You may be in quarantine, but that doesn’t mean we aren’t! For those who don’t know, every month this subreddit makes a millionaire out of one comment, and donates. With danger out and about, take some time and comment to enter! [Drawing Thread #52]
I thought this year would be a lot more normal.
Introduction: Welcome to anyone and everyone coming from /popular. To be honest, I probably should've expected this, given that most of us are staying home. For those who aren't familiar: every month, we ask for comments for entry, and we pick one who represents our winner. This process is completely random and verifiable, using the Bitcoin blockchain as a sophisticated die. Following this, people then donate to the winner using a variety of mediums, and the winner would go on to be a "millionaire" (arguably, our definition of that term is pretty loose). So once again, thank you for your support. The post lasts for 24 hours before getting locked, so make sure you place your comment before 7 PM ET. In addition, I may make a [Part 2] if we reach the limit. If that happens, I will sticky a comment on this post temporarily. Let's make a millionaire! In Case You Missed It:
REQUIRED: Leave only one (1) top level comment in reply to this thread! (Replying to other comments will not qualify. You must be thirty days old or older to comment.)
A random user who commented will be chosen, and everyone donates a dollar to make a millionaire.
February 19 at 7:00 PM ET (epoch timestamp: 1582153200 (a bit tricky taking DST into consideration, it’s been updated)) is the cutoff for accounts. If you have created your account after this point, you are not eligible to enter and your submission will be disqualified automatically.
March 22 at 12:00 PM ET (epoch timestamp: 1584892800) will begin the process of selecting the winner. At this time, the [Draw] post will be online and start the process of waiting for the blockchain, in order to select the winner randomly and verifiably.
Mini Survey: NOTE: A Google account is required to respond to hinder tampering, but you are not obligated to answer. So I’ve been thinking about this for a while: people are not having pleasant experiences with PayPal. If the account isn’t blocked, then there are issues with fees, fear of the seizure of funds, and the risk of revealing personally identifiable information. However, it is the largest platform used by /MillionaireMakers, and is the provider of most donations on this subreddit. This survey is purely to see how people feel about this. Unless if the winner chooses to not accept PayPal, we will continue to offer this service for tonight’s thread. My questions are: 1) How would you feel about a ban on the PayPal service here on /MillionaireMakers? 2) Would removing PayPal as a service affect your ability to donate? 3) Should /MillionaireMakers remove PayPal? I will periodically post results here. If you are interested in responding, please answer here, answers will not be accepted at the time the [Draw] is posted: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSffkP3SKdTi9lLPbtO8taG4_-cdctYlAf8SvohvzoJvTOYdhw/viewform?usp=sf_link Drawing Process Mini-Update: This is as short as they come, leroy627 has made a commit to the repository that adds backwards-compatibility up to Python 3.5. Procedure will be run with the following conditions: the first comment of duplicates are kept for the month of March, and any ineligible comments will be removed. If you are interested in more information, see [Drawing Thread #51]: https://reddit.com/millionairemakers/comments/f7jdxz/alright_were_getting_back_into_the_flow_happy/
Sunday at 12 PM ET (16 UTC), we will be picking our winner, and you won’t want to miss it. The post will be labeled [Draw], and one comment will be selected out of the many made here to make a winner! Remember, this is about generosity, making an impact, and uniting to make someone's life better. It takes three minutes to donate a bit to the winner, whether you're well off and want to donate a couple bucks, or going through tough times and can only donate a few coins. Every cent makes cents, and counts! If a lone $1 can get you a mask for obvious reasons, then imagine the possibilities with $1,000,000. You can get a full-body suit, new doors, and someone to love you! Admittedly, for the wrong reasons, but the option is there. A million dollars can make someone’s suffering less sufferable. Spread the word: have your friends and family comment, post the link to your friendly-neighborhood social media network, and share it to anyone interested.
Let’s make a millionaire!
Why, kind Haiku? Why? Am I to atone in home? Perhaps. I’ll get by.
While not quite as strong as April, May was undeniably a strong month overall, especially with the last minute push that saw Bitcoin climb over the $10k mark. Although BTC (and the market overall) has fallen in the last few days while I’ve been compiling these updates, we saw almost every 2018 Top Ten crypto end the month of May higher than where it started.
A) One B) Three C) Five D) None of the above Scroll down for the answer.
Ranking and May Winners and Losers
Half of our 2018 Top Ten group were on the move in May. Cardano made the most upward progress, climbing two positions to #11. IOTA picked up rose one spot in the standings to #24 as well. On the other side, NEM keeps slipping, losing three spots to #30. Dash and Stellar also dropped two positions each in May. The overall drop out rate remains at the 50% mark (meaning half of the cryptos that started 2018 in the Top Ten have dropped out). NEM, Dash, IOTA, Cardano, and Stellar have been replaced by EOS, Binance Coin, Tezos, Tether, and BSV. May Winners – Massive month for ADA, up an impressive +62%. That’s about what Cardano gained last month, so, yeah, Cardano is having a great spring. IOTA also had a solid month, up +28%. May Losers – XRP lost about -4% making it the worst performing of this group in May. How has your favorite crypto fared over the first 29 months of the 2018 Top Ten Crypto Index Fund Experiment? Most monthly wins (7): Bitcoin. Most monthly losses (5) is a now tie between Stellar and NEM. All cryptos have at least one monthly win and Bitcoin stands alone as the only crypto that hasn’t lost a month (although it came close in January 2020 when it gained “only” +31%).
Overall update – BTC still way ahead, ETH firmly in second place, NEM worst performing.
Bitcoin made up more ground in May, now down -23% since January 2018. The last time we saw this price level to end a month was August 2019. The initial $100 investment is now worth about $77. BTC is still well ahead of the field and Ethereum is firmly in second place. This may feel like a foregone conclusion at this point, but for context, long time 2018 Top Ten Experiment followers will note that this has not always been the case. Just a little over a year ago for example, BTC was second place behind Stellar. NEM (down -95%) is in last place. That initial $100 investment in NEM? Now worth $4.74.
Total Market Cap for the entire cryptocurrency sector:
The overall crypto market added about $35B in May 2020, back near August 2019 levels. This is down about half from January 2018 when the market was worth roughly $575B.
Another flat month for Bitcoin dominance, which hasn’t moved at all in the last three months. For context, the range since the beginning of the experiment in January 2018 has been wide: a high of 70% BitDom in September 2019 and a low of 33% BitDom in February 2018.
Overall return on investment since January 1st, 2018:
The 2018 Top Ten Portfolio gained about $20 bucks in May 2020, back near where it was at the end of February. If I cashed out today, my $1000 initial investment would return about $205, down -79% from January 2018. Here’s the ROI over the life of the experiment, month by month: The streak of nine consecutive months down at least -80% was finally broken in May. Just barely (at -79%), but hey, I’ll take it. July 2019 was the last time the 2018 Top Ten finished a month in the negative seventies. What about the negative sixties? That level hasn’t been seen in about two years. Painful stuff. What about the follow on Experiments? Let’s see:
So overall? Taking the three portfolios together, here’s the bottom bottom bottom line: After a $3000 investment in the 2018, 2019, and 2020 Top Ten Cryptocurrencies, my portfolios are worth $3,104. That’s up about +3.5% for the combined portfolios. Better than a few months ago (aka the zombie apocalypse) where it was down -24%, but not yet back at January (+13%) or February (+6%) levels.
Comparison to S&P 500:
I’m also tracking the S&P 500 as part of the experiment to have a comparison point with other popular investments options. The stock market (as measured by the S&P) continued to recover in May. It’s pretty amazing with all that’s going on in the world, but the market is already back up where it was in February 2020. The initial $1k investment into crypto on New Year’s Day 2018 would have gained about $140 had it been redirected to the S&P. This is where it gets interesting. Taking the same drop-$1,000-per-year-on-January-1st approach with the S&P 500 that I’ve been documenting through the Top Ten Crypto Experiments would yield the following:
$1000 investment in S&P 500 on January 1st, 2018: +$140
$1000 investment in S&P 500 on January 1st, 2019: +$220
$1000 investment in S&P 500 on January 1st, 2020: -$50
Taken together, here’s the bottom bottom bottom line for a similar approach with the S&P: After three $1,000 investments into an S&P 500 index fund in January 2018, 2019, and 2020, my portfolio would be worth $3,310. That is up over+10%since January 2018, compared to the $3,104 value (+3.5%) of the combined Top Ten Crypto Experiment Portfolios. That’s about a 7% difference in favor of the stock market. Last month, there was only a 3% difference. The month before, the gap was 13%.
No news here: the 2018 Experiment’s focus of solely holding the Top Ten Cryptos has not and has never been a winning approach when compared to the overall market. The total market cap is down -51% from January 2018 compared to the -79% for the cryptos that began 2018 in the Top Ten. This of course implies that I would have done a bit better if I’d picked different cryptos – but much better than if I’d put all my eggs in NEM‘s -95% basket, for example. To reiterate, at no point in this experiment has this investment strategy been successful: the initial 2018 Top Ten have under-performed each of the twenty-nine months compared to the market overall. In the following two Top Ten experiments, it’s a slightly different story. There are a few examples of this approach outperforming the overall market in the parallel 2019 Top Ten Crypto Experiment. For the most recent 2020 group, this approach had outperformed the overall market 100% of the time…until this month.
The Bitcoin halving turned out to be a non event and markets continue to steadily rise despite riots in the US and a global pandemic. We’re almost half way through a very strange year. As the world changes, what will crypto’s place be in the new normal? Final word: Please take care of yourselves, your families, and your communities. Be excellent to each other. Thanks for reading and for supporting the experiment. I hope you’ve found it helpful. I continue to be committed to seeing this process through and reporting along the way. Feel free to reach out with any questions and stay tuned for progress reports. Keep an eye out for my parallel projects where I repeat the experiment twice, purchasing another $1000 ($100 each) of two new sets of Top Ten cryptos as of January 1st, 2019 then again on January 1st, 2020.
And the Answer is…
B) Three Bitcoin’s third halving event took place May 2020.
$1,000 invested in Top 10 Cryptos of 2019 now worth $1,260 (UP +26%)
EXPERIMENT - Tracking Top 10 Cryptos of 2019 - Month Eighteen - UP +26% See the full blog post with all the tableshere. tl;dr - Tether (as it's designed to do) holds its ground, all others finish the month in negative territory. Tron finishes June in second place, down -2%. BSV loses nearly 25% of value in June. Overall, since January 2019, BTC in lead, ETH takes over second place, XRP still worst performing. The 2019 Top 10 is up +26% almost equal to the the gains of the S&P 500 over the same time period (+24%).
According to a June article citing unnamed sources, which two FinTech companies are planning to allow their users to buy and sell crypto directly?
A) Paypal and Venmo B) Square and Cashapp C) Robinhood and Revolut D) Sofi and Coinbase Scroll down for the answer.
Ranking and June Winners and Losers
XRP and Stellar slipped one place each in the rankings in June, now at #4 and #14 respectively. EOS fell two spots to #11 and joins Stellar and Tron as the only three cryptos to have dropped out of the 2019 Top Ten since January 1st, 2019. They have been replaced by Binance Coin, Cardano, and newcomer CRO. Tether was the only crypto to move up in rank in June. Not a good sign when Tether is the only crypto to move up. Not a good sign when Tether enters the Top 3. June Winners – Tether. Second comes Tron, which basically held its ground at -2%. June Losers – BSV lost -23% of its value in June making it the worst performing of the 2019 Top Ten portfolio. EOS had a rough month as well, down -17%, dropping two spots in the rankings, and falling out of the Top Ten. If you’re keeping score, here is tally of which coins have the most monthly wins and loses during the first 18 months of the 2019 Top Ten Experiment: Tether is still in the lead with six monthly victories followed by BSV in second place with three. BSV also holds the most monthly losses, finishing last in seven out of eighteen months. The only crypto not to win a month so far? XRP. (In fairness, XRP has also not lost any month yet).
Overall update – BTC in lead, ETH takes over second place, XRP still worst performing
BTC is out front for the second straight month and ETH has taken over second place from BSV. Ahead until April, BSV has simply not keep up with the pack over the last two months. Bitcoin is up +144% since January 2019. The initial $100 investment in BTC is currently worth $249. Eighteen months in, 50% of the 2019 Top Ten cryptos are in the green since the beginning of the experiment. The other five cryptos are either flat or in negative territory, including last place XRP (down -50% since January 2019).
Total Market Cap for the entire cryptocurrency sector:
The crypto market as a whole is down about $20B in June, but still up +106% since January 2019.
BitDom finally wobbled in June, but not by much – it’s been in a very familiar zone for months now, indicating a lack of excitement (or at least a low risk tolerance) for altcoins. Taking a wider view, the Bitcoin Dominance range since the beginning of the experiment in January 2019 has ranged between 50%-70%.
Overall return on investment since January 1st, 2019:
The 2019 Top Ten Portfolio lost almost $175 in June. After the initial $1000 investment, the 2019 group of Top Ten cryptos is worth $1,259. That’s up about +26%. Here’s a look at the ROI over the life of the first 18 months of the 2019 Top Ten Index Fund experiment, month by month: 18 months of ROI, mostly green Unlike the completely red table you’ll see in the 2018 Top Ten Experiment, the 2019 crypto table is almost all green. The first month was the lowest point (-9%), and the highest point (+114%) was May 2019. How does the 2019 Top Ten Index Fund Portfolio compare to the parallel projects?
Taking the three portfolios together, here’s the bottom bottom bottom line: After a $3000 investment in the 2018, 2019, and 2020 Top Ten Cryptocurrencies, the combined portfolios are worth $2,710. That’s down about -10% for the three combined portfolios. Last month that figure was +4%. Better than a few months ago (aka the zombie apocalypse) where it was down -24%, but not yet back at January (+13%) or February (+6%) levels. Here’s a new table to help visualize the progress of the combined portfolios: ROI of all three combined portfolios - not exactly inspiring How do crypto returns compare to traditional markets?
Comparison to S&P 500:
Good thing I’m tracking the S&P 500 as part of my experiment to have a comparison point with other popular investments options. Even with unemployment, protests, and COVID, the US market continued to rebound in June. It’s now up +24% in the last 18 months. The initial $1k investment I put into crypto would be worth $1,240 had it been redirected to the S&P 500 in January 2019. As a reminder (or just scroll up) the 2019 Top Ten portfolio is returning +26% over last 18 months, just about equal to the return of the S&P 500 over the same time period. Just last month the ROI of the 2019 Top Ten crypto portfolio was nearly double the S&P 500 since January 1st, 2019. But what if I took the same world’s-slowest-dollar-cost-averaging/$1,000-per-year-in-January approach with the S&P 500? It would yield the following:
$1000 investment in S&P 500 on January 1st, 2018: +$170
$1000 investment in S&P 500 on January 1st, 2019: +$240
$1000 investment in S&P 500 on January 1st, 2020: -$40
Taken together, here’s the bottom bottom bottom line for a similar approach with the S&P: After three $1,000 investments into an S&P 500 index fund in January 2018, 2019, and 2020, my portfolio would be worth $3,370. That $3,370 is up over+12%since January 2018, compared to the $2,710 value (-10%) of the combined Top Ten Crypto Experiment Portfolios. Here’s another new table that compares the ROI of the combined crypto portfolios to a hypothetical similar approach with the S&P 500: We see in June the largest difference in favor of the S&P since the beginning of 2020: a 22% gap. Compare that February, when there was only a 1% difference in ROI.
Since January 2019, the crypto market as a whole has gained +106% compared to the 2019 Top Ten Crypto Portfolio which has gained +26%. That’s an 80% gap. At this point in the 2019 Experiment, an investor would have done much better picking different cryptos or investing in the entire market instead of focusing only on the 2019 Top Ten. Over the course of the first 18 months of tracking the 2019 Top Ten, there have been instances this was a winning strategy, but the cases have been few and far between. The 2018 Top Ten portfolio, on the other hand, has never outperformed the overall market, at least not in the first thirty months of that Experiment. And for the most recent 2020 Top Ten group? The opposite had been true: the 2020 Top Ten had easily outperformed the overall market 100% of the time…up until the last two months.
As the world continues to battle COVID, traditional markets seem to be recovering. Will crypto make a significant move in the second half of 2020? Final word: Stay safe and take care of each other. Thanks for reading and for supporting the experiment. I hope you’ve found it helpful. I continue to be committed to seeing this process through and reporting along the way. Feel free to reach out with any questions and stay tuned for progress reports. Keep an eye out for the original 2018 Top Ten Crypto Index Fund Experiment and the recently launched 2020 Top Ten Experiment.
And the Answer is…
A) Paypal and Venmo According to a Coindesk report in June, three sources familiar with the matter say that Paypal and Paypal-owned Venmo are planning to allow their users to buy and sell crypto. Paypal has declined to comment.
dxDAO aims to power DeFi protocols through decentralized governance
I found this article on internet. It's repost of it to help educate people about all DXDao advantages: These are positive and necessary steps for DeFi. The new governance structures are intended to help coordinate across community stakeholders and make better decisions. These dynamics are influenced by the issues covered in Dose of DeFi, but I believe they deserve their own focused analysis. Govern Thisaims to educate token holders and make them better voters. Emphasis will be placed on specific governance proposals and relaying community governance discussions on forums and weekly calls. Governance is a coordination technology that has helped countries and companies build more than the sum of their parts. Blockchains are also a coordination technology, but for computers, not humans***.*** Govern Thiswill track the development of the melding of these two over the coming years. Like governance,Govern Thisis a work in progress. I would appreciate any feedback on format, topics covered or any other suggestions to make the newsletter better. Just hit reply. The first issue ofGovern Thisis below. Pleaseclick here to subscribe. Thanks for reading, Chris 📷 dxDAO aims to power DeFi protocols through decentralized governance Gnosis launched a long-awaited DEX last week with batched auctions for low-liquidity trade pairs. The front-end, Mesa.Eth.Link is owned and operated by dxDAO, a decentralized collective that hopes to power other DeFi protocols. While dYdX does not have any specific governance plans (yet), this tweet from dYdX founder Antonio Juliano is a common approach to governance. 📷Antonio Juliano @AntonioMJuliano3) 0x should focus less on governance in the short term. It’s way more important to first build something with a large amount of adoption that’s worth governing December 6th 2018 3 Retweets62 Likes The tweet at the end of 2018 was in response to 0x and its native token, ZRX. The project was popular but the token had no use case outside of governance. This governance strategy – build now, decentralize later – is widely accepted in the space and is perhaps best exemplified by the A16Z’s Jesse Walden’s post, “Progressive Decentralization: A Playbook for Building Crypto Applications”, which the A16Z-backed Compound has essentially implemented (more in the section below). dxDAO, on the other hand, maintains that decentralization must come at the beginning or else the core team and investors will have an outsized influence on the project in formal (token voting) or informal ways (dictators for life). Background dxDAO was launched in May 2019, spun out of a collaboration between Gnosis and DAOstack over managing the DutchX platform. dxDAO’s key governance design is separating financial rights to the DAO (DXD) from voting power over the DAO (Reputation). It used an Edgeware-style lock drop to distribute reputation to stakeholders in May of last year. Any user could lock up ETH or an accepted ERC-20 for a month and receive Reputation, which are voting rights in dxDAO, even though it is not a token and cannot be transferred. Over 400 unique Ethereum addresses participated in the distribution scheme. Gnosis went through a pretty extensive process in July 2019 to “step back” from its involvement in the DAO, and since then, the community and dxDAO have aligned behind a mission of “putting the ‘De’ in Decentralized Finance”. Following on last week’s launch of Mesa.ETH.Link, dxDAO is conducting a fundraiser or (“DAICO”?) to help fund its new slate of DeFi products, including a prediction market platform (Omen) and a privacy-centric DeFi dashboard (Mix). Project launch is typically when a project is most centralized. Execution is hard and direction and accountability are important. dxDAO’s approach will be an interesting counterexample to the “decentralize later” trend and may provide insight into new governance strategies. Click here for more information about the dxDAO fundraiser. Here’s what is on the dxDAO docket this week:
There are no explicit plans yet, but the widely held assumption is that the COMP distribution will be determined by the interest earned and paid by users on the protocol since its inception. This is a clever way that only incentivizes more use of the protocol and is hard to game because interests accrues over time. But the question still remains, what will the COMP community look like and what values will it espouse? Can emergent cultures arise out of Silicon Valley too? Here’s what is on the Compound docket this week:
Governance AMA with Compound CEO Robert Leshner - Robert answered a variety of questions on ETH2.0 (staking yield is of great interest), Chainlink (Compound’s oracle system is better), contentious forks (Compound would signal a preference on chain) and how Covid-19 changed his mind about remote work. They also announced…
Proposal: Add USDT Support – announced on the AMA, USDT was approved by Compound users in a poll last September but had yet to be included. The proposal to add the largest stablecoin in the world is the first test for the new governance portal. (Very) notably, the proposal does not allow USDT to be used as collateral, as Compound currently does with wBTC. It’s not clear if Compound wants to be in the largest stablecoin market or not and underscores the governance challenges of straddling both worlds.
Head of Community Rich started off with a new meme for governance: the path from intent to implementation, discussing how forums, polls and other initiatives are designed to capture the intent of the community, and then “empowered people” are tasked with implementing that, foreshadowing upcoming changes.
Half of the call was devoted to the addition of WBTC as collateral with representatives from WBTC, Bitgo and CoinList in attendance. CoinList’s WBTC announcement gives WBTC the type of liquidity needed for Maker’s auctions (“can redeem WBTC in less than 2 minutes and burn less than that”). Most of the discussion revolved around the circular loop from BTC->DAI in times of high volatility. While there was some concern that WBTC liquidity was dependent on acceptance as Maker collateral, most on the call seemed to support the addition. The strongest support seemed to come from the Maker Foundation’s market making team, who is reportedly the largest market maker for WBTC. There’s more in the Maker forum thread.
State of the peg – Vishesh’s overview (graphs can be seen here) showed that the peg had come down to $1.01x area but most of the discussion was around the debt ceiling. At the time of the call it was 4 million away from its 90m debt ceiling. Vishesh advocated for a more programmatic lifting of the debt ceiling. Update: Dai hit the 90m debt ceiling Friday evening ET. Should help the peg.
Single Collateral Dai shutdown – the process has begun. A poll passed with May 12 as the official SCD shutdown. Just yesterday, an executive just passed yesterday to make the MKR oracle fee-less, which will help with migration. Many in the community think the migration of debt from SCD will do more than enough to restore the peg. 13 MIPs and 2 sub proposals – Core to the new Maker governance process is the “Maker Improvement Proposals (MIPs), which are modeled off of BIPs (for Bitcoin) and EIPs (for Ethereum). The two sub-proposals are to appoint the Smart Contracts Team and assign Charles St. Louis as the MIP editor. The 13 MIPs are listed below:
By and large, the MIPs codify many of the informal Maker governance processes. There is currently a request for comments period (MIP forum) and there will be an informal poll on Monday, April 27 on whether to proceed with the 13 MIPs and 2 sub proposals. If it’s a “Yes”, than an executive for an official ratification vote would start on May 1 and lasts for 4 days. If it passes, the official governance cycle will begin and the rest of the MIPs will likely be approved from May 4 – 6. Other Governing Things
Synthetix trials incentivzation program to encourage ETH shorts to balance debt position Link
PieDAO community call on audit and post imBTC actions Link
Coinbase Custody double downs on DeFi governance Link
Terra considers punishing validators that don’t vote Link
0x governance proposal to decrease epoch length to 7 days Link
That’s it! Feedback definitely appreciated. Just hit reply. Written in Brooklyn where it rained all day. No euchre today, but yesterday was epic. Govern This is written byChris Powers. Opinions expressed are my own. All content is for informational purposes and is not intended as investment advice.
Testing the Tide | Monthly FIRE Portfolio Update - June 2020
We would rather be ruined than changed. -W H Auden, The Age of Anxiety This is my forty-third portfolio update. I complete this update monthly to check my progress against my goal. Portfolio goal My objective is to reach a portfolio of $2 180 000 by 1 July 2021. This would produce a real annual income of about $87 000 (in 2020 dollars). This portfolio objective is based on an expected average real return of 3.99 per cent, or a nominal return of 6.49 per cent. Portfolio summary Vanguard Lifestrategy High Growth Fund – $726 306 Vanguard Lifestrategy Growth Fund – $42 118 Vanguard Lifestrategy Balanced Fund – $78 730 Vanguard Diversified Bonds Fund – $111 691 Vanguard Australian Shares ETF (VAS) – $201 745 Vanguard International Shares ETF (VGS) – $39 357 Betashares Australia 200 ETF (A200) – $231 269 Telstra shares (TLS) – $1 668 Insurance Australia Group shares (IAG) – $7 310 NIB Holdings shares (NHF) – $5 532 Gold ETF (GOLD.ASX) – $117 757 Secured physical gold – $18 913 Ratesetter (P2P lending) – $10 479 Bitcoin – $148 990 Raiz app (Aggressive portfolio) – $16 841 Spaceship Voyager app (Index portfolio) – $2 553 BrickX (P2P rental real estate) – $4 484 Total portfolio value: $1 765 743 (+$8 485 or 0.5%) Asset allocation Australian shares – 42.2% (2.8% under) Global shares – 22.0% Emerging markets shares – 2.3% International small companies – 3.0% Total international shares – 27.3% (2.7% under) Total shares – 69.5% (5.5% under) Total property securities – 0.3% (0.3% over) Australian bonds – 4.7% International bonds – 9.4% Total bonds – 14.0% (1.0% under) Gold – 7.7% Bitcoin – 8.4% Gold and alternatives – 16.2% (6.2% over) Presented visually, below is a high-level view of the current asset allocation of the portfolio. [Chart] Comments The overall portfolio increased slightly over the month. This has continued to move the portfolio beyond the lows seen in late March. The modest portfolio growth of $8 000, or 0.5 per cent, maintains its value at around that achieved at the beginning of the year. [Chart] The limited growth this month largely reflects an increase in the value of my current equity holdings, in VAS and A200 and the Vanguard retail funds. This has outweighed a small decline in the value of Bitcoin and global shares. The value of the bond holdings also increased modestly, pushing them to their highest value since around early 2017. [Chart] There still appears to be an air of unreality around recent asset price increases and the broader economic context. Britain's Bank of England has on some indicators shown that the aftermath of the pandemic and lockdown represent the most challenging financial crisis in around 300 years. What is clear is that investor perceptions and fear around the coronavirus pandemic are a substantial ongoing force driving volatility in equity markets (pdf). A somewhat optimistic view is provided here that the recovery could look more like the recovery from a natural disaster, rather than a traditional recession. Yet there are few certainties on offer. Negative oil prices, and effective offers by US equity investors to bail out Hertz creditors at no cost appear to be signs of a financial system under significant strains. As this Reserve Bank article highlights, while some Australian households are well-placed to weather the storm ahead, the timing and severity of what lays ahead is an important unknown that will itself feed into changes in household wealth from here. Investments this month have been exclusively in the Australian shares exchange-traded fund (VAS) using Selfwealth.* This has been to bring my actual asset allocation more closely in line with the target split between Australian and global shares. A moving azimuth: falling spending continues Monthly expenses on the credit card have continued their downward trajectory across the past month. [Chart] The rolling average of monthly credit card spending is now at its lowest point over the period of the journey. This is despite the end of lockdown, and a slow resumption of some more normal aspects of spending. This has continued the brief period since April of the achievement of a notional and contingent kind of financial independence. The below chart illustrates this temporary state, setting out the degree to which portfolio distributions cover estimated total expenses, measured month to month. [Chart] There are two sources of volatility underlying its movement. The first is the level of expenses, which can vary, and the second is the fact that it is based on financial year distributions, which are themselves volatile. Importantly, the distributions over the last twelve months of this chart is only an estimate - and hence the next few weeks will affect the precision of this analysis across its last 12 observations. Estimating 2019-20 financial year portfolio distributions Since the beginning of the journey, this time of year usually has sense of waiting for events to unfold - in particular, finding out the level of half-year distributions to June. These represent the bulk of distributions, usually averaging 60-65 per cent of total distributions received. They are an important and tangible signpost of progress on the financial independence journey. This is no simple task, as distributions have varied in size considerably. A part of this variation has been the important role of sometimes large and lumpy capital distributions - which have made up between 30 to 48 per cent of total distributions in recent years, and an average of around 15 per cent across the last two decades. I have experimented with many different approaches, most of which have relied on averaging over multi-year periods to even out the 'peaks and troughs' of how market movements may have affected distributions. The main approaches have been:
An 'adjusted income' approach - stripping out the capital gains components of Vanguard funds to reach an estimate of underlying income generation, both across the entire investment period, and during the sharpest low of the Global Financial Crisis
A long-term asset class approach - relying on long-term historical data on averages of the income produced by various asset classes
A 'tax method' approach - this derives an income estimate as a percentage of the portfolio by drawing on taxable investment income totals from tax return records
Simple historical rolling average - this is a rolling three-year measure, based on the actual distributions record of the portfolio
Average distribution rate approach - this method uses a long-term average of annual distributions received as a percentage of the total portfolio since 1999
Each of these have their particular simplifications, advantages and drawbacks. Developing new navigation tools Over the past month I have also developed more fully an alternate 'model' for estimating returns. This simply derives a median value across a set of historical 'cents per unit' distribution data for June and December payouts for the Vanguard funds and exchange traded funds. These make up over 96 per cent of income producing portfolio assets. In other words, this model essentially assumes that each Vanguard fund and ETF owned pays out the 'average' level of distributions this half-year, with the average being based on distribution records that typically go back between 5 to 10 years. Mapping the distribution estimates The chart below sets out the estimate produced by each approach for the June distributions that are to come. [Chart] Some observations on these findings can be made. The lowest estimate is the 'adjusted GFC income' observation, which essentially assumes that the income for this period is as low as experienced by the equity and bond portfolio during the Global Financial Crisis. Just due to timing differences of the period observed, this seems to be a 'worst case' lower bound estimate, which I do not currently place significant weight on. Similarly, at the highest end, the 'average distribution rate' approach simply assumes June distributions deliver a distribution equal to the median that the entire portfolio has delivered since 1999. With higher interest rates, and larger fixed income holdings across much of that time, this seems an objectively unlikely outcome. Similarly, the delivery of exactly the income suggested by long-term averages measured across decades and even centuries would be a matter of chance, rather than the basis for rational expectations. Central estimates of the line of position This leaves the estimates towards the centre of the chart - estimates of between around $28 000 to $43 000 as representing the more likely range. I attach less weight to the historical three-year average due to the high contribution of distributed capital gains over that period of growth, where at least across equities some capital losses are likely to be in greater presence. My preferred central estimate is the model estimate (green) , as it is based in historical data directly from the investment vehicles rather than my own evolving portfolio. The data it is based on in some cases goes back to the Global Financial Crisis. This estimate is also quite close to the raw average of all the alternative approaches (red). It sits a little above the 'adjusted income' measure. None of these estimates, it should be noted, contain any explicit adjustment for the earnings and dividend reductions or delays arising from COVID-19. They may, therefore represent a modest over-estimate for likely June distributions, to the extent that these effects are more negative than those experienced on average across the period of the underlying data. These are difficult to estimate, but dividend reductions could easily be in the order of 20-30 per cent, plausibly lowering distributions to the $23 000 to $27 000 range. The recently announced forecast dividend for the Vanguard Australian Shares ETF (VAS) is, for example, the lowest in four years. As seen from chart above, there is a wide band of estimates, which grow wider still should capital gains be unexpectedly distributed from the Vanguard retail funds. These have represented a source of considerable volatility. Given this, it may seem fruitless to seek to estimate these forthcoming distributions, compared to just waiting for them to arrive. Yet this exercise helps by setting out reasoning and positions, before hindsight bias urgently arrives to inform me that I knew the right answer all along. It also potentially helps clearly 'reject' some models over time, if the predictions they make prove to be systematically incorrect. Progress Progress against the objective, and the additional measures I have reached is set out below. Measure Portfolio All Assets Portfolio objective – $2 180 000 (or $87 000 pa) 81.0% 109.4% Credit card purchases – $71 000 pa 98.8% 133.5% Total expenses – $89 000 pa 79.2% 106.9% Summary The current coronavirus conditions are affecting all aspects of the journey to financial independence - changing spending habits, leading to volatility in equity markets and sequencing risks, and perhaps dramatically altering the expected pattern of portfolio distributions. Although history can provide some guidance, there is simply no definitive way to know whether any or all of these changes will be fundamental and permanent alterations, or simply data points on a post-natural disaster path to a different post-pandemic set of conditions. There is the temptation to fit past crises imperfectly into the modern picture, as this Of Dollars and Data post illustrates well. Taking a longer 100 year view, this piece 'The Allegory of the Hawk and Serpent' is a reminder that our entire set of received truths about constructing a portfolio to survive for the long-term can be a product of a sample size of one - actual past history - and subject to recency bias. This month has felt like one of quiet routines, muted events compared to the past few months, and waiting to understand more fully the shape of the new. Nonetheless, with each new investment, or week of lower expenditure than implied in my FI target, the nature of the journey is incrementally changing - beneath the surface. Small milestones are being passed - such as over 40 per cent of my equity holdings being outside of the the Vanguard retail funds. Or these these retail funds - which once formed over 95 per cent of the portfolio - now making up less than half. With a significant part of the financial independence journey being about repeated small actions producing outsized results with time, the issue of maintaining good routines while exploring beneficial changes is real. Adding to the complexity is that embarking on the financial journey itself is likely to change who one is. This idea, of the difficulty or impossibility of knowing the preferences of a future self, is explored in a fascinating way in this Econtalk podcast episode with a philosophical thought experiment about vampires. It poses the question: perhaps we can never know ourselves at the destination? And yet, who would rationally choose ruin over any change? The post, links and full charts can be seen here.
What A Day: Kemporary Insanity by Sarah Lazarus & Crooked Media (07/16/20)
"I don’t have Bitcoin, and I’ll never ask you to send me any." - Joe Biden, with the most keepable promise of his campaign to date
Why Can't ICU
Multiple states are poised to run out of hospital beds and supplies, the White House has seized control of new hospitalization data, and some Republican leaders are still actively thwarting measures that keep people out of the hospital. What could go wrong?
A day after the Trump administration rerouted coronavirus-data collection from the CDC to the Department of Health and Human Services, data that was previously public temporarily disappeared. The CDC’s hospital-capacity dashboard was taken down entirely, then restored with the note, “This file will not be updated after July 14, 2020 and includes data from April 1 to July 14.” The data that the CDC can no longer update includes current inpatient and ICU-bed capacity, health-care worker staffing, and PPE-supply status.
That change comes as hospitalizations in the U.S. approach a record high. In Arizona, where 90 percent of hospital beds were occupied as of Tuesday, doctors say that scarce resources will soon require them to ration medical care. Health experts in Texas and California also say ICU capacity is a top concern, and hospitals in Texas and Florida are running out of staff. Because the country hasn’t returned to full lockdown, medical workers have no clear idea of when (or if) the current outbreaks will peak and decline.
While doctors nervously wonder if they have enough remdesivir, the White House is focused on the question that truly matters: Who doesn’t love the boss enough? The presidential-personnel office has been conducting one-on-one interviews with health officials and hundreds of other political appointees, asking for their thoughts on administration policies in an effort to ferret out anyone who isn’t sufficiently loyal to President Trump. (Better than the other way, which is when Stephen Miller eats a slip of paper with your name on it and if his eyes glow red, you’re fired.)
Outside the White House, some Republicans have read the polls and opted to rescind whatever loyalty they had left.
Gov. Larry Hogan (R-MD) published a scathing Washington Post op-ed on Trump’s early coronavirus failures, criticizing him for downplaying the virus and leaving states to solve testing challenges on their own. (And giving himself a hearty pat on the back for a test-kit shipment that ran into its own problems.) Hogan has been publicly critical of Trump’s coronavirus response before, but never quite so forcefully.
Other Republicans have gone...a different direction. As a growing number of GOP governors implement statewide mask orders to bring outbreaks under control, Gov. Brian Kemp (R-GA) not only didn’t do that, but in fact signed an executive order explicitly banning cities from enacting their own mask mandates, then sued Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms over Atlanta's. The order voids existing mask mandates in more than a dozen cities or counties, and came the same day Georgia reported its second-highest number of cases since the coronavirus arrived.
This week marks a disturbing new chapter in the pandemic, with the Trump administration further compromising the transparency of public-health data and ramping up its purge of officials seen as potential leakers. If ever there was ever a moment for congressional Democrats to loudly demand answers, this would be it.
Look No Further Than The Crooked Media
Last week the Supreme Court dropped a historic ruling on a case determining the reservation status of Eastern Oklahoma—the very case that the Crooked podcast This Land explored last year. Today, Cherokee journalist and This Land host Rebecca Nagle released a bonus episode breaking down what this Supreme Court decision means, and what’s next. You can listen to season one of This Land on Apple Podcasts or anywhere you listen to podcasts—plus the just-dropped bonus explainer episode—out now →
Under The Radar
The Supreme Court just dealt a major setback to restoring the voting rights of people with felony convictions in Florida. The Court’s conservative majority left in place a temporary federal appeals court order staying a lower-court ruling that should have cleared the way for hundreds of thousands of Floridians to vote. As a result, people in the state who have completed felony sentences but still have outstanding court fines or fees remain barred from voting. For those keeping score: The Roberts Five will intervene to block orders that make it easier to vote (see: Wisconsin, etc.) but will not intervene to block orders that make it harder to vote. There are a few levels of cruelty here. First off, this is an unconstitutional poll tax, plain and simple. Second, Florida frequently has no idea how much these voters owe: even when they can afford to pay, it’s often impossible for them to do so. And most insanely, as Justice Sonya Sotomayor noted in her dissent, voters who registered before this ruling was stayed will remain on the rolls, but won’t be notified that they’re once again ineligible, and thus could be prosecuted for trying to vote. The fight isn’t over, but it’s unclear if it will be resolved before November. If you’re in a position to give, you can help with a contribution to the Florida Rights Restoration Coalition. Also, adopt Florida.
The Trump administration may impose a travel ban on members of China’s Communist Party and their families. It’s a little easier said than done: The Chinese Communist Party has 92 million members, and the U.S. has no easy way of identifying them. The draft of the plan would also authorize the government to revoke the visas of CCP members who are already in the country. The ban would be the Trump administration’s most aggressive move against China since Trump initiated the trade war in 2018, and would almost certainly provoke retaliation against Americans looking to visit or stay in China.
What A Sponsor
When 3 o’clock rolls around and you’re not feeling so perky, remember: it’s not laziness, it’s biology. Our energy levels naturally dip in the mid afternoon, and it’s totally normal to feel like your mind has switched to low power mode. Skip the coffee or candy bar (and subsequent regret) and try a shot of B.LXR Brain Fuel from Beekeeper’s Naturals. B.LXR helps you get focused and stay productive, while also supporting a healthier brain. Each nootropic shot is packed with royal jelly and powerful adaptogens to help you feel your best and actually get stuff done. No caffeine. No added sugar. No feeling jittery, agitated, or wired. Grab a shot when you need to perform your best, or whenever you’re feeling foggy, fuzzy, or creatively blocked. Ready to unleash your full brain power? For a limited time, head over to https://beekeepersnaturals.com and take 15% off your order with code: WHATADAY
Is That Hope I Feel?
Oxford scientists found early evidence that their potential coronavirus vaccine provides “double protection”: volunteers who received the vaccine showed both antibody and T-cell responses. If all goes well in future trials, that vaccine could be available as soon as September. New polling research found that Americans are overwhelmingly in favor of bold government action on climate change, and skeptical of Republican attacks on climate action. Target and CVS are the latest major retailers to require customers to wear masks. LGBTQ political representation increased by 21 percent in the past year.
For Trading April 7th STOCKS RUN-UP Oil Falls False Hopes Today was an amazing day! I don’t believe that the bottom has been made, and I don’t think that today was a day to be a buyer, but as my Closing Comments says, “I could not have been more wrong.” We cut through every area of supply that I pointed out in last night’s Weekly Strategies. Here is the closing comment for tonight: https://youtu.be/JHjU3KOAQR8 . My problem with today’s action is that while everyone wants to believe that this was the bottom, historically, it is without precedent. There are many problems that we will face that are not currently known. The earnings of the companies that have no idea how long consumers are not buying clothes at Macy’s or TJ Maxx, or restaurants, where it’s not like you can make up the business with people eating 2 meals at a time. The closure of the Airbus plant in Alabama, or American Airlines cutting their N.Y. flights from 271 /day down to 13 is just not something that can be quantified when it comes to the net effect to both the balance sheet and profits. But the DJIA was +1627.46 (7.73%), NASDAQ +540.16 (7.33%), S&P 500 +175.03 (7.03%), the Russell +86.72 (8.24%) and the DJ Transports +532.38 (7.29%). Market internals left a lot to be desired with the A/D solid at NYSE 9.5:1 and NASDAQ 5.5:1, but volume was anemic with NYSE 1.4 billion and the NASDAQ 3.8 billion. All 30 DJIA stocks were higher with BA leading the way +113.31 DP’s but no other triple digit winners. On the +11.37% gainer on 3/24 there were 10 triple-digit winners. The strongest groups were Information technology, financials and consumer discretionary, with only Consumer Staples weak. Our “open forum” on Discord, which allows me to interact with subscribers and others to allow direct questions and chart opinions on just about any stock, continues to grow with more participants every day. It is informative and allows me to share insights as the market is open and moving. The link is: https://discord.gg/ATvC7YZ and I will be there and active from before the open and all day. It’s a great place to share ideas and gain some insights, and we’ve grown to almost 1400 members. SECTORS: We started with positive numbers from Europe on COVID-19 deaths and the first group pre-market were the some of the smaller biotech firms with Inovio Pharma (INO) started with a gap up and after trading over $8.80, never quite made it back in regular hours and closed $8.44 +.70 (9.04%), Immunomedics (IMMU) ended a trial for their breast cancer treatment because it’s efficacy was confirmed. The stock, which traded as high as $27.33 in 2018 had fallen to $8.80 last week opened the day at $20.09 but sold off a bit to close $18.78 +9.38 (99.79%). Also in the same group, CODX finished $10.31 +2.11 (25.73%) and VIR $36.70 +7.70 (26.55%). In another group, Wayfair beat both revenues and earnings and the home goods company, which traded down from $173 last year to a low of 21.70 on 3/19 gapped up to open $70.28 and closed $71.50 +20.87 (41.22%). BIOPHARMA: was HIGHER with BIIB +9.58, ABBV +2.31, REGN +10.95, ISRG +37.33 (8.07%), MYL +.30, TEVA +.94 (11.19%), VRTX +17.69 (7.42%), BHC +1.27, INCY +6.80, ICPT +3.90, LABU +4.44 (22.11%) and IBB $110.50 +4.25 (4%). CANNABIS: This group was HIGHER with TLRY +,45, CGC +1.10, CRON +.20, GWPH +4.78, PYX +.18, NBEV +.05, CURLF +.13, KERN +.80 (14.75%) and MJ $10.96 +.52 (4.98%). DEFENSE: was HIGHER with LMT +16.50 (4.71%), RTX (the combination of RTN and UTX) was +7.32 (14.66%), gd +8.07, txt +2.49, noc +18.98, bwxt +.42, tdy +19.66 (6.81%) and ITA $148.00 +12.10 (8.9%). RETAIL: was HIGHER with M + .94 (19.54%), JWN +3.38 (25.9%), KSS +3.04 (26.41%), DDS +8.93 (37.41%), JCP +.05 (18.34%), WMT +5.92, TGT +4.93, TJX +5.15 (12.57%), RL +7.60 (12.46%), UAA +.77, LULU +12.75, TPR +2.09, CPRI +2.17 (25.44%) and XRT $30.21 +3.02 (11.11%). FAANG and Big Cap: were HIGHER with GOOGL +89.36, AMZN +83.41, AAPL +21.29 (8.82%), FB +10.82, NFLX +17.22, NVDA +25.47 (10.44%), TSLA +32.99, BABA +9.39, BIDU +5.66, BA +23.38 (18.78%), CAT +5.33, DIS +5.92 and XLK $83.70 +6.58 (8.53%). FINANCIALS were HIGHER with GS +10.07, JPM +5.45, BAC +1.41, MS +3.40, C +3.51, PNC +9.12, AIG +1.11, TRV +5.09, AXP +10.70 (14.54%) and XLF $21.05 +1.41 (7.18%). OIL, $26.08 -2.26. The explosive moves in Oil recently have been news driven and the cancellation of the OPEC meeting and the threat of tariffs from Mr. Trump have cut off the rally from the $20.00 level. Today’s decline had little to do with the Oil stocks as all were higher. CVX +5.40, XOM +1.40, OXY +.50, NBL +.49, MRO +.02, MPC +3.03 (15.10%), RIG +.05, APA +.62, BP +.28 and XLE $31.41 +1.58 (5.3%). METALS, GOLD: $1,693.90 + 48.20. After the recent gains, Gold has failed to break through the highs around $1700 until today when it traded $1,715 before selling off a bit. Tonight, it has traded as high as $1742.00 and looks to be higher in the near future. BITCOIN: closed $7,330 +530. After we traded in a short-range day followed by a $1,000 range on Friday BTC closed above $7,000 for the first time since it broke to the downside early last month. While I want to add the 350 sold just over a week ago, I want to wait and see some stabilization. We still own 400 GBTC with an average of $8.06. GBTC closed $7.95 + .47 today. Tomorrow is another day. CAM
Disclaimer: I am not and have never been affiliated with any of the mentioned parties in a private or professional matter. Presumably in an attempt to smear a local competitor, Hayden Otto inadvertently publishes irrefutable on-chain proof that he excluded non-BCH retail revenue to shape the "BCH #1 in Australia" narrative.
Scroll down to "Proof of exclusion" if you are tired of the drama recap.
Scroll down to "TLDR" if you want a summary.
In September 2019, BitcoinBCH.com started publishing so called monthly "reports" about crypto retail payments in Australia. They claimed that ~90% of Australia's crypto retail revenue is processed via their own HULA system and that ~92% of all crypto retail revenue happens in BCH. They are aggregating two data sources to come up with this claim. One is TravelByBit (TBB) who publishes their PoS transactions (BTC, LN, ETH, BNB, DASH, BCH) live on a ticker. The other source is HULA, a newly introduced POS system (BCH only) and direct competitor to TBB run by BitcoinBCH.com - the same company who created the report. Despite being on-chain their transactions are private, not published and not verifiable by third parties outside BitcoinBCH.com Two things stood out in the "reports", noted by multiple users (including vocal BCH proponents):
The non-BCH parts must have tx excluded and the report neglects to mention it (the total in their TBB analysis does not match what is reported on the TBB website.)
The BCH part has outliers included (e.g. BCH city conference in September with 35x the daily average)
Hayden Otto's reaction
In direct response to me publishing these findings on btc, Hayden Otto - an employee at BitcoinBCH.com and the author of the report who also happens to be a moderator of /BitcoinCash - banned me immediately from said sub (source). In subsequent discussion (which repeated for every monthly "report" which was flawed in the same ways as described above), Hayden responded using the same tactics: "No data was removed"
"The guy is straight out lying. There is guaranteed no missing tx as the data was collected directly from the source." (source)
"Only data I considered non-retail was removed"
"I also had these data points and went through them to remove non-retail transactions, on both TravelbyBit and HULA." (source)
He admits to have removed non-BCH tx by "Game Ranger" because he considers them non-retail (source). He also implies they might be involved in money laundering and that TBB might fail their AML obligations in processing Game Ranger's transactions (source). The report does not mention any data being excluded at all and he still fails to explain why several businesses that are clearly retail (e.g. restaurants, cafes, markets) had tx excluded (source). "You are too late to prove I altered the data"
"[...] I recorded [the data] manually from https://travelbybit.com/stats/ over the month of September. The website only shows transactions from the last 7 days and then they disappear. No way for anyone to access stats beyond that." (source)
Proof of exclusion
I published raw data as extracted from the TBB site after each report for comparison. Hayden responded that I made those numbers up and that I was pulling numbers out of my ass. Since he was under the impression that
"The website only shows transactions from the last 7 days and then they disappear. No way for anyone to access stats beyond that." (source)
he felt confident to claim that I would be
unable to provide a source for the [missing] data and/or prove that that data was not already included in the report. (source)
Luckily for us Hayden Otto seems to dislike his competitor TravelByBit so much that he attempted to reframe Bitcoin's RBF feature as a vulnerability specific to TBB PoS system (source). While doublespending a merchant using the TBB PoS he wanted to prove that the merchant successfully registered the purchase as complete and thus exposed that the PoS sales history of TBB's merchants are available to the public (source), in his own words:
"You can literally access it from a public URL in the Web browser. There is no login or anything required, just type in the name of the merchant." (source)
As of yet it is unclear if this is intentional by TBB or if Hayden Ottos followed the rules of responsible disclosure before publishing this kind of data leak. As it happens, those sale histories do not only include the merchant and time of purchases, they even include the address the funds were sent to (in case of on-chain payments). This gives us an easy method to prove that the purchases from the TBB website missing in the reports belong to a specific retail business and actually happened - something that is impossible to prove for the alleged HULA txs. In order to make it easier for you to verify it yourself, we'll focus on a single day in the dataset, September 17th, 2019 as an example:
Hayden Otto's report claims 20 tx and $713.00 in total for that day (source)
The TBB website listed 40 tx and a total of $1032.90 (daily summary)
Paste the associated crypto on-chain address 17MrHiRcKzCyuKPtvtn7iZhAZxydX8raU9 in a blockchain explorer of your choice, e.g like this. This proves that a transfer of funds has actually happened.
I let software aggregate the TBB statistics with the public sale histories and you'll find at the bottom of this post a table with the on-chain addresses conveniently linked to blockchain explorers for our example date. The total of all 40 tx is $1032.90 instead of the $713.00 reported by Hayden. 17 tx of those have a corresponding on-chain address and thus have undeniable proof of $758.10. Of the remaining 23, 22 are on Lightning and one had no merchant history available. This is just for a single day, here is a comparison for the whole month.
TBB wo. Game Ranger
TBB according to Hayden
The usual shills will respond in a predictive manner: The data must be fake even though its proof is on-chain, I would need to provide more data but HULA can be trusted without any proof, if you include outliers BCH comes out ahead, yada, yada. But this is not important. I am not here to convince them and this post doesn't aim to. The tx numbers we are talking about are less than 0.005% of Bitcoin's global volume. If you can increase adoption in your area by 100% by just buying 2 coffees more per day you get a rough idea about how irrelevant the numbers are in comparison. What is relevant though and what this post aims to highlight is that BitcoinBCH.com and the media outlets around news.bitcoin.com flooding you with the BCH #1 narrative are playing dirty. They feel justified because they feel that Bitcoin/Core/Blockstream is playing dirty as well. I am not here to judge that but you as a reader of this sub should be aware that this is happening and that you are the target. When BitcoinBCH.com excludes $1,000 Bitcoin tx because of high value but includes $15,000 BCH tx because they are made by "professionals", you should be sceptical. When BitcoinBCH.com excludes game developers, travel businesses or craftsmen accepting Bitcoin because they don't have a physical store but include a lawyer practice accepting BCH, you should be sceptical. When BitcoinBCH.com excludes restaurants, bars and supermarkets accepting Bitcoin and when pressed reiterate that they excluded non-retail businesses without ever explaning why a restaurant shouldn't be considered reatil, you should be sceptical. When BitcoinBCH.com claims the reports have been audited but omit that the data acquisition was not part of the audit, you should be sceptical. I expect that BitcoinBCH.com will stop removing transactions from TBB for their reports now that it has been shown that their exclusion can be provably uncovered. I also expect that HULA's BCH numbers will rise accordingly to maintain a similar difference. Hayden Otto assumed that nobody could cross-check the TBB data. He was wrong. Nobody will be able to disprove his claims when HULA's BCH numbers rise as he continues to refuse their release. You should treat his claims accordingly. As usual, do your own research and draw your own conclusion. Sorry for the long read.
BitcoinBCH.com claimed no transactions were removed from the TBB dataset in their BCH #1 reports and that is impossible to prove the opposite.
Hayden Otto's reveals in a double spend attempt that a TBB merchant's sale history can be accessed publicly including the merchant's on-chain addresses.
This table shows 40 tx listed on the TBB site on sep 17th, including their on-chain addresses where applicable.
The BitcoinBCH.com report lists only 20 tx for the same day.
Just received the following email. I'd like to know more about the reasoning. It's a loss. I've used them often and saved big on my amazon shopping. We've made the very difficult decision to dissolve the company. We're grateful for the opportunity afforded by our supporters to build products and infrastructure for the cryptocurrency community. To everyone who used our products, told their friends, or helped us in any way, thank you. We will continue to offer support for ongoing orders and withdrawals until June 26, 2020 to ensure all transactions and accounts are settled. As of today, April 16, 2020 new signups have been disabled. Shop and Earn functionality will be disabled next week on April 23, 2020. Open orders that have not been matched will be canceled. Purse.io will cease all operations on June 26, 2020. If you have a balance on purse.io, please withdraw all funds as soon as possible. It's been a privilege serving people all around the world. We're thankful for our customers who used purse.io increasing bitcoin's utility and distribution. We're also thankful to all the developers and companies who continue to support open source projects including bcoin and hsd. Thank you for helping us make crypto useful. If you have any questions or concerns, please email our support team at [email protected]
Don't Fight the Trend (Sidenote - Fuck r/investing)
TF, like these corn balls out here removing posts that have any bit of a bear thesis? lmao Getting to the point of my post, The Trend is Down.... Compiling data of closing points every two weeks from the start of 2020, each of the indexes are down-trending for the year & Bitcoin as well. Now the graphs which I've attached here hold little/next to no weight when looking for an indication on what position to take/when, but it's a piece of the puzzle when talking about the outlook for 2020. Another piece to the puzzle, since that 'judgement day' post (referencing something I posted 3 weeks ago on investing, would link but that got removed along with my post on april 19th warning the clowns in there that they shouldn't be buying into USO/investing in oil lmfao); we have seen 6 green trading days & 9 red trading days on the S&P, signaling to me that investors are favoring selling in the 280-295 range much more so than buying. While the S&P has rallied above 290 on the back of NASDAQ/MAGA movement, it hasn't broken into/through this range with any conviction at all, it's actually forming a head and shoulder top in the trading range - seen here. Further Dissecting the SPY - Price action is currently bouncing between the 50 & 200 EMA (EMA is quite significant as it weighs the price around volume traded, while SMA's simply calculate based on closing price day-to-day.) Friday's close placed us right under the 200 EMA (I view it as the ceiling currently.) and would point to downside come open market on monday (tomorrow.) *At the time of this post, futures opened with a gap down to 291 and has bounced back up to test this 2940 resistance. Will they push it above for a proper bull break before US markets open? Perhaps, maybe the bulls get their 300 touch; However, I see the indicators hinting to downside more convincing atm.* Further DD of 'leading indicators' when looking at ST trends (DXY, BTC, XLF) - XLF - (4Hr chart, rather than daily.) The Financial sector has been getting absolutely SLAMMED, like seriously, its almost worse than the beatdowns the small-caps have been receiving. Imo, this questionable performance from the financial sector says A LOT when considering investor uncertainty at the moment. On the four hour, this sector is currently bouncing between the 50 & 200 EMA's as they pinch closer together; which you could say is bullish, however, any and all uptrends on the chart have been broken & it leaves the financials out in no mans land (bearish.) It's currently pressed against it's 'LT' downtrend line (Established in early January after COVID was 'open public info'.) and made a double top rejection off of 23.70. BTC- Touched 10k & crashed over 10% this weekend. As seen in the first screenshot I attached, BTC has been trading almost side by side with the general markets (Most reflective when looking at the S&P or NASDAQ.) I believe this to be a leading indicator of downside ahead similarly to how it was a leading indicator in mid-march when gauging 'how much downside was left in the markets.' DXY - Key when considering short term deflation/inflation of assets. Has broken out above an immense resistance & has been confirming this as new support (people are hoarding cash, much more than they're spending, contrary to popular belief; I wont comment much tho, because tracking the DXY can get complex quick. We're taking it at face value here.) Watch for another major breakout (Would signify people hoarding cash, most likely stocks are getting liquidated at that same time. Comparing the timeline of the last breakout, March 9th- March 20th, this was the same timeline which the S&P took its major leg down from 300-220.) TLDR - Stonks do go down, they've been maxing out for the last three weeks & deflation is around the corner. Positions - Heavy SPXU & SQQQ positions, AMD $46p May 22nd/ $40p June 5th, XLF $20.5p May 22th, MGM $10p June 5th
On March 15th, the Federal Reserve started the first round of its stimulus plan to stabilize the tumultuous economic conditions caused by the country-wide shut down due to COVID19. Significant was a $700 billion round of Quantitative Easing (QE) and the cutting of interest rates effectively to zero percent. The reaction of the stock market and most asset classes was to continue its downward trend that had started in late February. The Federal Reserve continued to make smaller policy changes during the next 8 days until March 23rd when it announced its “extensive new measures to support the economy”. In short, the Fed is expanding its QE program announced on March 15th and will be making additional expansions in the future as needed. This time Wall Street reacts positively, as March 23rd was the starting point of a historic bull run.
The Breaking of the 60/40 Model
The 60/40 model of portfolio allocation has been a traditional portfolio management strategy used for over 30 years. The strategy states to put 60% of your funds into stocks and the remaining 40% into high quality bonds. The philosophy behind this investment strategy is that by having your portfolio diversified this way, you won’t take a huge hit if your stocks go down because you’ll have returns from bonds to make up for it. This is a strategy generally used by people with low risk tolerances, or people who don’t want to constantly keep their eyes on the markets. Over the past few decades, the 60/40 model has demonstrated a good amount of success; however, there are many who believe the chances of this strategy continuing to function successfully into the future are very low. Both JP Morgan and Bank of America have released statements on the decline of the 60/40 portfolio. JP Morgan strategists have stated “In the zero-yield world, which we think will be with us for years, bonds offer neither much return nor protection against equity falls,” referencing the fact that the majority of government bonds are trading at yields below 1%. In a research note titled “The Death of 60/40” Bank of America strategists had this to say, “The challenge for investors today is that both of those benefits from bonds, diversification and risk reduction, seem to be weakening, and this is happening at a time when positioning in many fixed-income sectors is incredibly crowded, making bonds more vulnerable to sharp, sudden selloffs when active managers rebalance.” So, with diminishing trust and poor returns from bonds, many investors are looking for other assets to replace the 40% hole in their portfolios. Many are increasing their percentage allocated to stocks in addition to investing in Gold and other metals as a protection against inflation. Many investors are also looking to Bitcoin.
Asset Reallocation Flowing from Bonds to Stocks
The historical runup in stock prices, specifically for the tech heavy Nasdaq, started on March 23rd. With the NAS100 index up close to 60% (from $6,584 to $10,616) in less than 3 months. It's not showing any signs of slowing down. In the opinion of QuantifyCrypto, the major reason for this is the flow of capital that would normally be going into bonds is now going into stocks. Yes the Fed stimulus is positive, but can you say the market conditions are actually better for stocks when there is still uncertainty in the future? While some stocks are fundamentally better due to COVID19, this is not true for most stocks. The next chart shows the price movement of the NASDAQ 100 Index for 2020. NAS100 Daily Chart from Trading View
Asset Reallocation to Cryptocurrency – When?
When asked about the current demise of the 60/40 portfolio model, veteran investor Dan Tapiero stated there could be “nothing more bullish for gold and bitcoin,” and that we are in the midst of the “beginning of the end for [government] bonds as a functioning productive asset class. Traditional 60/40 portfolios will need to find a new defensive asset to replace a portion of the 40%.” It seems that other players in the world of finance are saying similar things, hedge fund manager Paul Tudor Jones told CNBC in May that Bitcoin is a “great speculation” and that he has one to two percent of his assets in Bitcoin. Historically, Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies tend to have higher volatility than stocks. Three days before the Federal Reserve started making its announcements, Bitcoin went down over 50% in a single day. High volatility and a full price recovery continued in April and May, with Bitcoin closing on May 30th at ~$10,440. Until this point, there had been a high correlation between the NASDAQ 100 and Bitcoin as shown in the chart below. NAS100 Daily Chart with Bitcoin (blue line) added Since June 1st, Bitcoin has clearly lagged while stocks have continued their upward climb. While Crypto has been stagnant and down since May, the fundamental picture has never been better:
The Central Bank stimulus response is inflationary to Fiat currencies, this is positive for non-inflationary assets like gold and cryptocurrency.
The lack of new funds moving into bonds is flowing into stocks. When the stock market advance slows or starts to decline, the flow into other assets classes will start to increase.
The full deflationary impact of the Bitcoin halving still has not kicked in.
Corporate adoption and use cases for cryptocurrency is accelerating (Future article).
Before COVID occurred, 2020 was looking like a very strong year for Bitcoin and Altcoins. This price strength is likely to return.
As government bonds continue to trade with yields below 1%, it is safe to say that more and more people will be abandoning the traditional 60/40 strategy. While it’s too early to determine what the new percent strategy will become, with Bitcoin presenting a clear solution to the problems with bonds and the diminishing value of cash, portfolio managers may very well be using cryptocurrency to solve their diversification requirement.
The platform Quantify Crypto provides live cryptocurrency prices, technical analysis, news, heatmaps and more. Our flagship product is the trend algorithm, designed to be on the correct side of significant cryptocurrency price moves. We are a new site, please check us out and let us know what you like and do not like about the site. None of this is meant to be financial advice and I do not have any financial expertise. John Barry worked at the New York Stock Exchange for over 23 years, it was as a developer supporting computer systems, not as a stock trader. Alex Wason is an intern working for Quantify Crypto Full discloser: John Barry owns Bitcoin and has stock positions.
Please utilize this sticky thread for all general Bitcoin discussions! If you see posts on the front page or /Bitcoin/new which are better suited for this daily discussion thread, please help out by directing the OP to this thread instead. Thank you! If you don't get an answer to your question, you can try phrasing it differently or commenting again tomorrow. We have a couple chat rooms now!
Bitcoin News Roundup for April 23, 2020. Apr 23, 2020 at 16:00 UTC. John Biggs. Adam B. Levine. Bitcoin News Roundup for April 23, 2020. Bitcoin is going around and around while Italy uses the Bitcoin News Today – Headlines for April 23. By. Princess Ogono-Apr 23, 2020. Bitcoin News Today – Bitcoin (BTC) has continued to hold gains while oil and other assets have been having a bad week. The price of Bitcoin is up by more than 4 percent and it broke over the major $7k hurdle point against the US dollar. However, Bitcoin is Bitcoin is going around and around while Italy uses the blockchain to prevent fake news. It's CoinDesk's Markets Daily podcast. Bitcoin News Roundup for April 23, 2020 Bitcoin News is the world's premier 24/7 news feed covering everything bitcoin-related, including world economy, exchange rates and money politics. Bitcoin (BTC) Price Analysis (April 23) by Ben Jordan. April 23, 2020. Home Bitcoin News Bitcoin (BTC) Price. Facebook. Twitter. Telegram. ReddIt. Linkedin. -handed cryptocurrency content curation creators from christened community contributors who focus on delivering today's bitcoin news, cryptoasset user guides and latest blockchain updates.
Premiered Apr 23, 2020. Follow us on Instagram: ... Economist Blasts The Fed, Stimulus, Bitcoin & Makes Bold Predictions - Duration: ... AP Corona News Update Today Live AP CM Jagan Andhra ... NIFTY/BANKNIFTY buy /sell/hold 23/4/20 Share Academy 88 watching Live now This Bloomberg Bitcoin Analysis will BLOW YOUR MIND 🤯"BTC could stay bullish for 10 years" - Duration: 41:04. Jack Dorsey (Twitter CEO): In this interview, we will talk about Twitter news, trip to Аfrica, Bitcoin, Investments, World Crisis and more. More info about t... Bitcoin (BIG News!) April 2019 Price Prediction, News & Trade Analysis ... Published on Apr 23, 2019 ... price prediction, Bitcoin Trading, Bitcoin 2018, Bitcoin Crash, Bitcoin Moon, Bitcoin News ... BITCOIN PROMOTION TURNED INTO A SCAM!!! TITLE WAS: "Jack Dorsey interview: Bitcoin BTC Event & Twitter news updates [April 19, 2020]" That time when scam hap...