An interesting study shows that bitcoin’s price movements have a predictive power over the price action of the dollar against most popular trading pairs.
Fiction, they ask, or could this be real? That was their job to say one or the other, but undoubtedly now many more will be asking the same question and related questions.
Because cryptos are now becoming a specialized field of study for economists. Especially where fiat currencies are concerned, as there are suggestions crypto movements can reveal hidden currency manipulations.
Then there’s the question of are cryptos a class of their own and how do they fit within portfolios. We thought of asking Soros, but…
The stock market is down. It’s sort of still at 23,000s for Dow, but the mainstream media chorus keeps crying trade war is bad and this is bringing stocks down and…
Tell that to China. Here is trade war for you. Ban all cryptos, mine all cryptos, sell all cryptos, take all those dollars, and send none back because banned. Smart. Very smart.
Trump that is. “When you’re already $500 Billion DOWN, you can’t lose!” – he said. O but they won’t buy our jeans! Think of all those poor billionaires who control the media! They’ll have to actually pay decent wages!
We’re with you Trump. And not being political in anyway, complete independents. We’ll be against you in a heart-beat. But in this? China has been at a trade war for decades and this space knows it first hand better than most.
“As early as the 1990s, proponents of what became blockchain technology began proposing an alternative status quo, in which individuals could control cryptography. For these so-called Cypher-punks, the idea had revolutionary appeal.”
Everyone talks as if the 90s only had some cypherpunks who somehow are at the root of all this blockchain stuff even though they dismissed it fully.
But David Chaum said something very interesting during the one brief session that has come out of Deconomy.
We’ve been trying to get his keynote speech, but we’re patient, we’ll wait. So patient we had to listen to Wright ramble on about nonsense, but Chaum finally managed to have a word.
So extremely brief we don’t know what to make of it, but he said something like he, or they, had nothing to do with cypherpunks. Cypherpunks apparently would come to him begging if they can work on his digital cash project, and overall he was somewhat dismissive.
That led us to this stupendously nice video you’ll probably enjoy before bed-time, but we can see why he might seen cypherpunks as a…
When you read much of cypherpunk’s writings, at least that’s the impression we get, there’s a feeling that it’s just people talking, in a cafe sort of thing, just throwing things out there.
That is, scientific rigor appears to be absent, and real, practical, data based thinking, appears to be absent. It all comes across as more just talk.
So when some hail Nick Szabo as Nakamoto, we can’t help ourselves but think of this very different style. Szabo’s style, and the style of cypherpunks in general, is more just speculation. Even, if we are going to be slightly cruel, teenage philosophizing.
While Nakamoto is a completely different class. Brisk, cutting reality like butter through a hot knife, and very much academic or scientific rather than speculative.
“Perhaps we are not ready to do away with trusted intermediaries. Perhaps we never will be,” a reuters brekingview concludes.
And our reaction to that is, what does that even mean? What is a trusted intermediary? Do we actually even trust any intermediary?
No one trusts the banks and we don’t mean in the usual sense, but in the sense that there are fiduciary laws, audit requirements, on and on, to try and ensure that we don’t have to trust them.
There is no trusted intermediary. Not if they are a human. So we have been ready to do away with trusted intermediaries since the Renaissance. That will continue. But what we’ll never do away with is judgment, or lateral thinking. Well, as far as we can conceive at this stage anyway. But for “intermediaries,” automated the lot of them will probably be if they can be automated because they have never been trusted.
“Public information is an important input for making investment decisions, designing public policies or creating new tools at the service of society, which is why many of our users use this information to decide technical aspects, economic and labor.
That is why, by using this technology, we will raise the levels of trust of our stakeholders, investors and citizens in general who use the data delivered.”
So said Chili’s Minister of Energy, Susana Jiménez, in a statement introducing the use of blockchain technology with the aim of “increasing the levels of security, integrity, traceability and confidence of the public information available, raising the standards that certify the quality and certainty of the data that is published to and from our energy sector.”
Apparently the idea is to take energy data from a centralized database and then hash them on ethereum’s public blockchain. So keeping an immutable record.
Chile is apparently a somewhat decent country, with a GDP of half a trillion and a population or around 20 million, described by wikipedia as:
“One of South America’s most economically and socially stable and prosperous nations, with a high-income economy and high living standards.”
So no wonder they’re looking at all this blockchain stuff, but its use in energy is more to allow peer to peer trading of solar power. Yet, with it all being so new, who are we to say what this blockchain thing is.
Coinbase, however, might have something to say because they are introducing a new VC like arm of ventures to fund crypto related projects.
“We’ll be providing financing to promising early stage companies that have the teams and ideas that can move the space forward in a positive, meaningful way,” Coinbase says.
Hard for us to be mean to the unicorn because they are commendable for a lot of things, including significant support in many important crypto areas, but at least the bunny can be cute when it says:
“You may also see us invest in companies that ostensibly look competitive with Coinbase. There may be nuance to the way these startups are building out their products. Or, in some cases, we may be comfortable investing in companies that are potentially competitive, because it’s in everyone’s interest to see the ecosystem innovate. We’re taking a long term view of the space, and we believe that multiple approaches are healthy and good.”
That is, they’re thinking of consolidation. Perhaps buying up whatever they think might be a threat and then “neutralizing” it by either closing it down or sort of closing it down or incorporating it.
It’s to be expected of course and everyone will be doing it sooner or later, but one might start missing the days when this all was a little baby that could barely walk.
Because we might have to deal with Blockchain’s version of Facebook, Google and all the rest, a decade down the line or so, yet there’s only so much a generation can enjoy.
As we expected, Coinbase is now seeking SEC permission to list tokens. SEC will probably say yes, of course, you’d think, because Coinbase has just as big a lawyer’s army as SEC does, but we’ll see.
Because there isn’t one thing that SEC doesn’t seem to kind of be doing in a way that irritates this space.
Now for example they’re apparently considering of approving an ETF based on futures. That is derivatives based on derivatives with the actual asset not touched one bit.
Of course, of course! We expected nothing less and probably speculated somewhere long ago that’s exactly what they will do after they rejected the real ETF.
Because who wants to deal with real money when you can deal with fake money, built on top of fake money, that is ancillarily related to the base money or the real asset.
Well, the entrepreneurs of course. The makers and the builders. Today’s factory producers, the coders of goods. To them the world, wide and broad.