$8000 of SHIB coin is worth $5.7b (in 400 days)(financemagnates.com)
financemagnates.com
$8000 of SHIB coin is worth $5.7b (in 400 days)
https://www.financemagnates.com/cryptocurrency/news/the-greatest-trade-of-all-time/
100 comments
The choice to tax people anything extra as a result of the Soros operation was a matter of policy, rather than necessity.
The money does need to come from somewhere, ultimately higher prices for imports, and if the government needs to buy imports, then yeah, taxes go up or spending on other things is cut.
or they could just lose their wallet like how I lost mine..
it's a sad club we're in. Occasionally I even go to bitinfocharts.com and look at my wallet that I will never have access to. Wonderful!
What kinda figures are we talking about here? :)
> who would the losers be?
Anyone holding USD.
Anyone holding USD.
> Assuming they could cash out and make $5bn, and if they did, who would the losers be?
Your losers scenario requires that SHIB declines materially after the buyers pick up the $5b of the crypto (such that the buyers inevitably end up losing money). You've built that assumption in and it's incorrect to automatically assume that, it's a central flaw in your premise.
There are not losers in every economic transaction in fact. The buyers may end up losing money.
Your losers scenario requires that SHIB declines materially after the buyers pick up the $5b of the crypto (such that the buyers inevitably end up losing money). You've built that assumption in and it's incorrect to automatically assume that, it's a central flaw in your premise.
There are not losers in every economic transaction in fact. The buyers may end up losing money.
It's not a zero-sum game. Even if it was, the cost would be carried by the people paying $5bn for a shitcoin. The pollution etc. are just externalities and not necessary.
How can cryptocurrencies not be zero sum? Especially meme coins like SHIB. These are purely speculative devices, have no intrinsic value, and don't lead to the creation of legitimately beneficial products or services, etc. - all they do is consume resources like electricity and people's time.
Wikileaks gets banned from all payment processors -> accepts bitcoin -> people donated whom would have been otherwise unable -> the censorship resistant technology facilitated democratic values and improved society, which is something valuable
Darknet markets are also facilitated, creating very valuable marketplaces. You wouldnt say ebay has no value
Darknet markets are also facilitated, creating very valuable marketplaces. You wouldnt say ebay has no value
Right , PoW crypto is a negative sum game
> It's not a zero-sum game
Yes it is.
Yes it is.
A normal trade is not zero-sum
I don't know what a normal trade is. What does it have to do with speculating on crypto coins?
There is no root node to the universe
People playing mind games does not anchor reality to them
People playing mind games does not anchor reality to them
"is worth" is up for interpretation.
Tesla sold something like $100M to test the liquidity of Bitcoin. Nobody tested to sell $5B of a cryptocurrency, let a lone a meme coin.
Next month, $8B of Bitcoin that have been locked in Mt. Gox are expected to be released to their owners. That could become the biggest liquidity test in the history of crypto.
Tesla sold something like $100M to test the liquidity of Bitcoin. Nobody tested to sell $5B of a cryptocurrency, let a lone a meme coin.
Next month, $8B of Bitcoin that have been locked in Mt. Gox are expected to be released to their owners. That could become the biggest liquidity test in the history of crypto.
>>Next month, $8B of Bitcoin that have been locked in Mt. Gox are expected to be released to their owners. That could become the biggest liquidity test in the history of crypto.
Next month, Mt. Gox is only expected to officially ratify approval of a plan to distribute the remaining $8B USD in bitcoin. Although nobody knows when the distribution will actually take place (6/12/18/24+ months), based on the timing of steps outlined in the approved plan, the distribution is definitely not happening next month.
Next month, Mt. Gox is only expected to officially ratify approval of a plan to distribute the remaining $8B USD in bitcoin. Although nobody knows when the distribution will actually take place (6/12/18/24+ months), based on the timing of steps outlined in the approved plan, the distribution is definitely not happening next month.
TSLA didn't sell that $100m to "test liquidity" - that was always a nonsense explanation.
They sold because it was the best way to have a book profit for the quarter
They sold because it was the best way to have a book profit for the quarter
I'm pretty sure it was to prove to their shareholders that they could sell the bitcoin when they need/want to. Shareholders get skittish about stuff like that, showing "hey, it's fine, we can sell it, we're not stuck with it" helps.
Anyway they always said it was to "prove" it's liquid and just as good as holding cash, not to "test" it.
https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/musk-says-tesla-sold-bitcoin-to-...
Anyway they always said it was to "prove" it's liquid and just as good as holding cash, not to "test" it.
https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/musk-says-tesla-sold-bitcoin-to-...
Except it's not what tipped the bottom line to green but it's not like that ever mattered when criticizing Tesla's revenue streams with regards to profitability.
I fully expect the bitcoin market to absorb all $8b of the Gox coins rather easily. The market is a LOT more mature than when Mt. Gox was the big kahuna, and demand is a lot higher. I wouldn't be surprised if there were major block buys by large investors/institutions.
100% agree, but it's worth noting that that meme coin did more trading volume yesterday than Bitcoin.
I don't read too much into that in terms of how much a large trade would move the market, but it's something.
I don't read too much into that in terms of how much a large trade would move the market, but it's something.
> more trading volume yesterday than Bitcoin
Well, this is a textbook FOMOing.
And a textbook scamcoin. They shilled it hard before a FOMO chain reaction began. Good job. Good profits.
Well, this is a textbook FOMOing.
And a textbook scamcoin. They shilled it hard before a FOMO chain reaction began. Good job. Good profits.
The winds are shifting towards technicals. Not to sound repetitive, but hilariously, being long DOGE doesn't look crazy.
The chances these keys aren't lost is zero IMO. Nobody, and I mean nobody would go from an $8k account to $5.7B without selling a dime (no outgoing transaction in 190 days).
Why?
Would you become a billionaire without even securing a millionaire status?
If this account belongs to someone with already deeper pockets (say someone who put 8 grand in a bunch of coins), wouldn't they have already learned that taking money off the table is a good idea when you slug it out of the solar system? Let alone with a dog coin.
If this account belongs to someone with already deeper pockets (say someone who put 8 grand in a bunch of coins), wouldn't they have already learned that taking money off the table is a good idea when you slug it out of the solar system? Let alone with a dog coin.
$8B is peanuts, $2B of SPY has already traded hands in 15 minutes today. $5B of TSLA call premium traded hands the other day. Crypto has pathetic liquidity.
I believe you, but do you have a good source for the date and amount? I keep getting trash when I look.
I read it while surfing around on the same trashy internet that you use :) So don't believe me. It might be totally wrong.
[deleted]
this will be dumped into the market. Lets see if buyers can absorb it
[deleted]
It is not worth $5.7B, don't multiply huge amounts of shares, stocks, or coins by their market value, as it is impossible to cash out at that price. If he tries to do large sell orders it will sink to 1-10% of its current price.
I fully expect the price to crash gloriously once the pullback starts, to fractions of a percent, but 1% of the current is still impressive. 8 grand to $5 million? That's, uh, not too bad.
Imagine risking $8k and cashing out with just $5.7m to $57m a year later. Who would even bother?
Imagine risking $8,000, watching it go to $5.7 billion a year later, not cashing out and going down as the biggest diamond hands in history.
At the very least you could create a commemorative diamond hands NFT collection and walk away with a few million.
At the very least you could create a commemorative diamond hands NFT collection and walk away with a few million.
There have been much larger diamond hands scenarios.
A Japan dotcom bubble billionaire, Yasumitsu Shigeta, went from $42 billion at the peak in 2000, down to $600m by 2009 as his shares of Hikari Tsushin (mobile phone distributor) sank. Still extraordinarily rich, however that's a remarkable $41 billion decline. He went from being worth $1b to $25b in one year in 1999.
Masayoshi Son rode Softbank down by something around $75b after the dotcom bubble. Softbank lost 98% of its stock market value.
There were obviously a lot of billionaire wipeouts during the US dotcom bubble as well, as people held and sank, although none quite as dramatic as those two declines.
A Japan dotcom bubble billionaire, Yasumitsu Shigeta, went from $42 billion at the peak in 2000, down to $600m by 2009 as his shares of Hikari Tsushin (mobile phone distributor) sank. Still extraordinarily rich, however that's a remarkable $41 billion decline. He went from being worth $1b to $25b in one year in 1999.
Masayoshi Son rode Softbank down by something around $75b after the dotcom bubble. Softbank lost 98% of its stock market value.
There were obviously a lot of billionaire wipeouts during the US dotcom bubble as well, as people held and sank, although none quite as dramatic as those two declines.
LOL. Usually "diamond hands" isn't used for the kind of holders that lose everything.
But I really like those examples. Decreases the survivorship bias you have when this term is usually referred to.
But I really like those examples. Decreases the survivorship bias you have when this term is usually referred to.
> going down as the biggest diamond hands in history.
go back to reddit
go back to reddit
It's funny then that every time another <insert hip tech startup here> gets VC inflow they value the entire company based on the 5% of shares that the VC bought, and this valuation gets parroted on every media outlet, including YC.
It just tells you that the nature of the beast does not change. We make fun of crypto but the same kind of shilling goes on in the supposedly more sophisticated investor circles as well.
It just tells you that the nature of the beast does not change. We make fun of crypto but the same kind of shilling goes on in the supposedly more sophisticated investor circles as well.
For whatever it's worth, that type of shenanigan is endemic everywhere else in the tech world, too. ISPs advertising speeds "up to"? SSD vendors quietly swapping SLC for limited QLC? Hat-on-a-hat super-processors in otherwise-shonky SOCs that immediately throttle themselves into uselessness but look great on paper? Prebuilt "gaming" computers with a big-name processor and a mobo pulled out of a cereal box?
It's not a "bait-and-switch", per se, it's just an information asymmetry -- that speed will be achievable on speedtest.com alone, that transfer speed looks great just as long as you haven't put more than 128gb (or whatever it is) onto the drive, if you cover the SOC in copper heatsinks (sold seperately) you can get some performance back, and the motherboard can be replaced but that rig'll play LoL just fine. If you know these things, then the game is navigable; the statements about speed or capacity or value are "true", there's "just" important and missing information about what happens once t>0 or the feeding frenzy starts or capacity is exceeded or whatever.
It's not a "bait-and-switch", per se, it's just an information asymmetry -- that speed will be achievable on speedtest.com alone, that transfer speed looks great just as long as you haven't put more than 128gb (or whatever it is) onto the drive, if you cover the SOC in copper heatsinks (sold seperately) you can get some performance back, and the motherboard can be replaced but that rig'll play LoL just fine. If you know these things, then the game is navigable; the statements about speed or capacity or value are "true", there's "just" important and missing information about what happens once t>0 or the feeding frenzy starts or capacity is exceeded or whatever.
This is just the way things are valued. Obviously you need to account for varying liquidity or whatever, but if you can sell 5% of Y for X, then Y is naturally worth 20X. Internal systems at banks report value to analysts, traders etc. in the same way, this isn’t some trick to hoodwink people, it’s just a convenient and sensible way of valuing things.
I disagree. It's a silly, misleading and inconvenient way to value things. Just because you can sell 5% of Y for X, it absolutely doesn't mean that Y is worth 20X. Doubly so when Y is in extremely limited supply. One could raise an objection: but hey, stocks are valued at X on the exchange, so what gives? And yes, they are, but anyone with a shred of sense knows that if you actually tried to buy or sell a significant portion of the company in question, the price you are going to get will be very-very different from what is being quoted, thus the actual true value of the company is likely to be considerably different.
Most actual professionals laugh at this kind of valuation, which is what makes the whole affair funny since a large portion of the industry is nevertheless happily using it.
I suppose one doesn't have to go too far for the reason: it benefits a large portion of the industry to value things this way, because they are implicitly inflating the value of their own investments.
Honestly, if I were to interview a quant and they claimed with a straight face that this is a sensible thing to do, I'd immediately thank them for their time and bid them farewell. It's that ridiculous.
Finally, I don't consider internal systems at banks to be some sort of benchmark for valuation. Most systems at banks are utter garbage. There are a few exceptions (option/exotics desks), but the rest is basically ran out of excel sheets.
Most actual professionals laugh at this kind of valuation, which is what makes the whole affair funny since a large portion of the industry is nevertheless happily using it.
I suppose one doesn't have to go too far for the reason: it benefits a large portion of the industry to value things this way, because they are implicitly inflating the value of their own investments.
Honestly, if I were to interview a quant and they claimed with a straight face that this is a sensible thing to do, I'd immediately thank them for their time and bid them farewell. It's that ridiculous.
Finally, I don't consider internal systems at banks to be some sort of benchmark for valuation. Most systems at banks are utter garbage. There are a few exceptions (option/exotics desks), but the rest is basically ran out of excel sheets.
Not to mention, at its current volume, SHIB is only trading $5M/day. Even if you could continually trade at that volume, it would take you ~3 years to liquidate.
Where is that $5M a day figure from? Coinmarketcap lists it at 39B€ in the past 24 hours. https://coinmarketcap.com/de/currencies/shiba-inu/
This does not make it less of a speculative bubble. Yet another tulip breed, in a growing tulip market.
Similarly, the upvote chart for this entry may look like it was shared on some place hours after being posted, and upvoted in bulk: https://upvotetracker.com/post/hn/29024311
[edit: removed "insinuating" bit, against HN guidelines]
Similarly, the upvote chart for this entry may look like it was shared on some place hours after being posted, and upvoted in bulk: https://upvotetracker.com/post/hn/29024311
[edit: removed "insinuating" bit, against HN guidelines]
What are you insinuating? I couldn't care less about Shiba Inu but someone buying something for $8000 which in 400 days is worth $5.7b is a crazy story worth upvoting. It doesn't need any vote brigading. Also:
> Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abuse, email [email protected] and we'll look at the data.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
> Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abuse, email [email protected] and we'll look at the data.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
I don’t think that’s necessarily the way to interpret that graph. Look at 2:12:08 PM. It still has only 5 upvotes but gets placed onto position 26 of the best list.
Sometimes posts that had few votes get put on the best list and given a second chance. Looks to me like that’s how this story started getting more votes, allowing it to gain traction.
See also this post by HN moderator “dang” about the second chance system and the comments he wrote there as well about it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26998308
Sometimes posts that had few votes get put on the best list and given a second chance. Looks to me like that’s how this story started getting more votes, allowing it to gain traction.
See also this post by HN moderator “dang” about the second chance system and the comments he wrote there as well about it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26998308
I did not know of this system (which makes a lot of sense), although "crypto X pumped" does not seem any similar to the criteria:
> Moderators and a small number of reviewers go through old submissions looking for articles that are in the spirit of the site—gratifying intellectual curiosity—and which seem like they might interest the community.
Anyway, don't want to put the tin-foil hat. I removed the incriminating bit.
> Moderators and a small number of reviewers go through old submissions looking for articles that are in the spirit of the site—gratifying intellectual curiosity—and which seem like they might interest the community.
Anyway, don't want to put the tin-foil hat. I removed the incriminating bit.
> Anyway, don't want to put the tin-foil hat. I removed the incriminating bit.
Thanks, your original comment is better now after that edit I think.
Thanks, your original comment is better now after that edit I think.
Yeah, agree. My temporary grumpiness made me jump to conclusions too fast.
Step 1. Make friends with someone high up at Coinbase
Step 2. Create a coin, buy a lot of it for yourself
Step 3. Get friend to list your coin on Coinbase
Step 4. ???
Step 5. Profit
Step 2. Create a coin, buy a lot of it for yourself
Step 3. Get friend to list your coin on Coinbase
Step 4. ???
Step 5. Profit
Step 6. Go To Jail. Do not pass GO, do not collect $200
Cryptos are not securities unless you do an ICO and advertise it that way. Pump and dumps are legal.
I'm a super crypto n00b - I don't really understand altcoins. BTC makes some sense to me, it's basically the gold standard of crypto currencies (I think?) and ETH makes some sense because of the smart contract stuff built in (I think?) - should I think about all the alt coins like being nation state currencies? Do they have specific unique properties per coin that is relevant to their use-case? What's the theory behind them?
They are penny stocks, nothing more. Exchanges & VCs buy up a ton of coins then market the coin really hard and dump on retail.
It all depends on the governance and securing model. Unlike most securities, which have a direct tie to the state apparatus through their legalization, the proof-of-work coins, at least, are governed like their own little consensual nations with ideosyncratic characteristics. Think somewhere in between fandom, religion, and collective and you have many of the more "open" ones. There are also many examples of tokens that are VC plays following the corporate model, where the token is meant to support a core business rather than acting in a national mode. Both are pleasing to speculators for different reasons.
> What's the theory behind them?
Greater Fool Theory underpins crypto currencies. NFTs are a variation on them designed to evade securities regulation. With crypto pogs you're either the con man or the mark.
Greater Fool Theory underpins crypto currencies. NFTs are a variation on them designed to evade securities regulation. With crypto pogs you're either the con man or the mark.
None of these are currencies. Even BTC isn't used for daily transactions, whereas in 2013 there were small businesses that would accept it (e.g. boutique pizza chains and coffee shops). That all disappeared when transaction fees blew up and made it not worthwhile.
These are speculative 'assets' that can only be traded for another speculative asset (altcoin) or a 'stablecoin' that promises that each coin is backed with US$1, but refuses to conduct an audit to verify it.
These are speculative 'assets' that can only be traded for another speculative asset (altcoin) or a 'stablecoin' that promises that each coin is backed with US$1, but refuses to conduct an audit to verify it.
Since you've received several trite replies, here's an answer to your actual question:
The original promise of crypto was verifiable, trust-less, decentralized transactions of value without middlemen, sanctions or high fees.
These transactions have different properties, whether alt-coins, BTC or Ether; for example:
* Transaction speed can be Fast / Slow
* Security - Very Secure / Broken
* Centralization - Tends towards decentralization / Centralization
* Transaction cost - Fee-less / Extreme
* Privacy / Transparent - Opaque
* Energy Efficiency - Highly Efficient / Purposefully wasteful
Some alt-coins have far, far surpassed BTC and Ether in all of the above. However, the people who hold BTC and Ether were there first, made the most, and have no intention of letting that value go.
If cryptos are nation state currencies, BTC and Ether have invested their money in defense and propaganda. Alt coins are a mixed lot, but some of them have greener, faster, more sustainable and less centralized methods. The small citizenry is what holds them back despite technological superiority; for now.
The funny thing about that analogy though, is that changing your backed nation state takes less than a second...
The original promise of crypto was verifiable, trust-less, decentralized transactions of value without middlemen, sanctions or high fees.
These transactions have different properties, whether alt-coins, BTC or Ether; for example:
* Transaction speed can be Fast / Slow
* Security - Very Secure / Broken
* Centralization - Tends towards decentralization / Centralization
* Transaction cost - Fee-less / Extreme
* Privacy / Transparent - Opaque
* Energy Efficiency - Highly Efficient / Purposefully wasteful
Some alt-coins have far, far surpassed BTC and Ether in all of the above. However, the people who hold BTC and Ether were there first, made the most, and have no intention of letting that value go.
If cryptos are nation state currencies, BTC and Ether have invested their money in defense and propaganda. Alt coins are a mixed lot, but some of them have greener, faster, more sustainable and less centralized methods. The small citizenry is what holds them back despite technological superiority; for now.
The funny thing about that analogy though, is that changing your backed nation state takes less than a second...
Some of these are greener only because they have less volume and a smaller market cap. Like I remember people saying "DOGE uses so much less electricity than Bitcoin!", which is true in its current overall total, sure, but if you multiplied its volume so it matched bitcoin (like what would have to happen if it replaced bitcoin) it would be almost the same.
That's not to say there aren't greener alternatives out there (especially with Proof of Stake networks), but some of these coins claiming to be greener are only that way because they're not used anywhere near as much.
That's not to say there aren't greener alternatives out there (especially with Proof of Stake networks), but some of these coins claiming to be greener are only that way because they're not used anywhere near as much.
So question about that. In this new world, we've effectively connected tech choice directly to financial return, is there a disincentivization to pick the "best" tech?
Yes and no.
Yes in the short term. Picking the best tech is disincentivized, because there are many and powerful forces beyond technical characteristics at play.
No in the long term, because technology really does matter once people actually try to use the coin. Ether was once the best tech, and it was $10 a coin. Now it isn't, and it's >$4k.
For example: More and more of the people who make money using their graphic cards to mine Ethereum are choosing to have their payment transferred in Nano, and other alts. It just makes more sense to go with the fee-less and near-instant option, when there's a choice like that to be made.
Yes in the short term. Picking the best tech is disincentivized, because there are many and powerful forces beyond technical characteristics at play.
No in the long term, because technology really does matter once people actually try to use the coin. Ether was once the best tech, and it was $10 a coin. Now it isn't, and it's >$4k.
For example: More and more of the people who make money using their graphic cards to mine Ethereum are choosing to have their payment transferred in Nano, and other alts. It just makes more sense to go with the fee-less and near-instant option, when there's a choice like that to be made.
Monero is a private alternative to Bitcoin, all transactions are anonymous. Cardano, Solana, Algorand are smart contract platforms like Ethereum but with different technology and tradeoffs. These are just a few examples.
> What's the theory behind them?
There is no theory, each one is different. Some propose different ways to do transactions, or different scaling solutions, different governance, different ways to do smart contracts etc. Some are poor solutions, others are outright scams.
BTC and ETH aren't special, they're just big. BTC has the market place it has because it was first, not because it's better in any technical way. Similarly with ETH - it has a large community but it isn't necessarily better at smart contracts (or it might be - people will argue about this indefinitely).
There is no theory, each one is different. Some propose different ways to do transactions, or different scaling solutions, different governance, different ways to do smart contracts etc. Some are poor solutions, others are outright scams.
BTC and ETH aren't special, they're just big. BTC has the market place it has because it was first, not because it's better in any technical way. Similarly with ETH - it has a large community but it isn't necessarily better at smart contracts (or it might be - people will argue about this indefinitely).
Some are created as jokes, some are created with better privacy in mind, some are intended to be more energy efficient forks of other existing altcoins, etc.,.
They're just gambling materials.
Behind this, none. Memes, and speculation, and memes, and Elon Musk.
So for this shiba thing, dude holding 8k worth, I guess his theory was something like "Internet people love Shibas, they're funny and kawaii, bet people will buy it as joke! Bet I'll make bank!" - and they did?
More or less so. Welcome to crypto wonderland
So what's to prevent me from making pepecoin, or going on twitch and making alt coins for funny memes of famous streamers and pumping them in their communities? That would be "the right thing to do" in this so called wonderland? Fascinating to me really...
Your local law enforcement, hopefully.
Nothing. Theres plently of them already, its just that nobody cares about 99.9% of them.
Hex is also crazy, has according to RH 41k users and claims to have a market cap of 1/9th of BTC. People are going to get annihilated.
Here's a YouTube video from a derivatives trader on the whole thing. It's a fairly entertaining watch IMO :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PY8qvapOfs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PY8qvapOfs
Guys, it is time to give in.
Let's make a HN coin! Who is in?
Let's make a HN coin! Who is in?
There have existed rapid, low-fee coins intended for usecases like tipping on forums (or quickly buying burritos) for a number of years now.
We're simply waiting on low-information speculators to figure things out at their pace and eventually declare the rightful heirs to the BTC "king of crypyocurrencies" throne, so even places like HN might feel comfortable integrating natively, instead of looking foolish later for adopting a "dumb method that takes an absurd amount of time/fees/etc" (BTC).
We're simply waiting on low-information speculators to figure things out at their pace and eventually declare the rightful heirs to the BTC "king of crypyocurrencies" throne, so even places like HN might feel comfortable integrating natively, instead of looking foolish later for adopting a "dumb method that takes an absurd amount of time/fees/etc" (BTC).
No. Don’t be silly.
Let’s just create a new token on the ethereum network and use the power of the hn community to drive up the price.
Let’s just create a new token on the ethereum network and use the power of the hn community to drive up the price.
I just can help but think of tulip mania when I see this.
At some point the music stops
At some point the music stops
It's definitely quite hard to transfer this chunk of SHIB in an exchange. Imagine the eyes watching this address; it will be quite an overwhelming feeling.
Paper value =/ real value
Otherwise WeWork would be a $50bn behemoth as its backers continued to insist right up until the comical S-1 dropped.
Otherwise WeWork would be a $50bn behemoth as its backers continued to insist right up until the comical S-1 dropped.
Crypto makes no sense to me…
[deleted]
[deleted]
Time to hit them up with that proposed wealth tax. There should be no billionaires! \s
So, sell it.
[deleted]
- This would only be the "greatest trade ever" if they actually cash out, i.e. realise the paper profits. The other two examples of "greatest trades ever" did realise their profits. There are of course questions as to whether they could in this case.
- Assuming they could cash out and make $5bn, and if they did, who would the losers be? In the case of the George Soros trade, he made his billion at the expense of the British tax payers, who collectively had to pay an extra £3.3 billion taxes, and mortgage payers, who saw their interest rates shoot up to 15%. In this case, presumably it would be all the people who bought SHIB for a higher price than that at which it settles after cashing out, plus everyone else on the planet who suffers from the social, political and environmental fallout from cryptocurrencies. That $5bn would have to come from somewhere.