

https://youtu.be/VqtGk6St9yk

ya

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 759
    • View Profile

ya

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 759
    • View Profile
Willy Woo

Top level summary for 16th Jan 2022 (current price $43.0k):

Macro structure: Long term holders continue to have most of the coins, they are at peak accumulation levels, they’ve also halted their profit-taking which was seen in October and December. Given so many coins are locked up with long term holders who do not sell until profit is at hand, this is indicative of a bullish year for 2022.

Medium term (up to 3 months): In terms of coin movements, the picture is very quiet and neutral. Whale investors sold down in October peaking in December, this is now abating and swinging towards a buy zone (but we are not quite there). The expected January redeployment of capital by institutions has not yet happened.

Short term (next 4 weeks): The sell-off trend has not yet ended. Exchange data indicates short term and long term speculators have been selling off. We are waiting for demand to come in. Short term on-chain signals shows the market is oversold from fundamental valuation.

ETH and Alt commentary: ETH is showing early signs of on-chain demand. While BTC is trapped in a prolonged sideway regime this is typically a zone where alt-coins perform and indeed they are starting show strength. A mini alt-season is forming.

Structural comments: BTC is broadly in a sideways accumulation zone with low spot volumes relative to futures markets where most of the short term speculation takes place. During these phases of the market, similar to 2019-2020, the predominant force behind price action is correlations to risk-on / risk-off in equity markets. Futures data becomes dominant for the short term while on-chain analysis is best used to peer into the macro structure. On-chain data for short timeframe calls will have to wait until until spot volumes increase relative to futures.

ya

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 759
    • View Profile
Being a hodler was never easy..


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 57266
    • View Profile
WSJ: Congress treats Bitcoin like stacks of cash
« Reply #1709 on: January 18, 2022, 02:08:36 AM »
Congress Treats Bitcoin Like Stacks of Cash
A new federal law mandates reporting transactions of more than $10,000. Why?
By Abraham Sutherland
Jan. 17, 2022 5:23 pm ET



Without fanfare or debate, Congress has recently determined that economically meaningful transfers of digital assets should be as rare, burdensome and criminally suspect as transacting in bricks of cash. An eight-word amendment to the U.S. tax code in the infrastructure spending bill, which become law on Nov. 15, defines digital assets as cash for the first time—a small change with bad consequences for American innovation.

Enacted in 1984, Section 6050I of the tax code mandates onerous reporting when businesses receive more than $10,000 in physical currency. This discourages the use of cash and encourages the use of banks, which since 1970 have been tasked with surveillance and reporting of Americans’ transactions for tax-enforcement and other crime-fighting purposes.

But Section 6050I is obscure for a reason: In 1984 cash was already obsolete for economically significant, law-abiding use in the modern economy. So no one except criminals cared when Congress created one more reason to use banks instead of cash.

But Bitcoin and digital assets aren’t obsolete. The November amendment will thwart development of this new technology and effectively ban many uses of digital assets. It will push innovation out of the U.S. And it will entrench existing financial institutions and big tech at the same time it forces Americans to report one another or face a felony charge.


The new law also creates inconsistencies with other federal law. Section 6050I interacts with provisions of the Bank Secrecy Act in nuanced ways that the amendment didn’t consider. These should have been understood before Congress legislated on such an important technology.


The provision is also constitutionally suspect. Section 6050I forces businesses to collect, verify and report customers’ names, addresses, Social Security numbers and other personal information without a warrant. This is a significant imposition on privacy rights and will rightly be challenged under the Fourth Amendment.

Unfortunately, there’s no quick fix through artful Treasury Department regulations. The statute limits the discretion of regulators, and the statute itself establishes the surveillance and reporting requirements.

Some in Congress understand this is important, and bills were immediately introduced to repeal the hasty, never-debated amendment.

One of them, introduced by Reps. Patrick McHenry (R., N.C.) and Tim Ryan (D., Ohio), has a dozen bipartisan cosponsors and, among other fixes, would replace the 6050I amendment with a study and report to Congress.

That’s the right approach. Section 6050I was originally written for face-to-face transfers of untraceable physical objects occurring on American soil. But digital assets aren’t simply digital cash. Unlike physical cash, digital assets are highly traceable. And digital assets aren’t obsolete.

After years of silence, Congress’s first important foray into digital-asset legislation was done on the sly and without considering the consequences. For those who understand neither 6050I nor digital assets, the grave consequences of the new law aren’t obvious, but they are real. The mistake can be rectified. Congress should repeal the Section 6050I amendment and start over.

Mr. Sutherland is a fellow at Coin Center and an adjunct professor at the University of Virginia School of Law

ya

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 759
    • View Profile
What a difference a year makes, measured at BTC 40,000 $...note the dates




ya

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 759
    • View Profile

GBTC premium is at neg 25 %. It is selling at a 25 % discount to BTC. Great buy.

I prefer to buy BTC direct, simply because one does not suffer through a neg.premium.