#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
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.
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 !
1/THREAD: WHEN WAS IT CLEAR?
— Erik Townsend \U0001f6e2\ufe0f (@ErikSTownsend) February 8, 2020
Feb. 8, 2020: The purpose of this thread is to document and timestamp when it first became clear that nCov was likely to lead to a global pandemic.
The purpose is to give something to cite when ppl later claim "But there was NO WAY OF KNOWING..."
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 -
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
As someone\u2019s who\u2019s read the book, this review strikes me as tremendously unfair. It mostly faults Adler for not writing the book the reviewer wishes he had! https://t.co/pqpt5Ziivj
— Teresa M. Bejan (@tmbejan) January 12, 2021
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