#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.

1) According to the new BlackRock SEC filings, it mentions the use of Bitcoin derivatives and other assets as part of its investment scheme. The futures will be cash-settled, and likely on the CME BTC exchange.
2) If BlackRock was bullish on Bitcoin, they would've directly bought it, but instead they are choosing to buy Future contracts. Why?

With Futures, they can either short or long. Considering BlackRock's historically bearish stance on BTC, It's quite clear they will be shorting.
3) Here's a short clip of BlackRock CEO Larry Fink bashing #Bitcoin, saying theres zero institutional demand, and calling it an ‘index of money laundering':
4) By investing in the Bitcoin futures market, it essentially allows them to gamble on its future price.

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...
5) Let's take a look at what happened when the CME Bitcoin Future's first went live - Where BR will be trading.

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.
6) After the supposedly "bullish" news of BlackRock looking to Bitcoin, we saw a hefty market correction.

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?
7) BlackRock will profit immensely from a bear market. They will also be able to accumulate (real) cheap $BTC after.

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.
8) Instead of them getting direct exposure to it, which would've been bullish, the big banks want to bet on the price, but not hold.

This is because they will be able to artificially suppress it, just like they did to Gold futures in the past.
9) This doesn't necessarily mean anything for the short term. I think the real impact will hit once they are actively trading on the futures market, which might not be for days, weeks or months. This thread is more of a warning.
I know this BlackRock news is bullish for many, but I'm not convinced, especially after 2017's trickery, and the corrupt nature of BlackRock.

I'll keep you all updated on any new BlackRock/BTC news.

Thanks for reading! 🔄♥️

More from Bitcoin

1/THREAD: WHEN WAS IT CLEAR?

Oct. 8, 2020: The purpose of this thread is to document and timestamp when it first became clear that #Bitcoin was likely to become a major reserve asset for public corporations, and eventually states, with Square's purchase of $50M in BTC.

The purpose is to give something to cite when ppl later claim "But there was NO WAY OF KNOWING..."

h/t @ErikSTownsend who used the same format to call out the impact of Covid on Feb 8 and made me personally aware of the looming shutdown of the country
https://t.co/opuiNgSeqC !


Bitcoiners smarter than me have been predicting the takeover of the dollar by Bitcoin for many years.

In 2014 with Bitcoin barely at $1B, @pierre_rochard wrote https://t.co/EGHa58KqHq, covering all the incorrect narratives of Bitcoin and stating it will overtake the dollar.

"[skeptics] misunderstand how strong currencies like bitcoin overtake weak currencies like the dollar: it is through speculative attacks and currency crises caused by investors, not through the careful evaluation of tech journalists and 'mainstream consumers'" - @pierre_rochard

I first became bullish on Bitcoin in the summer of 2016, around a $3B market cap, but it was still a toy project at that time in the eyes of most in the financial world, while many technologists thought of it as a v1 technology to be improved on.
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 -

You May Also Like

I just finished Eric Adler's The Battle of the Classics, and wanted to say something about Joel Christiansen's review linked below. I am not sure what motivates the review (I speculate a bit below), but it gives a very misleading impression of the book. 1/x


The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x

Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x

The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x

It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x