Coinbase’s listing may break records(economist.com)
economist.com
Coinbase’s listing may break records
https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2021/04/12/coinbases-listing-may-break-records
141 comments
That‘s not a feature, it‘s a bug. An unregulated, emerging industry that comes with a baggage of enormous energy use, fraud and money laundering is one thing.
Letting it get to a level of „Too big to fail“ where regulation or an outright ban might have repercussions on whole economies is a whole another thing that I‘m not exactly looking forward to.
Letting it get to a level of „Too big to fail“ where regulation or an outright ban might have repercussions on whole economies is a whole another thing that I‘m not exactly looking forward to.
They were valued at 100B$ before their earnings last week showing an annualized growth of 500% (1.8B revenue for q1 vs 1.1B for the whole 2020), I expect it to settle at a higher number tomorrow.
> I would expect a lot of the "but the gov will ban it" arguments to be significantly weaker...
Cryptocurrency supporters should be lobbying for government bans, not against them.
The most direct way to demonstrate that cryptocurrencies are truly decentralized and resilient to censorship is to subject them to unrelenting attack, most naturally in the form of legal crackdowns.
Cryptocurrency supporters should be lobbying for government bans, not against them.
The most direct way to demonstrate that cryptocurrencies are truly decentralized and resilient to censorship is to subject them to unrelenting attack, most naturally in the form of legal crackdowns.
There are cryptocurrency supporters who want to revolutionize the world's monetary systems, get governments out of currency manipulation, make international transfers easy and free, remove burden of entry for businesses, remove oppressive payment processors etc.
Then there are cryptocurrency supporters who are holding large amounts of it and just want the value to keep going up.
The latter category definitely does not want a government ban on trading/usage.
Then there are cryptocurrency supporters who are holding large amounts of it and just want the value to keep going up.
The latter category definitely does not want a government ban on trading/usage.
> cryptocurrencies are truly decentralized and resilient to censorship
If a major government wanted to break crypto, it would simply credibly threaten to launch a 51% attack. This is within the budget of most developed economies, and much simpler than enforcing a ban. Nobody does it because it would be stupid. Crypto is part of the economy. Destroying it would be akin to bombing a domestic factory because one doesn’t like its products.
If a major government wanted to break crypto, it would simply credibly threaten to launch a 51% attack. This is within the budget of most developed economies, and much simpler than enforcing a ban. Nobody does it because it would be stupid. Crypto is part of the economy. Destroying it would be akin to bombing a domestic factory because one doesn’t like its products.
> If a major government wanted to break crypto, it would simply credibly threaten to launch a 51% attack.
Anyone who makes this argument likely stopped staying in touch with blockchain tech after 2016.
Anyone who makes this argument likely stopped staying in touch with blockchain tech after 2016.
That seems to apply to a lot of discussion of crypto on HN.
It's like people stopped paying attention after the last crash and assume the crypto space has stood still since.
It's like people stopped paying attention after the last crash and assume the crypto space has stood still since.
> If a major government wanted to break crypto, it would simply credibly threaten to launch a 51% attack.
Do you know how hard it's now to buy/produce graphic cards and asic-s good for mining crypto? The demand is very big yet producers can't scale up. I don't see governments to have possibility obtaining so much hardware in a short/medium time horizon.
Do you know how hard it's now to buy/produce graphic cards and asic-s good for mining crypto? The demand is very big yet producers can't scale up. I don't see governments to have possibility obtaining so much hardware in a short/medium time horizon.
Why do you think the government would have to produce new ASICs, when they could just buy or seize the existing ones?
> Why do you think the government would have to produce new ASICs, when they could just buy or seize the existing ones?
There is not enough of them to buy on the market to make 51% attack. Of course seizing is possible but hard because I imagine it would be quite hard to locate them, apart form large mining operations they are quite distributed.
In case of bitcoin network it would have to be a large multicountry operation. Because the miners are really distributed around the world.
There is not enough of them to buy on the market to make 51% attack. Of course seizing is possible but hard because I imagine it would be quite hard to locate them, apart form large mining operations they are quite distributed.
In case of bitcoin network it would have to be a large multicountry operation. Because the miners are really distributed around the world.
They could just subpoena websites and retailers that sold them previously and start there.
That would take out the "most developed countries" part...
51% attack would be very expensive on electricity and new infrastructure. There is already working and profitable infrastructure to prevent money laundering.
Not agreeing, but it is interesting viewpoint. Personally I have been involved a lot in the crypto space, and seen lots of bank account freezes and similar problems happening to crypto traders. Maybe sometimes there is something nefarious going on, maybe it was false positive, who knows. However, personally seeing this has affected me in a way where I don't really trust banks much. That has put me in a position where I have increasingly large position in cryptocurrencies.
That's dumb. The purpose of decentralization isn't to simply demonstrate the strength of the decentralization. It's an element that helps something achieve a purpose. In this case, the ability of a person to be their own bank. Not being banned also helps that purpose. Why would cryptocurrency supporters lobby for government bans?
But most cryptos are not truly decentralised and robust enough. There is centralised dev team. And no crypto can truly handle brainsplit network issues.
The protocols and tech might be resistant to government crackdowns, but the user's being sent to prison for "illegal use of cryptocurrency" would certainly hamper use...
Except there's a gov't ban and now you can't actually get dollars into your brokerage account to buy crypto (and neither can anyone else), and then the price starts dropping.
There's only so much effort someone will go through until they'll just put the money in Robinhood or something and buy some random meme stock.
There's only so much effort someone will go through until they'll just put the money in Robinhood or something and buy some random meme stock.
[deleted]
Obviously sarcasm, but there's a little bit of truth behind this. The real value of cryptocurrency is if the governments ban it. (They are more of a nightmare for totalitarian regimes, rather than free open societies.)
Isn't that typical of new 'things' ? Defining themselves against the norm only to reach for acceptance as proof of stability ?
> Cryptocurrency supporters should be lobbying for government bans, not against them.
Just like a banned dr. Suess book, this would further inflate prices
Just like a banned dr. Suess book, this would further inflate prices
No Dr. Seuss books are banned. The publisher decided to stop publishing a few of them.
There's more to it than that - eBay for example has banned trade in those books as well (Amazon too, and probably others), on the second hand market. Not sure if they reversed this absolutely crazy decision in the meantime, would be happy to hear that they did.
They did not reverse it. And I can’t buy those books at Barnes & Noble, either. Even at their physical stores.
Oh no!
Anyways.
Anyways.
I think it increases the chance not of legitimisation but of a govt bailout when either (a) Bitcoin threatens to melt the planet or (b) bitcoin’s value collapses, because there isn’t a (c) I can see.
Why can't bitcoins price "stabilize" by fluctuating inside the 1000 to 200000 range?
a) it totally can
b) proof work uses as much electricity as proof of work needs, the internet cry-for-help crowd likes to recite made up numbers
> b) proof work uses as much electricity as proof of work needs
No, proof as work uses as much electricity as is profitable. The entire Bitcoin network could trivially be run on a single PC.
No, proof as work uses as much electricity as is profitable. The entire Bitcoin network could trivially be run on a single PC.
I'd say 20000% fluctuations are hardly stable, no?
>That said, one thing that boggles my mind is the fact that it seems to be currently valued at 100B$ which is roughly the market cap of Goldman Sachs
It makes more sense when you consider the insane fees they get away with charging due to lack of competition in the regulated US crypto space. In a mature exchange in the normal financial markets, one might expect to pay under 0.5bps (one bp is 1% of 1%). In overseas crypto exchanges, the fee will be around 5bps. In Coinbase, it's 20-50bps.
It makes more sense when you consider the insane fees they get away with charging due to lack of competition in the regulated US crypto space. In a mature exchange in the normal financial markets, one might expect to pay under 0.5bps (one bp is 1% of 1%). In overseas crypto exchanges, the fee will be around 5bps. In Coinbase, it's 20-50bps.
> It makes more sense when you consider the insane fees they get away with charging due to lack of competition in the regulated US crypto space.
The fees, as you explain it, do indeed seem like highway robbery. But there's something very specific about Coinbase in the US: all customers funds from american fiscal residents in USD are FDIC insured (so up to 250 K are safe). AFAICT they're the only one to actually offer this? It's also a real company, with a real address, whose owners are real people, etc.
It's not exactly the "we're convicted criminals operating from the Cayman using some shady bank" type of crypto exchange.
The fees, as you explain it, do indeed seem like highway robbery. But there's something very specific about Coinbase in the US: all customers funds from american fiscal residents in USD are FDIC insured (so up to 250 K are safe). AFAICT they're the only one to actually offer this? It's also a real company, with a real address, whose owners are real people, etc.
It's not exactly the "we're convicted criminals operating from the Cayman using some shady bank" type of crypto exchange.
Tether and their 45 billion of fully-backed assets (!) are based in the British Virgin Islands, and do their banking through a shady bank in the Bahamas.
Can you point to their claim of FDIC coverage. Brokerages usually have SIPC for securities, I figured coinbase just had privste insurance and wasnt using FDIC or SIPC.
Looks like there is some details here https://www.coinbase.com/legal/insurance
Looks like there is some details here https://www.coinbase.com/legal/insurance
From your link: "To the extent U.S. customer funds are held as cash, they are maintained in pooled custodial accounts at one or more banks insured by the FDIC. Our custodial accounts have been established in a manner to make available pass-through FDIC insurance"
So, should you have the desire to keep cash at Coinbase for some reason, it will actually be held at a real bank and FDIC insured.
So, should you have the desire to keep cash at Coinbase for some reason, it will actually be held at a real bank and FDIC insured.
> lack of competition in the regulated US crypto space
That's what I thought as well. People complain about monopolies but these over regulated spaces make it so difficult for startups to get going. It shouldn't be necessary for a non tangible asset company to need an angel investor that pays for tons of bureaucracy and license acquisition.
That's what I thought as well. People complain about monopolies but these over regulated spaces make it so difficult for startups to get going. It shouldn't be necessary for a non tangible asset company to need an angel investor that pays for tons of bureaucracy and license acquisition.
I feel we collectively misinterpret what the problem with single trader situations are.
There being a monopoly is not the problem, the problems are always anti trust behaviour i.e. not co-operating with the market for improvement, closing of competition by some behaviour that is not beneficial to the market.
Highly regulated markets tend to do this due the difficulty in disrupting such a market, you need to play by the existing rules and that leaves little room for manoeuvre against the incumbents, the incumbents are free from anti trust because the rules are set by the authorities, often at the behest of the incumbents of course.
There being a monopoly is not the problem, the problems are always anti trust behaviour i.e. not co-operating with the market for improvement, closing of competition by some behaviour that is not beneficial to the market.
Highly regulated markets tend to do this due the difficulty in disrupting such a market, you need to play by the existing rules and that leaves little room for manoeuvre against the incumbents, the incumbents are free from anti trust because the rules are set by the authorities, often at the behest of the incumbents of course.
but the business volume is _much_ lower, and GS deals with an inordinate amount of more lucrative things (SPACs, IPOs, etc).
> I believe this is going to be a big milestone in raising awareness of cryptocurrencies and making them more mainstream.
'Mainstream' as in a stronger argument for cryptocurrency regulations. We are only going to see more retail investors throwing in riskier investments with leverage and will end up bag-holding in another bust cycle.
'Mainstream' as in a stronger argument for cryptocurrency regulations. We are only going to see more retail investors throwing in riskier investments with leverage and will end up bag-holding in another bust cycle.
Big hedge funds never do risky things and leave us holding the bag</sarcasm>
Translation:
Sure thing. I'm going to buy Coinbase stock with leverage on the day of its direct listing and hope that I will HODL it all the way to the moon. When it goes back down, it doesn't matter if I'm wiped out or a bag holder, I can still get a way with it via asking for a bailout just because a big hedge fund can do it. /s
Sure thing. I'm going to buy Coinbase stock with leverage on the day of its direct listing and hope that I will HODL it all the way to the moon. When it goes back down, it doesn't matter if I'm wiped out or a bag holder, I can still get a way with it via asking for a bailout just because a big hedge fund can do it. /s
What’s even crazier is that GS has 30k plus employees while CB has 1500. The value per employee difference is insane.
Then consider that CB might find side revenue sources (HS has many sources of revenue for example) and think about what multiple of current value CB can grow to and how comparatively “easy” it is for CB to double compared to GS.
Then consider that CB might find side revenue sources (HS has many sources of revenue for example) and think about what multiple of current value CB can grow to and how comparatively “easy” it is for CB to double compared to GS.
At this point the reason governments are not cracking down as much as they could is increasingly not just that that would do quite a bit of damage among e.g. VCs and institutional investors (think pensions). People come out with pitch forks if you start messing with their pensions; so that is a big reason to maybe talk tough but let it happen at the same time.
But there's also the FOMO factor. Governments are afraid of missing out and getting run over by e.g. the Chinese doing this regardless of what they allow or won't allow. In the US particularly, this is a direct threat to the relevance of the dollar as a means to conduct international trade. For the same reason China is moving pretty aggressively against certain crypto currencies while openly backing and endorsing others and e.g. the Chines national bank openly flirting with moving their currency on a block chain.
That's why a lot of this stuff is happening under the watchful eye of the SEC with companies head quartered in San Francisco.
But there's also the FOMO factor. Governments are afraid of missing out and getting run over by e.g. the Chinese doing this regardless of what they allow or won't allow. In the US particularly, this is a direct threat to the relevance of the dollar as a means to conduct international trade. For the same reason China is moving pretty aggressively against certain crypto currencies while openly backing and endorsing others and e.g. the Chines national bank openly flirting with moving their currency on a block chain.
That's why a lot of this stuff is happening under the watchful eye of the SEC with companies head quartered in San Francisco.
> which is roughly the market cap of Goldman Sachs.
Nothing prevented GS to enter the crypto space and offer a product similar to Coinbase's.
Instead, this is what they were spending their time on:
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/nov/30/bitcoin-is-...
Nothing prevented GS to enter the crypto space and offer a product similar to Coinbase's.
Instead, this is what they were spending their time on:
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/nov/30/bitcoin-is-...
Goldman Sachs is large enough and ubiquitous enough that it should be assumed that they are, to some extent, on both sides of every trade they recommend (or discourage).
Just because Goldman is telling their pension fund clients to avoid crypto doesn't mean that they don't have teams trading billions of it daily.
Just because Goldman is telling their pension fund clients to avoid crypto doesn't mean that they don't have teams trading billions of it daily.
This valuation is insane. $100 billion for a company that is doing approx $2 billion in annual revenues.
I know that investors are pricing in future earnings potential - but this valuation seems like drinking too much Kool Aid to me.
Competition will change Coinbase's future profitability. Coinbase cannot get away with charging such high commissions/fees for much longer. The entry barriers to setting up crypto exchanges aren't that high. There are plenty of opportunities for people to step with the single USP of lower fees/commissions than Coinbase.
I know that investors are pricing in future earnings potential - but this valuation seems like drinking too much Kool Aid to me.
Competition will change Coinbase's future profitability. Coinbase cannot get away with charging such high commissions/fees for much longer. The entry barriers to setting up crypto exchanges aren't that high. There are plenty of opportunities for people to step with the single USP of lower fees/commissions than Coinbase.
Institutional business is a more lucrative market than the consumer space, and nobody can service this space at the moment, despite demand. What the market is lacking is trustworthy operators who have execution technology and balance sheet.
Coinbase have done better than other players at getting their trust brand right with consumers and regulators. A conventional public listing will further enhance that.
Through the Tagomi acquisition, Coinbase picked up a team who know execution technology.
Through the float, they will get balance sheet.
There are strong network effects between these business units. For example, once you have your smart-order-router and algos for institutions, you can also offer it to consumers. By having your own liquidity pool and active market-makers, you can internalise flow that you would otherwise have dispatched to other venues, and save on execution costs.
It may be a winner-takes-all market.
I am not saying they will succeed, but the sky is the limit.
Coinbase have done better than other players at getting their trust brand right with consumers and regulators. A conventional public listing will further enhance that.
Through the Tagomi acquisition, Coinbase picked up a team who know execution technology.
Through the float, they will get balance sheet.
There are strong network effects between these business units. For example, once you have your smart-order-router and algos for institutions, you can also offer it to consumers. By having your own liquidity pool and active market-makers, you can internalise flow that you would otherwise have dispatched to other venues, and save on execution costs.
It may be a winner-takes-all market.
I am not saying they will succeed, but the sky is the limit.
Could an existing exchange like say ICE or CME jump into the fray to service institutional investors? They already have much of the infrastructure to handle much larger trading flows than Coinbase. Talent/tech required to compete could be aqui-hired
They could, but it feels like a stretch. I suspect it would be easier to make a move for that space from an existing institutional broker like Instinet or Virtu.
Offering crypto trading is a stretch for an established exchange? ICE and CME already have some crypto but not much yet.
For what other exchange of futures or FX is the sky the limit?
This is nonsense! Consumer businesses are the largest and most profitable in the world by a mile.
There's already an exchange (Binance) with 9x the volume of Coinbase and a fraction of the fees, however, the USA has been quite hostile to them compared to CB, so it's not exactly easy to 'step up' at least there.
Couldn't you say the same for traditional stock exchanges? In that space most of the volume also concentrates on a few ones
CBOE has a market cap of $10 billion (on revenues of $3 billion)
ICE has a market cap of $66 billion (on revenues of $8 billion)
Coinbase's market cap is going to be higher than both exchanges combined - while doing a fifth of the revenue.
Coinbase's market cap is going to be higher than both exchanges combined - while doing a fifth of the revenue.
Yeah but Coinbase has trend behind them. Who cares about others when nobody talks? Nikola as an ENTIRELY fake company made it to billions of valuation and stayed there for months while everyone could easily prove it! with help of media too! So when valuing big companies just with revenue and calculations is bit wrong and misses trends and such, especially recently. This market is irrational and bit of scam too.
True, but it's not like tech. stocks valuation are in any way rational in the last year and a half, so why should CB be any different?
You have to love the irony of the centralization effects we are seeing with cryptocurrencies that pride themselves on being decentralized and beyond regulatory control of individual nations.
Coinbase's success not only reflects on the substantial amount of control that they exert. It also reflects on that of the U.S., which regulates Coinbase.
Coinbase's success not only reflects on the substantial amount of control that they exert. It also reflects on that of the U.S., which regulates Coinbase.
Uh no. Coinbase is not and will not be a monopoly. It's impossible for them to get into a monopoly as long as government allows competition. There's hundreds of exchanges worldwide and there's very little moat in the business. If governments monopolized exchanges, it would still be possible to exchange from person to person.
Is the US government really allowing competition though? They've been pretty adamant at chasing away the much bigger and cheap Binance in favour of the local Coinbase.
Coinbase's success reflects the non-diminishing returns of the margins for dealing in this space.
As another person has already mentioned, decentralization is regarding the re-routing possible when a node fails. Whether the node is a validator, miner, or enterprise.
As another person has already mentioned, decentralization is regarding the re-routing possible when a node fails. Whether the node is a validator, miner, or enterprise.
If something has decentralized parts and then centralizes some of those parts, it's still more decentralized than it is centralized.
The point about decentralization is that there are other nodes to build on when one part is removed, even if that node is the biggest one.
The point about decentralization is that there are other nodes to build on when one part is removed, even if that node is the biggest one.
It’s also ironic that the internet has been re-centralized by a handful of tech giants. But the fact that massive centralization exists, does not mean that individuals cannot choose to use decentralized tools. Crypto enthusiasts can be maximally decentralized, if they choose.
Indeed. I did not mean to claim that decentralization is categorically dead -- only practically, in the sense that the masses (the original supposed beneficiaries) probably won't benefit from it.
Wow their employees are going to be crazy rich. Weren't they granting stock at a $8b valuation only a month or two ago? At $100b even an L4 might walk away with $5m.
All values given in USD I see. Well, someone is going to extract real money from this.
My thoughts exactly.
People keep using a measuring stick that shrinks every day.
Measurement results are guaranteed to impress.
People keep using a measuring stick that shrinks every day.
Measurement results are guaranteed to impress.
Coinbase could buyback Bitcoin to inflate their commissions and increase the retail rush
non-paywalled version -> https://outline.com/naVB6H
also the non-hug-of-death cache
non-jswalled version: https://archive.is/LnKBC
Adding a dot to the domain name also seems to get around the paywall.
With Binance starting to have Tesla stock tokens, it would be funny if they started doing the same for Coinbase shares.
I think I have figured crypto currencies out, I mean I have a theory. The old school people, bankers and what not, cannot wrap their heads around exponential growth. That's why valuations of tech companies are confusing to them. And they are using their old thinking to cope with what they consider a huge inflation risk. It's not real (imho) but that's what they see and they think Bitcoin maybe a safe haven. (The whole idea of Bitcoin has to do with slowing things down. The whole thing is a huge brake on what computers do. Whoa, slow down, calculate these n^x hashes first.)
(Ok I'm just random internet guy with conspiracy theories I suppose..)
(Ok I'm just random internet guy with conspiracy theories I suppose..)
If there's one thing the traditional banking industry can understand, it's compound interest. Which is exponential growth.
What they have trouble with is exponential growth at very high rates, which nearly always implies very high risk.
What they have trouble with is exponential growth at very high rates, which nearly always implies very high risk.
> What they have trouble with is exponential growth at very high rates, which nearly always implies very high risk.
Correct, traditional banking "has trouble" with exponential growth at very high rates. Which means that actually, they do understand something fundamental about it.
Correct, traditional banking "has trouble" with exponential growth at very high rates. Which means that actually, they do understand something fundamental about it.
That’s true for a handful of companies. It’s not true for the broader industry where things trade at 30x earnings.
Tech gets a pass to trade at those multiples. If any insurance or financial company add ‘tech’ at the end (fintech, insurancetech), they get this pass for some reason. If Hershey came up with candytech, it too would be allowed to trade like that.
This is a serious bubble if we keep playing games like this. We know how ridiculous this can be from GameStop, where it has no business trading above $100, but somehow is doing it. Game tech.
Tech gets a pass to trade at those multiples. If any insurance or financial company add ‘tech’ at the end (fintech, insurancetech), they get this pass for some reason. If Hershey came up with candytech, it too would be allowed to trade like that.
This is a serious bubble if we keep playing games like this. We know how ridiculous this can be from GameStop, where it has no business trading above $100, but somehow is doing it. Game tech.
Will people keep on using crypto when they are forced to use centralized, democratically unaccountable gatekeepers such as Coinbase? What happens if we give random, yet massively wealthy corporations unfettered power to print money? (yes, yes, we do this to some extent already with banks, but they are _fairly_ tightly regulated, at least in theory). Can we even _have_ currencies that dont have nation states backing them up?
Cryptocurrencies are a great idea when they remain decentralized and relatively small- but what happens when they become centralized and powerful?
Surely this can't go on forever?
Cryptocurrencies are a great idea when they remain decentralized and relatively small- but what happens when they become centralized and powerful?
Surely this can't go on forever?
Why do you say "will people keep using crypto when they are forced to use centralized..."?
They are not forced to use centralized services to issue, custody or trade cryptocurrencies. They never have been since the space was born in 2009, and - accordant with the its fundamental structure and purpose - can't be.
That's... kind of the whole point?
Surely, if centralised exchanges were to turn out to be a net-negative place for users to store and exchange crypto, users on those platforms would simply pivot back to join the much larger userbase using decentralised and private alternatives from which they left?
The main reasons they left were because in early development they were difficult to use, easy to make a mistake, and volumes were low. That's certainly not still the case after 11+ years of development.
(And I wouldn't necessarily describe as "small", a market cap roughly matching that of Apple's stock.)
They are not forced to use centralized services to issue, custody or trade cryptocurrencies. They never have been since the space was born in 2009, and - accordant with the its fundamental structure and purpose - can't be.
That's... kind of the whole point?
Surely, if centralised exchanges were to turn out to be a net-negative place for users to store and exchange crypto, users on those platforms would simply pivot back to join the much larger userbase using decentralised and private alternatives from which they left?
The main reasons they left were because in early development they were difficult to use, easy to make a mistake, and volumes were low. That's certainly not still the case after 11+ years of development.
(And I wouldn't necessarily describe as "small", a market cap roughly matching that of Apple's stock.)
How do I buy Coinbase shares in Britain tomorrow?
The future of crypto is pretty obvious when a company is set to do a raise for USD and not BTC.
Especially when BTC is at record highs.
Especially when BTC is at record highs.
Awesome, I hope they expand their crypto listing to include Dogecoin sometime in the near future.
It may break records of the quickest IPO devaluation so far.
What are some competitors from IPO to (near) bankruptcy in n months?
preemptive edit: cool(aid) down, it MAY be a scenario
What are some competitors from IPO to (near) bankruptcy in n months?
preemptive edit: cool(aid) down, it MAY be a scenario
Are you implying they'll go bankrupt? Did you look at their financials at all? They blow any other "unicorn" out of the water on their IPO day (well technically direct listing).
Yes, when the tether house of card collapses, it might take down much of the infrastructure, including Coinbase.
In any case, when the (current) crypto bubble burst, Coinbase valuation will take a deep dive.
In any case, when the (current) crypto bubble burst, Coinbase valuation will take a deep dive.
The US government can very well ban, or start heavily taxing, or auditing, crypto. That's a huge risk.
I hope they float enough shares that each share isn't 1000 USD.
lol @ the downvotes. I just want in and don't have a FAANG salary to buy shares. Sheesh.
Some brokers allow you to buy fractional shares... Just like you don't have to buy a whole Bitcoin...
Why does the stock price matter? It’s all the same in the end. Stock splitting doesn’t change anything except perception.
Because eTrade doesn’t do partial shares.
“Why does the stock price matter/it’s all the same in the end” is one of the more privileged things I’ve heard here. By that logic any of the following are statements to take without question:
“why does the price of housing matter?”
“Why does the price of food matter?”
“Why does the price of tuition matter”
“Why does the stock price matter/it’s all the same in the end” is one of the more privileged things I’ve heard here. By that logic any of the following are statements to take without question:
“why does the price of housing matter?”
“Why does the price of food matter?”
“Why does the price of tuition matter”
Why can't you make a free account with the dozens of free stock brokers that allow fractional shares?
As an aside, if you can't afford a single full share then it might not be wise to gamble your remaining few dollars on a crypto play.
As an aside, if you can't afford a single full share then it might not be wise to gamble your remaining few dollars on a crypto play.
Prefer all my accounts to be in one place but it’s worth looking into for the fractional share purchasing alone. I wonder if I could transfer those shares if I wanted to.
Your examples don’t make sense. I don’t see how they relate.
I agree with the other poster. If you can’t afford one share of a [speculative] stock, you likely shouldn’t be buying it.
Your life would have to be insanely privileged beyond belief for a reasonable question/response to be on the high end of privileged stuff.
Again, being able to afford stocks is privileged in the first place. If you can’t afford to pay for a single stock for 99% of stocks, you likely can’t afford to lose 50% of that stocks value. Which is possible with Coinbase.
Being on and only on eTrade is pretty privileged. Why are you on there? The fact that you didn’t need to sign up to the newer stock startups for the $5 new customer stock they give you is highly privileged.
The majority of the US doesn’t have a college degree yet I’m assuming you do. But please, don’t let me get in your way when talking tuition.
I agree with the other poster. If you can’t afford one share of a [speculative] stock, you likely shouldn’t be buying it.
Your life would have to be insanely privileged beyond belief for a reasonable question/response to be on the high end of privileged stuff.
Again, being able to afford stocks is privileged in the first place. If you can’t afford to pay for a single stock for 99% of stocks, you likely can’t afford to lose 50% of that stocks value. Which is possible with Coinbase.
Being on and only on eTrade is pretty privileged. Why are you on there? The fact that you didn’t need to sign up to the newer stock startups for the $5 new customer stock they give you is highly privileged.
The majority of the US doesn’t have a college degree yet I’m assuming you do. But please, don’t let me get in your way when talking tuition.
You started the thread talking about not having a FANG salary. Yet one of your most recent comments talks about your Mac, multiple Homepods, Apple TV, possibly more Apple products. Saying you don’t have FANG salary money then demonizing someone else as privileged because of the price of a random non super pricey stock doesn’t exactly jive with having thousands of dollars of Apple products.
Same with being privileged enough to want Facebook shut down if it was your choice. It’s an incredible privilege to have Facebook be so unimportant to your life that you can have it be shut down and be happy about it without any loss of QoL.
I don’t understand why you have to attack people personally in the first place. No one is a saint on HN any way.
Same with being privileged enough to want Facebook shut down if it was your choice. It’s an incredible privilege to have Facebook be so unimportant to your life that you can have it be shut down and be happy about it without any loss of QoL.
I don’t understand why you have to attack people personally in the first place. No one is a saint on HN any way.
If given a the authority to do one thing in the corporate world without consequence I sure would shut down Facebook. All the engineers would find amazing roles at all the other large tech companies. And the world would be a much better place. This is a hill I will die on.
You have a point regarding the Apple devices I’ve got. They were purchased over time with cash that I saved. So homepods bought on sale, iPhones that we use for years (basically until they fall apart) and my MacBooks all last for years and years so we prefer quality and pay the Apple Premium.
That you or anyone might work at Facebook is not a personal attack. You’re not Zuckerberg. You’ve a job and bills and financial goals: so be it. It’s government that could shut them down or investors that could sour to their business model or parents that could shield their kids from interacting with it and Instagram 24/7.
All I was mentioning is that I don’t make the high six figures (after bonuses and RSUs) to have substantial disposable income to pay for a stock that is likely to come in at 500 or more per share.
You have a point regarding the Apple devices I’ve got. They were purchased over time with cash that I saved. So homepods bought on sale, iPhones that we use for years (basically until they fall apart) and my MacBooks all last for years and years so we prefer quality and pay the Apple Premium.
That you or anyone might work at Facebook is not a personal attack. You’re not Zuckerberg. You’ve a job and bills and financial goals: so be it. It’s government that could shut them down or investors that could sour to their business model or parents that could shield their kids from interacting with it and Instagram 24/7.
All I was mentioning is that I don’t make the high six figures (after bonuses and RSUs) to have substantial disposable income to pay for a stock that is likely to come in at 500 or more per share.
I’m not employed at all right now. Barely have been for the decade due to mental health issues that have finally been fixed up.
It was funny to see me being described as saying extremely privileged things regarding money.
It was funny to see me being described as saying extremely privileged things regarding money.
Sorry to hear that! I’m glad you were able to resolve that. Again none of my comments are meant to be mean I try to keep comments about the comments and not the commentator. I don’t always succeed.
I did not think you were mean overall. Or maybe i did? I don’t know haha. I usually regret my more angry posts within hours of posting them.
Good luck to you as well
Good luck to you as well
I think this is awful.
I think what we see is that investing has become very hard. So people are desperate for anything that may show growth.
But I believe this is a kind of short-term bet against our future. Because we know the detrimental effects of cryptocurrencies.
I think this is all very cynical. Undermining our climate, evading taxes, money laundering. Coin base doesn’t do these things I hope but by supporting cryptocurrencies, it does indirectly.
I’m happy staying poor if that is better for the world long-term but that is probably very dumb of me.
I think what we see is that investing has become very hard. So people are desperate for anything that may show growth.
But I believe this is a kind of short-term bet against our future. Because we know the detrimental effects of cryptocurrencies.
I think this is all very cynical. Undermining our climate, evading taxes, money laundering. Coin base doesn’t do these things I hope but by supporting cryptocurrencies, it does indirectly.
I’m happy staying poor if that is better for the world long-term but that is probably very dumb of me.
Don't blame "the people". The vast amount of money printing by central banks are the cause that holding onto cash and saving has become a high risk operation. The solution is going back to the gold standard.
The economist is owned by the same people that own your central bank. If they write about the "detrimental effects" of crypto, crypto must be really good.
The economist is owned by the same people that own your central bank. If they write about the "detrimental effects" of crypto, crypto must be really good.
> The solution is going back to the gold standard.
and that situation was what happened in the 1929 great depression. And being on the gold standard, there wasn't any way to print, and took a world-war to break out of the depression.
and that situation was what happened in the 1929 great depression. And being on the gold standard, there wasn't any way to print, and took a world-war to break out of the depression.
The government helped create both the 1929 crash and the Great Depression. The US suspended the gold standard to pay for the first World War. Commercial banks were flooded with money, and when inflation got out of hand the Fed tightened rates in 1928-29. Then after the crash, the government implemented all kinds of disastrous economic policies, including wage and price controls, and a massive trade war with Smoot-Hawley tariff act, destroying imports and exports. The Fed shrank the monetary base by 7% 1929-1930, one of the largest tightenings in 20th century. The Fed helped create the crash then applied disastrous monetary policy after the crash, none of which was a result of a gold standard.
This is missing the root cause. Why did the great depression happen? It's because of the usurious financial system. Move away from usury (aka interest), and these things instantly become a non-issue overnight. This is why the government moved away from the gold standard, they want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to rely on the unfair, immoral and parasitic usurious system, yet they want to be able to bail out the market at anytime they feel when they go too far. And guess what, this will keep happening because the fundamentals are rotten. And people still cry about the wealth gap, which will keep happening because of the broken system.
Not being able to borrow money to create new wealth is worse than any immoral connotations from usury.
False dichotomy and straw man fallacies. There are moral alternatives to borrowing money with usury.
The Economist is owned by 'The Economist Group', which seems to be controlled by the Agnelli family a wealthy Italian business dynasty.
What conspiracy do you subscribe to about Central Banks?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist_Group
What conspiracy do you subscribe to about Central Banks?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist_Group
[deleted]
You're 100% right. Crypto enables the worst actors and the worst humans around. It's a cancer.
Ignorants will start yapping about "money printing" not realizing they're regurgitating talking points from a tiny group of people who are using their lack of intelligence to become obscenely wealthy.
Ignorants will start yapping about "money printing" not realizing they're regurgitating talking points from a tiny group of people who are using their lack of intelligence to become obscenely wealthy.
While I agree that many bad actors have been enticed by crypto, I'm sure that was true of other technologies/systems in their introduction (I imagine muggings increased massively as Fiat cash was adopted).
The tech itself is clearly useful in some applications, and it has spurred on a lot of conversation and thought on wider topics such as decentralised identity, trustless networking, etc etc.
A few people being bamboozled into poor investment decisions or getting scammed by people under the name of "crypto" doesn't take away for that imo.
A few people being bamboozled into poor investment decisions or getting scammed by people under the name of "crypto" doesn't take away for that imo.
> The tech itself is clearly useful in some applications
There have been 0 real world applications for this tech in 8 years outside financial crime, fraud, and speculation. A lot of the same conversations in 2013 ended with "yes but it's so early give it 5 years" and here we are still waiting for a decentralized app that's more useful to anyone than a plain old db.
Also disagree that fiat had any effect on mugging frequency. People with gold/silver coins likely got mugged at the same rate.
There have been 0 real world applications for this tech in 8 years outside financial crime, fraud, and speculation. A lot of the same conversations in 2013 ended with "yes but it's so early give it 5 years" and here we are still waiting for a decentralized app that's more useful to anyone than a plain old db.
Also disagree that fiat had any effect on mugging frequency. People with gold/silver coins likely got mugged at the same rate.
>There have been 0 real world applications for this tech in 8 years
Geez, I mean that's simply not true so I don't know what to say to you.
Granted, applications are not as wide-ranging as the moon-lambo squad might have you believe, but there are plenty of people using blockchain in production, and plenty more using related tech/concepts (like the ones I detailed).
>Also disagree that fiat had any effect on mugging frequency. People with gold/silver coins likely got mugged at the same rate.
well your implication then is that the gold/silver coin robbers kept focusing on those carrying gold/silver, and a whole new set of honest folk started stealing only fiat from people, which is likely untrue.
I'd suggest crypto is similar - present-criminals are probably still being criminal and perhaps a small number of people saw some opportunity to become a criminal, but I'd suggest that it doesn't `enable [...] the worst actors and the worst humans around.` any more than fiat currency, electricity, the internet, etc etc etc etc do
Geez, I mean that's simply not true so I don't know what to say to you.
Granted, applications are not as wide-ranging as the moon-lambo squad might have you believe, but there are plenty of people using blockchain in production, and plenty more using related tech/concepts (like the ones I detailed).
>Also disagree that fiat had any effect on mugging frequency. People with gold/silver coins likely got mugged at the same rate.
well your implication then is that the gold/silver coin robbers kept focusing on those carrying gold/silver, and a whole new set of honest folk started stealing only fiat from people, which is likely untrue.
I'd suggest crypto is similar - present-criminals are probably still being criminal and perhaps a small number of people saw some opportunity to become a criminal, but I'd suggest that it doesn't `enable [...] the worst actors and the worst humans around.` any more than fiat currency, electricity, the internet, etc etc etc etc do
Even if this is true in your POV this does not mean this is true for anyone. I saved thousands of dollars in banking fees by using crypto as means for transactions and speculation. The main food delivery as well as the main amazon competitor in my country both accept Bitcoin, Monero, Ethereum, Tron ... i (and the seller) save transaction fees each time i pay with crypto.
Over eastern i run out of money because i forgot that the whole banking is literally shut down for 5 days. I mean what the fuck is this in 2021?
Whatever you argue the tech is worthless. It was about time to we have an international, kinda unregulated but transparent way to own and move money.
Over eastern i run out of money because i forgot that the whole banking is literally shut down for 5 days. I mean what the fuck is this in 2021?
Whatever you argue the tech is worthless. It was about time to we have an international, kinda unregulated but transparent way to own and move money.
I understand where you are coming from, I can imagine if you read the media or browse twitter it can seem like a greedy and mean place. And that can be very off putting. People dont like the idea that money is being valued above all else. But to me it speaks more to the desperation that people are living under, that the thrill of maybe not being broke and in debt can be a great incentive for change in the world.
The people I know working (not trading, coding) in the space are some of the most committed and passionate and politically motivated people trying to develop new tools for coordination, to help people unionise, to create funding for public goods without coercive taxation, to represent peoples votes as a worldwide body rather than dividing along lines in the ground. It is a game of "can we organise ourselves better than those we compete with", the answer seems to be leaning towards yes. It is like the rochdale co-op movement spreading across mills in the industrial revolution, developing into workers unions, and left wing political parties challenging the aristocracy. It is a co-op, community ownership movement for internet workers.
I grew up going to protests, making my voice heard, voting for parties that never got voted in (cough in voting systems designed to never allow the thing that created them be replaced cough). For once i have found a way to collaborate and coordinate with others in an effective manner. Maybe it is a niche thing, maybe it cant scale, maybe it's just a video game, but maybe it is incredibly revolutionary, inclusive, and an actual force to bring around a change of power. Maybe it is only just getting started.
I look at the money in my wallet on my desk, pieces of paper with pictures of an old lady on them with a printed signature of the head officer of the bank. It looks medieval, it doffs the cap to inherited wealth, it is secured by violence, it says authority is legitimacy and everything else is false.
How anyone thinks crypto is a scam and the future is in the old ways seems as delusional to me as they think i am...
The people I know working (not trading, coding) in the space are some of the most committed and passionate and politically motivated people trying to develop new tools for coordination, to help people unionise, to create funding for public goods without coercive taxation, to represent peoples votes as a worldwide body rather than dividing along lines in the ground. It is a game of "can we organise ourselves better than those we compete with", the answer seems to be leaning towards yes. It is like the rochdale co-op movement spreading across mills in the industrial revolution, developing into workers unions, and left wing political parties challenging the aristocracy. It is a co-op, community ownership movement for internet workers.
I grew up going to protests, making my voice heard, voting for parties that never got voted in (cough in voting systems designed to never allow the thing that created them be replaced cough). For once i have found a way to collaborate and coordinate with others in an effective manner. Maybe it is a niche thing, maybe it cant scale, maybe it's just a video game, but maybe it is incredibly revolutionary, inclusive, and an actual force to bring around a change of power. Maybe it is only just getting started.
I look at the money in my wallet on my desk, pieces of paper with pictures of an old lady on them with a printed signature of the head officer of the bank. It looks medieval, it doffs the cap to inherited wealth, it is secured by violence, it says authority is legitimacy and everything else is false.
How anyone thinks crypto is a scam and the future is in the old ways seems as delusional to me as they think i am...
Forget it man. I've tried doing this on every HN thread. This place has lost its hacker spirit. It's happy toeing the status quo now.
I'd say the current banking system does an excellent job at money laundering and most major companies seem to play the tax system like a fiddle as to pay less taxes than a fast food employee.
So, what's left? Oh, the climate. Where to even begin here? Call me when hash function workers create smog in a small city. Until then, our industry seems quite capable of killing the planet by itself.
It's better for the world long term if people that care about it are not poor. So, do make money and improve the world in other ways. Clearly you can offset with good deeds whatever energy will be wasted.
So, what's left? Oh, the climate. Where to even begin here? Call me when hash function workers create smog in a small city. Until then, our industry seems quite capable of killing the planet by itself.
It's better for the world long term if people that care about it are not poor. So, do make money and improve the world in other ways. Clearly you can offset with good deeds whatever energy will be wasted.
Sad whataboutism.
Our current bankjng system isn’t perfect and criticism is OK.
But that doesn’t absolve Bitcoin frim their damaging impact.
And remember that Existing financial systems do a lot of good, they are a core part of our societies.
Bitcoin and other crypto doesn’t provide any legitimate benefit to our societies, it damages and undermines them.
Our current bankjng system isn’t perfect and criticism is OK.
But that doesn’t absolve Bitcoin frim their damaging impact.
And remember that Existing financial systems do a lot of good, they are a core part of our societies.
Bitcoin and other crypto doesn’t provide any legitimate benefit to our societies, it damages and undermines them.
It’s a privilege to get to say that the existing (fiat) financial system does a lot of good. Yes, it is a core part of our society but it is cruel.
The government, ultimately, makes this worse. Perhaps we will see this change, only time will tell.
Until then, cryptocurrency is an evolving force that has armed individuals with hope to get out of the pile of shit. I think it will change the world in a big way. You don’t agree and that is cool. But I encourage you to open your mind a bit.
The USD has been an unstoppable force in supporting tax evasion, money laundering, climate warming, and straight up killing of others. It has been used to undermine and destroy societies outside of America.
Why do you ignore this and focus on one archetype of a cryptocurrency investor? With your logic, anyone who owns a USD is responsible for all that destruction caused by it.
Food for thought, maybe.
No.
This is what I call extreme whataboutism.
Trying to paint the other in a very bad light so you don’t have to account for your own ‘misdeeds’.
No need for some kind of political discussion.
This is what I call extreme whataboutism.
Trying to paint the other in a very bad light so you don’t have to account for your own ‘misdeeds’.
No need for some kind of political discussion.
Trying to have a conversation about economics/finance without bringing in politics is nearly impossible. But what you call whataboutism, many see as valid criticism of the USD. You haven't really made any good case against crypto except "fiat was here first, so it is a core part of society," which isn't a very convincing argument. There is no whataboutism, I just prefer to have my wealth stored in an asset thats supply can't increase by 25% in one year based on the whims of some rich politicians appointed to the Fed. I can trust crypto because I can predict what it will do in terms of affordances and supply. With USD I can't do that. My money isn't in my control and I don't like that at all.
If Coinbase went and handed out a trillion $ worth of BTC to the wealthiest corporations in America over the past year, I would have my wealth in a different asset. Coinbase didn't do that with BTC though, the Fed did it with USD. I worked hard to earn this cash, why should I let someone else devalue my work without consulting me first?
If Coinbase went and handed out a trillion $ worth of BTC to the wealthiest corporations in America over the past year, I would have my wealth in a different asset. Coinbase didn't do that with BTC though, the Fed did it with USD. I worked hard to earn this cash, why should I let someone else devalue my work without consulting me first?
Oh the case against crypto is still what it always was:
https://louwrentius.com/cryptocurrencies-are-detrimental-to-...
> I can trust crypto because I can predict what it will do in terms of affordances and supply.
That sounds like a delusion. BTC is very volatile. When the music stops, there won't be enough chairs...
The Fed did hand out USD but that is for a very, very good reason: to keep society up and running, to keep it from total collapse.
I understand that keeping society operational is not very profitable for you, but I think it's rather nifty.
https://louwrentius.com/cryptocurrencies-are-detrimental-to-...
> I can trust crypto because I can predict what it will do in terms of affordances and supply.
That sounds like a delusion. BTC is very volatile. When the music stops, there won't be enough chairs...
The Fed did hand out USD but that is for a very, very good reason: to keep society up and running, to keep it from total collapse.
I understand that keeping society operational is not very profitable for you, but I think it's rather nifty.
> in terms of affordances and supply
Seems like you misread this part of my statement and replaced it with "price."
> to keep society up and running, to keep it from total collapse
Inflating the global reserver currency won't have this effect, it will only prolong the inevitable outcome. The reason we're in this situation in the first place is because of the US govt's mismanagement of the USD over the past five decades. I want out and crypto is my ticket, who are you to tell me I shouldn't be allowed to make this decision? I'm not telling you to stop using USD. I just want you to stop arguing for a crypto ban.
Seems like you misread this part of my statement and replaced it with "price."
> to keep society up and running, to keep it from total collapse
Inflating the global reserver currency won't have this effect, it will only prolong the inevitable outcome. The reason we're in this situation in the first place is because of the US govt's mismanagement of the USD over the past five decades. I want out and crypto is my ticket, who are you to tell me I shouldn't be allowed to make this decision? I'm not telling you to stop using USD. I just want you to stop arguing for a crypto ban.
I think you are getting close to an explanation. You "getting out" weakens the system. You must be kept in.
I think it won't be long until this tech will be used by banks because it seems to work rather well.
As for a benefit, if you consider crypto as a mode of protest alone it has value.
People are allowed to smoke and destroy their health (and of those nearby), people are allowed to gamble, people are allowed to buy to biggest truck that pollutes to no end. How is that legitimate and how does that benefit more to society?
It's a weak system one that works only when it has no competition.
As for a benefit, if you consider crypto as a mode of protest alone it has value.
People are allowed to smoke and destroy their health (and of those nearby), people are allowed to gamble, people are allowed to buy to biggest truck that pollutes to no end. How is that legitimate and how does that benefit more to society?
It's a weak system one that works only when it has no competition.
> But I believe this is a kind of short-term bet against our future. Because we know the detrimental effects of cryptocurrencies.
I'll list a few:
1. Owning your own money
2. Hedging against hyperinflation and endless money printing
3. Earning more than 0.1% given by your savings account
4. Instant value transfer across borders instead of filling out 5 forms and waiting 3 days for wires
5. Fractionalizing, decentralizing and democratizing ownership of assets
6. Disrupting legacy institutions such as banks
7. Offering citizens of autocratic nations a hedge against censorship and crackdowns
Awful, I know
I'll list a few:
1. Owning your own money
2. Hedging against hyperinflation and endless money printing
3. Earning more than 0.1% given by your savings account
4. Instant value transfer across borders instead of filling out 5 forms and waiting 3 days for wires
5. Fractionalizing, decentralizing and democratizing ownership of assets
6. Disrupting legacy institutions such as banks
7. Offering citizens of autocratic nations a hedge against censorship and crackdowns
Awful, I know
Most people don’t benefit from any of this.
This is also misleading.
Only one question is relevant:
Where do the Bitcoin profits come from?
Anwer: other people. It’s a Ponzi and we all know it.
This is also misleading.
Only one question is relevant:
Where do the Bitcoin profits come from?
Anwer: other people. It’s a Ponzi and we all know it.
Crypto != Bitcoin
You were meant to slay dinosaurs, not become one
Banks used your money and bought risky assets that crashed the entire market in 2008. Did you benefit from it? Did most people?
Banks deploying risky tactics to maximize profits and crash economies every 10-15 is somehow fine. Heck, you jump fences to hand them your money.
But if you own your own money and decide to take on the risks, it's...a ponzi?
You were meant to slay dinosaurs, not become one
Banks used your money and bought risky assets that crashed the entire market in 2008. Did you benefit from it? Did most people?
Banks deploying risky tactics to maximize profits and crash economies every 10-15 is somehow fine. Heck, you jump fences to hand them your money.
But if you own your own money and decide to take on the risks, it's...a ponzi?
Thanks for the ad-hominem.
No thanks for the misplaced whataboutism.
And yes, all cryptocurrencies are ponzis. Because they don't create value. They just extract it from other people.
No thanks for the misplaced whataboutism.
And yes, all cryptocurrencies are ponzis. Because they don't create value. They just extract it from other people.
Please stop putting all cryptoassets together. Bitcoin is not equal to, say, Filecoin or Avalanche in many ways. For some cryptos, the tokens have an intrinsic value based on the service offered by the network. Filecoins will actually get you data storage, which has value, as a service. When running smart contracts on other people's computer with Avalanche, they compute stuff for you, as a service. This cost some fees in exchange, which are paid in tokens.
The fact that you believe that ALL crypto has no value created talks of lack of knowledge of many projects out there. Although I do agree that Bitcoin shouldn't be used as it is rn.
The fact that you believe that ALL crypto has no value created talks of lack of knowledge of many projects out there. Although I do agree that Bitcoin shouldn't be used as it is rn.
But wait... That is an entire company, valued for over 1bn usd. That can "potentialy" ( but yet not realistically, yet for now) be compeletley wiped out to 0 if someone managed to "guess" their cold wallet priv key....
Interesting......
Edit: my bad, binance has a single cold wallet (165k btc) , coinbase I think keeps their btc in 8k btc wallets each.
Still that is 500k mil for each key guess
Interesting......
Edit: my bad, binance has a single cold wallet (165k btc) , coinbase I think keeps their btc in 8k btc wallets each.
Still that is 500k mil for each key guess
You need to check out the math, https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/a/12740
This is simply not worth worrying about.
This is simply not worth worrying about.
That said, one thing that boggles my mind is the fact that it seems to be currently valued at 100B$ which is roughly the market cap of Goldman Sachs.