#BlackRock, the world’s largest asset manager with $7.81 trillion AUM, recently granted two of its funds the ability to invest in #Bitcoin futures.
Here's why I think BlackRock investing in Bitcoin futures is bearish, and could result in a major downturn in the coming months.
With Futures, they can either short or long. Considering BlackRock's historically bearish stance on BTC, It's quite clear they will be shorting.
With their large cash size, BlackRock will be the largest player in this market. They can and will tank Bitcoin's price to avoid paying out. Banks have done it before...
They went live in December 2017. This was the perfect tool for Wall Street to take control of Bitcoin, and short it.
We saw an 85% crash in the proceeding months.
Over $200 billon was wiped from the crypto markets as the news spread. For something apparently so bullish, that's an odd reaction, don't you think?
Bitcoin is up over 1000% since March. If you really think the largest asset manager in the world is going to FOMO in at ATH's, I don't know what to tell you.
This is because they will be able to artificially suppress it, just like they did to Gold futures in the past.
More from Bitcoin
I will be a buyer under 13800 levels, but depending upon the reversal on smaller timeframe.
#BITCOIN
— Mayank Narula (@Mayank_Narula1) March 5, 2022
Pending RSI divergence on monthly chart which requires a dip under 13805 to get resolved.
But monthly RSI divergences can go on for years before the resolution.
Best case scenario will be panic dump over next few months. pic.twitter.com/hi67hMg9sZ
$BTC: Two Bitcoin FUDs to address this Thanksgiving weekend:
1. China PlusToken FUD: Old news. Please see linked thread.
2. U.S. Treasury FUD: Read thread below...
1/ These news are much more relevant, as they imply severe trade-offs for people who want to keep their bitcoins undoxxed, with the cost and risks of doing so. I would not disqualify the tweet as mere FUD in the sense that what he posted is false. It should be taken seriously.
2/ For all we know, his decision of making it public before TG weekend may come out of the urgency of informing CT of a poignant anti-Bitcoin move by a Trump administration trying to cut lose ends before leaving office—not just "price manipulation" as I've seen suggested around.
3/ It implies the acceleration of a process already planned for for months in advance, not something he just came up with to "crash the market."
4/ In practicality, assuming this passes, it will have two major consencuences:
a. Armstrong's analysis is correct. And I would go further in saying, this regulation would leave the U.S. severely handicapped to continue to be the leader in the cryptocurrency industry worldwide.
1. China PlusToken FUD: Old news. Please see linked thread.
2. U.S. Treasury FUD: Read thread below...
$BTC:
— David Puell (@kenoshaking) November 27, 2020
1/ So here's the deal with all the PlusToken news we've been seeing recently in the crypto media. Thing is, tho it's just being reported now after the Chinese government put out official balances, @ErgoBTC blew this story open for the on-chain community over a year ago... https://t.co/epNjZaNcJ1
1/ These news are much more relevant, as they imply severe trade-offs for people who want to keep their bitcoins undoxxed, with the cost and risks of doing so. I would not disqualify the tweet as mere FUD in the sense that what he posted is false. It should be taken seriously.
2/ For all we know, his decision of making it public before TG weekend may come out of the urgency of informing CT of a poignant anti-Bitcoin move by a Trump administration trying to cut lose ends before leaving office—not just "price manipulation" as I've seen suggested around.
3/ It implies the acceleration of a process already planned for for months in advance, not something he just came up with to "crash the market."
4/ In practicality, assuming this passes, it will have two major consencuences:
a. Armstrong's analysis is correct. And I would go further in saying, this regulation would leave the U.S. severely handicapped to continue to be the leader in the cryptocurrency industry worldwide.
I have a different take on bitcoin, tether, and dollars
Can also speak with authority on nation state violence
"Nothing makes you feel more free than taking another person's freedom"
and @profplum99 concerns with tether, bitcoin, and decentralization make sense yet I remain long BTC
They are correct on force, I worked in decentralized societies, they are dangerous because the state does not have a monopoly on violence
For those in the first world who have never seen a milita ride out of the desert, kill and enslave farmers, and the government cannot stop it because the 21st century slave trade pays better than the UN, the reality of decentralization is might equals right
I know, that isn't the decentralized future Buterin talks about while wearing a t-shirt with a cat fighting space invaders on it (love those shirts)
But we need to be real, disrupting the global centralized economy won't be like Uber putting taxis out of work
It will be war and faminine level disruption as old empires come alive again
For decentralization to rise the centralized global power of the last 70 years (US Hegemony) has to weaken
Yes we will be rich, but as the Big Short says,
"you can be happy, just don't fucking dance"
Can also speak with authority on nation state violence
"Nothing makes you feel more free than taking another person's freedom"
After much investigation and conversations with people on here, I\u2019ve formed a relatively robust theory of what may be happening with Tether.
— Travis Kimmel (@coloradotravis) January 18, 2021
This thread will attempt to lay it out with neutral language for the purpose of discussion.
1/
and @profplum99 concerns with tether, bitcoin, and decentralization make sense yet I remain long BTC
They are correct on force, I worked in decentralized societies, they are dangerous because the state does not have a monopoly on violence
For those in the first world who have never seen a milita ride out of the desert, kill and enslave farmers, and the government cannot stop it because the 21st century slave trade pays better than the UN, the reality of decentralization is might equals right
I know, that isn't the decentralized future Buterin talks about while wearing a t-shirt with a cat fighting space invaders on it (love those shirts)
But we need to be real, disrupting the global centralized economy won't be like Uber putting taxis out of work
It will be war and faminine level disruption as old empires come alive again
For decentralization to rise the centralized global power of the last 70 years (US Hegemony) has to weaken
Yes we will be rich, but as the Big Short says,
"you can be happy, just don't fucking dance"
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?
