@Sunny - Disagree on what? I offered up this information as recognition of a milestone in the industry. I acknowledged the scale of that growth via the market cap comparison with Goldman Sachs. That's where it ends. I made no suggestion as to whether anyone should invest in Coinbase.
Lastly, I don't feel in any way insulted by your post or point of view. However, if you're going to have an issue with my responses, I'd suggest you have a look at the sarcastic twist you've put on that post starting with the opening sentence. Next maybe you should read the posts of others a couple more times before responding because i wasn't offering any recommendation as regards the suitability or otherwise of Coinbase as an investment.
Really? Then why respond to my post as if you did - with the 'everyone pile into this IPO' comment?I never said you did recommend it. Did I?
As I put it? There's no question - it's there for everyone to see - you don't get to throw your toys out of the pram re. my response and not take responsibility for the sarcastic nature of your own post.My sarcastic comment as you put it
Explain to me how its inappropriate? Once again, I have to point out to you that I wasn't offering up Coinbase as a suggested investment. The comparison was made to give an indication of how Coinbase has grown substantially as a company. Nothing more and nothing less. You want to contrive to suggest otherwise - but the comparison never went beyond that.to your completely over the top comparison between Coinbase and Goldman Sachs. Why even pick Goldman Sachs? They are not even remotely similar companies. So Coinbase might have a market cap similar to Goldman Sachs? So what?? It could still be as worthless as plenty of other companies with absurd valuations before going public. It is a completely irrelevant comparison unless you somehow believe you can compare the two?
Firstly, I don't give a fiddlers about your wayward interpretation. But wayward it is. I can cite a whole host of critique I've made on bitcoin and crypto. If I asked you to do the same thing re positive commentary, you'd come up with nothing. So who's the real cultist?You are just coming across like a cult member
You were corrected on that but you persist. I haven't taken 'personal offence' at any such thing - but keep going with that if it suits your narrative.taking personal offence at anyone who dares question anything around the crypto market.
Provide a link where I've ever suggested that you have insulted me personally? Opinions are a given on a discussion board...as is disagreement. None of this is news.Nobody who holds an opposite opinion to you is insulting you, they are not calling into question your reputation, your intelligence, your beliefs, your religion. They just disagree with you.
Hang on a second - you don't get to put a sarcastic edge on things (and claim disagreement when you went on a solo run on something completely different) and then throw your toys out of the pram afterwards.I am allowed to say that any company who announces Q1 earnings greater than then the whole of the previous year is operating in a crazy market without being referred to as 'Sherlock'.
I have the nerve to hold a differing opinion so I should be quietened? I get where you're coming from entirely. If you post on a public discussion board, you can very much guarantee that said post will be open to critique. That's something that for the most part should be welcomed. For the most part, I welcome it - albeit in your case I didn't much take to the sarcastic undertones and measured my response accordingly.Your many valid points on this topic are just going to get lost because you have actually replied to every single post on AAM that has dared question anything about the Crypto market...We know your view on this by now.
I have been told off by @Sunny for daring to question things...so I better be more selective in my postings going forward Duke.@tecate why are you not engaging with @Dublinbay12 on his liquidity point? He seems to know his cryptonions. Has he got you on a sore point?
I was thinking about the remarkable surge in price since Muskie made his disclosure. And I was thinking what would happen to the price if Muskie or even Saylor announced they had got out as they thought it was over priced. The price would surely collapse. Is any other asset class so dependent on the goodwill a couple of egotists?
Hmmm! I would have thought the liquidity point was a bull indicator as was suggested by @Dublinbay12's link and also confirmed by myself and @DazedInPontoon. I would have thought you would warm to it, but I sense you see a vulnerability,I'll leave that discussion to yourself and @DazedInPontoon .
With a couple of exceptions I agree with your post on the subject so like you i fail to see any vulnerability in this instance.I would have thought you would warm to it, but I sense you see a vulnerability,
I have been told off by @Sunny for daring to question things...so I better be more selective in my postings going forward Duke.
I'll leave that discussion to yourself and @DazedInPontoon .
they chose to ignore it.
Coinbase isn't an IPO. It's a direct listing.I will assume any response (if there is one) to this post will try and further take away from the topic of liquidity
Coinbase isn't an IPO. It's a direct listing.
Just to get that distraction out of the way.
Coinbase isn't an IPO. It's a direct listing.
Just to get that distraction out of the way.
Who are 'they'?
I understand your point, but I don't necessarily agree. I do not think it is the number one issue, or anywhere close to it.
If I'm part of 'they' I choose not to engage for that reason.
Is there enough BTC for every Balance sheet to have bitcoin on it?
Coinbase isn't an IPO. It's a direct listing.
Just to get that distraction out of the way.
So instead of discussing a topic that should be at the top of the list for a finite cryptocurrency that is seeing more and more institutional adoption, they chose to ignore it.
What did you disagree with?
Oh I know, but the technicality will be used as a distraction if it's not addressed.To be fair the distinction between Direct Listing and IPO isn't really that important.
I feel like I'm probably just repeating what myself and Duke have already said in recent posts, but here's goes anyway.
People involved generally care about liquidity as defined by (number of coins) x (price per coin). This has generally being going up, I expect bitcoin exchanges have never been as liquid in terms of dollar value as they are now.
When Tesla and MicroStrategy were buying they weren't approaching it as "I want to buy x number of coins" it was "I want to buy x dollars worth of bitcoin" - for Tesla this was 1.5b for MS it was basically all of their treasury dollars.
If the number of bitcoin on exchanges continues to dwindle, but the demand for bitcoin (measured in dollars) does not decrease, then the price of bitcoin will rise.
I don't see any liquidity issues, except perhaps for those who are short bitcoin.
This is the definition of a liquidity issue.There will of course be an issue with trying to obtain the desired amount of bitcoin.
To be fair the distinction between Direct Listing and IPO isn't really that important. All a direct listing does is reduce the need for underwriters and means new stock is not created. It creates liquidity for existing shareholders and will allow the founders and employees make a lot of money. The logic of coinbase doing it while bitcoin is in this hyperbolic bubble as the title of the thread suggests is clear to see. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter if new investors are going to buy new stock or existing stock. What matters is the price they are going to buy the stock at and without underwriters, the price range and the volatility will be interesting to see. And the valuations of coinbase are simply ridiculous.
Coinbase could be the greatest idea of all time but I can guarantee you thing. The days of exchanges like Coinbase operating under a different regulatory regime to other exchanges will end. They are currently regulated as a Money Services Business and yet are carrying out trading activities and indeed take positions to 'provide liquidity' in their exchange. No other exchange in regulated financial services is allowed to do this. You get an argument that exchanges like coinbase are becoming increasingly relevant to mainstream financial services. Well then, they should be ready to play by the same rules as other exchanges. To be fair to Coinbase, I do believe they have listed regulatory changes as one of the risks of the direct listing.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?