Here’s my thoughts with BTC lending as this cycle heats up. During the previous cycle we saw BTC prices jump from 10,000 to 20,000 in 16 days. This means that if the borrower overcollateralized with an LTV of 50%, their escrow will be liquidated (unless margin is met)...1/
More from Bitcoin
#Bitcoin update:
- Trapped in consolidation between $30 and $38k
- Lower highs and supply above c$38k
- Buying interest on the books £30-33k
- Meme consolidation triangle
- 20 wma @ $19.5k
- Accumulation VWAPs in the 20s
- underlying tether fud
- 61.8% retracement c. $22k
- 3 Day predator unconfirmed Orange candle
- Demand at low $30s was tested today and has since bounced & Coinbase led price on the drop
- Market structure is complex - Triangle is misleading
- Lots of orders stacked @ 30-33k.
- Market is fearful in the demand zone as shown by funding; i do not think we are ready to drop quite yet; Expecting longer consolidation.
- New Tether output has been on hold but new money came today
- Tether case request for 30 more days; could be indicative of consolidation
- Breakdown in price deeper than high $20s / lower $30s would IMO most likely require FUD induced event
- If stars align 20 WMA is catching up fast and will probably be resting in with the accumulation VWAPs, 61.8% retracement &d drives into big buy orders.
- Why did we stop @ $40k?
- Miners deep in profit vs. 654 average; time to tp
- SImilar response in other cycles
https://t.co/Iurd68NnZZ
- Trapped in consolidation between $30 and $38k
- Lower highs and supply above c$38k
- Buying interest on the books £30-33k
- Meme consolidation triangle
- 20 wma @ $19.5k
- Accumulation VWAPs in the 20s
- underlying tether fud
- 61.8% retracement c. $22k
- 3 Day predator unconfirmed Orange candle
- Demand at low $30s was tested today and has since bounced & Coinbase led price on the drop
- Market structure is complex - Triangle is misleading
- Lots of orders stacked @ 30-33k.

- Market is fearful in the demand zone as shown by funding; i do not think we are ready to drop quite yet; Expecting longer consolidation.
- New Tether output has been on hold but new money came today
- Tether case request for 30 more days; could be indicative of consolidation

- Breakdown in price deeper than high $20s / lower $30s would IMO most likely require FUD induced event
- If stars align 20 WMA is catching up fast and will probably be resting in with the accumulation VWAPs, 61.8% retracement &d drives into big buy orders.

- Why did we stop @ $40k?
- Miners deep in profit vs. 654 average; time to tp
- SImilar response in other cycles
https://t.co/Iurd68NnZZ

1/ #Bitcoin FUD-busting time!
claim: bitcoin ownership is heavily concentrated.
@business published an article claiming "2% of accounts control 95% of all Bitcoin" 🤣
truth: the facts, my friends, simple don't line up. let's dive in!
2/ interrogating on-chain addresses is tricky.
address =/ account.
one person can control multiple addresses.
one address can hold bitcoin belonging to multiple ppl.
exchanges and trading firms will have addresses with large balances that represent client funds.
3/ the fine folks @glassnode published an excellent analysis of on-chain address balances in January
the ownership distribution of bitcoin among wallets is actually much more diverse than one might expect.
full piece here:
https://t.co/n5IdIQdNoA
4/ 31% of BTC is held in addresses not identified as exchange wallets.
these are likely institutions, funds, custodians, and OTC desks.
our analysis at @CoinSharesCo indicates >15% of all bitcoin is held in third party custody, including @coinbase and our own @KomainuCustody
5/ in fact, between asset managers @Grayscale ($36B in BTC) and our @xbtprovider ($4B in BTC), 4% of bitcoin is locked up by fund providers and asset managers!
our @CoinSharesCo research team publishes an EXCELLENT weekly report on fund flows and AUMs -
claim: bitcoin ownership is heavily concentrated.
@business published an article claiming "2% of accounts control 95% of all Bitcoin" 🤣
truth: the facts, my friends, simple don't line up. let's dive in!
2/ interrogating on-chain addresses is tricky.
address =/ account.
one person can control multiple addresses.
one address can hold bitcoin belonging to multiple ppl.
exchanges and trading firms will have addresses with large balances that represent client funds.
3/ the fine folks @glassnode published an excellent analysis of on-chain address balances in January
the ownership distribution of bitcoin among wallets is actually much more diverse than one might expect.
full piece here:
https://t.co/n5IdIQdNoA

4/ 31% of BTC is held in addresses not identified as exchange wallets.
these are likely institutions, funds, custodians, and OTC desks.
our analysis at @CoinSharesCo indicates >15% of all bitcoin is held in third party custody, including @coinbase and our own @KomainuCustody
5/ in fact, between asset managers @Grayscale ($36B in BTC) and our @xbtprovider ($4B in BTC), 4% of bitcoin is locked up by fund providers and asset managers!
our @CoinSharesCo research team publishes an EXCELLENT weekly report on fund flows and AUMs -
You May Also Like
This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?
Imagine for a moment the most obscurantist, jargon-filled, po-mo article the politically correct academy might produce. Pure SJW nonsense. Got it? Chances are you're imagining something like the infamous "Feminist Glaciology" article from a few years back.https://t.co/NRaWNREBvR pic.twitter.com/qtSFBYY80S
— Jeffrey Sachs (@JeffreyASachs) October 13, 2018
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.

Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)

There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.

At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?