Hmm... Bitprime have grown since the last time I was paying attention. 20 employees....
For some context, a few years ago, they only did OTC trades (you ask for a quote and have a few hours to confirm the price and send the funds), with quite a large minimum of a few thousand. You only really delt with them if you wanted to on-road or off-road large amounts of New Zealand dollars.
They didn't even run their own crypto wallets or have any infrastructure. They would just run accounts on larger crypto exchanges (binance?) and manually confirm deposits.
Looks like they have updated their process recently to be more automated so they can accept lower minimums, but their process apparently hasn't changed. They still don't hold customer funds and only trade between crypto and NZD.
It's entirely possible they ran into problems because their model isn't compatible with large downward volatility. Or maybe an exchange froze their account?
Generally OTC desks are useful for large purchases. Let's say you want to acquire $100 million in Bitcoin - you could go to Coinbase and just do it, but you'd drastically move the market, have a really obvious candlestick, and an observant third party could look for large movements from Coinbase and potentially track your holdings / de-anonymize you.
An OTC desk can be setup to spread the buy over several days / months, buy across markets, and optimize for best price execution. It's not necessarily a huge business, but a lot of businesses and high net worth individuals will use these types of services instead of trying to learn the skills themselves.
Not exchanges. The reason is that, as GP indicated - oftentimes execution is spread across venues.
This is typically a role of a dedicated broker house or there is a special area in many investment banks that takes care of that as part of customer flow handling.
There are plenty of crypto exchanges that only deal with crypto. Or only have on/off ramps for some local currency that isn't really practical for people outside of that one country.
Bitprime allowed people in NZ to easily transfer value in and out of those exchanges. Or directly into a wallet for other services (i.e. buying NFTs or paying ransomware), or to hoddle.
The reasons for OTC desks is that if an individual wants to buy, say $100m of an asset, it's likely that they need to buy from multiple sellers.
If you do that by buying $10k x 10k transactions, your demand will increase the price of the asset and mean you pay more than current price for no good reason.
OTC desks either collect the $100m from large holders in big blocks, or they use working capital to constantly buy the asset and sell it for a single quoted price (hoping to gain on arbitrage).
In this particular case, they also offered the unique service of accepting /nzd vs. EUR/USD/JPY/KRW
> unique service of accepting /nzd vs. EUR/USD/JPY/KRW
Which could possibly be the reason why they are in trouble? The NZD has been dropping against USD over the last while, so any uncovered delays could hurt their margins?
To add: BitPrime was a very small operation. They do have 22 people on their about us page, but I would guess most of those are founders, sweat-equity, or intern-like (few salaried, even though salaries in NZ are wayyy lower than US).
Would someone mind calming me by explaining why this is not a huge red flag, this isn’t the beginning of the end, and a theoretical crypto crash won’t throw the market into turmoil (or why the current market turmoil ain’t so bad)?
I don’t have any kids to feed, just young dumb and tired of market crashes.
This is some random startup nobody has heard of. HN likes to work themselves into a froth over every scrap of bad crypto news, but this is utterly insignificant. Crypto will continue to fluctuate wildly as it always has.
This. They did the same thing with “terra USD”, some shitcoin I had never heard of until it failed. It was even named to confuse people by sounding like USDT.
HN is only a step above CNN when it comes to trustworthiness on this specific topic.
It doesn't count as real crypto until zionic has heard of it?
Irrespective of your attitude to an unheard-of coin, the situation rather epitomises the problem many have with crypto. They start off as penny stocks, but people expect them all to rocket to Fortune 500 levels for no good reason other than all the other gullible idiots pumping their savings into them, forgetting in their greed that it's quite as easy to start a run if you have enough.
Before you know it —and I very much mean you there— they're trading at $120 with a cap of $32bn before the floor drops out. I know a cap isn't tangible value but none of this stuff is. That didn't stop this being a top 10 crypto currency at one point.
It's all Monopoly money. You can get rich trading it, but you can also lose everything. A lot of people are getting fractions of a penny on their dollar investment. All because, what? It stinks of pump and dump. It all stinks of pump and dump.
Pile on the environmental disaster that is proof of work, and you should be able to see why people hate crypto. It's weirder that more people don't but on investigation that's usually because they have skin in the game.
Sick of people calling everything in crypto a Ponzi scheme. Some crypto projects are pump and dump schemes, while others are pyramid schemes. Others are just standard issue fraud. Others are just middlemen skimming of the top. Stop glossing over the diversity in the industry.
>It doesn't count as real crypto until zionic has heard of it?
That's not what I'm saying. I consider myself fairly active in the space, and I hadn't heard a peep about this coin until it blew up. I doubt most on HN had either, but that won't stop the doomers.
Isn't it a problem with "the space" that any old Gigachad and his drawful of sockpuppets can jump on a nobody-coin that's been doing nothing for three years, and in 12 months of frothing, pump it up to a top-10 coin, and dump out their holding for a few billion dollars and "active in the space" people like you don't even notice?
Thousands more of these things are being minted every week. Thousands more opportunities to suck in "investors at the ground floor".
I don't think it's fair to label critics as doomers. We just don't see the value you do, or at least, our accounting puts the very visible and very recurrent harms of crypto above their potential benefits.
Are you possibly confusing UST with USDT? Tether would be fairly characterized as a "massive part of the crypto ecosystem". I don't think you can say the same about terra
Last I checked it's pegged. DAI and tether fluctuate a lot but generally stay right near $1. Just pulled up the 7d tether chart and I see one spike to $0.9905, which isn't that bad.
To be fair, among the USD-"pegged" stable coins, UST was the third largest and had about 10% of the market cap, until a few days ago. The fact that you hadn't heard of it is hardly pertinent.
Oh that happened in 2009 as well, tons of startups had their money parked in an asset with a special name, where it was tied to real estate, so the startups' treasury could appreciate without being spent. Because real estate never goes down, you see. It was so safe.
> Crypto will continue to fluctuate wildly as it always has.
Which is as much as an unfounded absolutism as stating the opposite. While there's not fundamental limit to what you're saying, there might be qualitative differences though going forward: I can still go into a store these days and buy tulip bulbs, it just doesn't cost me two salaries...
I'm not positive on crypto in general, but they seem to have run of of their own money (capital) and not their customers' money. I.e. they didn't lose their customers' coins. Actually, it seems that they have never held them anyway. So it's not like a bank crash.
The service seems to have been making it possible for people to sell their coins directly to one another. (Crypto exchanges hold your crypto and don't do an actual transaction through the block chain until you withdraw what you have. Though they could still guarantee not losing your coins if they go bankrupt...)
This is what they said about it:
> Are my funds safe?
> We don’t hold customer funds – at the time of the trade, we send the cryptocurrency directly to your wallet. If you need to execute a trade at this time, other platforms can facilitate this.
Bitcoin market cap is about 580 Billion. SP500 market cap is about 38 Trillion. During unremarkable market swings, the SP500 gains and loses the entire Bitcoin market cap daily (1.5%)
Crypto can go to zero and the world will continue on.
> a theoretical crypto crash won’t throw the market into turmoil
I don't think it will affect markets much. There are only a few companies involved. Most of the money is from the retail investors, and that money is already gone. The crypto exchange balances going to zero won't change things much as those are mostly imaginary numbers anyway.
Really hard to know the exact breakdown, but there's also a significant amount of institutional activity in crypto too. The recent crash has put a large whole in the balance shit of many trading firms and VCs
I don’t like crypto and in all truth, I would love to use this as evidence that I’ve always been right. However, at its core, this story is about some random startup running out of money. It doesn’t mean a thing and I can’t possibly use it to slag on crypto.
It helps when you understand that "market cap" has no meaning in the crypto world and that their "trillion dollar" numbers are completely imaginary.
The market cap of a stock (shares outstanding x share price) makes sense because each share represents a piece of the profits of the company and an ownership stake. If you took away half of the shares, the price per share would ~double and the market cap would remain the same since it's based on current cash + projections about the future profitability of the company, and the share price reflects those expectations. None of that is true for crypto.
Financially illiterate crypto people started multiplying the coin price x number of coins outstanding and calling that a "market cap" but there's nothing underlying the crypto world. Owning a bitcoin doesn't represent a percentage profit of some underlying economic activity that's being independently valued, coins are zero coupon bearer instruments, the value is in the coin itself. It's like talking about the "market cap" of pesos, just incoherent and easily gameable.
How you can be in business selling this shit as non-shit when admitting the truth without having some crazy legal liability exposure problems is amazing to me. Like, FTX literally advertises "you don't need to know anything about crypto." But he says you should here!
For a lot of people, the game seems to be simply to grab the cash now and if regulators eventually come knocking, lawyer up, settle and keep most of your profits.
I remember a guy on HN a year or two ago who was very proud of the ICO he ran in 2017. The token was useless, investors lost their money, and he was fined something around a million dollars by the SEC. But to him that was a mark of pride, like he fought The Man and won. His excuse for scamming investors was basically “startups fail too, I’m a founder.”
The toxic startup hustle exemplified by Uber and some other companies ten years ago directly led to the utter moral collapse in crypto.
It's just particularly amazing when someone doesn't even follow a "keep your mouth shut until after any potential legal fallout comes" playbook.
And like, if you're a crypto true-believer, any crash that may or may not happen this year probably doesn't mean too much: the surge in prices wasn't because of any particularly groundbreaking developments in terms of the main long-term pitches (e.g. "new financial infrastructure for the world"), even NFTs seemed to really follow the price run-up, not lead to it. It really looks more just like a lot of people gambling with cash to burn in a situation where a lot of traditional entertainment was less attractive if not outright restrictive. So keep your head down and keep building...
At the risk of starting a flamewar: I wonder about the relationship between the degraded practices of many startups and this sort of "got mine" mentality. The dominant pattern for startups over the last 10-15 years has been to soak up VC money, obtain massive valuations, flood the market with supply, and establish yourself as a hegemon once you've wiped out all of the stable but cash-poor competitors.
Perhaps it's excessive pattern matching, but it's hard not to see a civic relationship between the (correct) perception of startups as underhanded and the rise of an entire industry of scammers who will do and say anything to get ahead.
That's funny. Founder. Like if I were a woman I would treat that like, "What? You're in a band?" Like OK lead singer of a known band, then you're not in a band, you're in that band. But it's just nah.
So the view from the inside, like what a VC sees, is that everybody is piling up and it's so so easy to say "I've got hot shit" and you have to be like "yeah maybe." A lot of the time "don't pitch me bro." And set it up like a nightclub, realistically none of the founders will have real tech without getting it from real researchers, so they have to impress you with how well they work the club. Now that I say that I'm figuring out my own strat too, treat it like a club.
So the second secret, don't tell anybody, don't link to this comment, close the doors, unplug the ethernet, turn on the wifi jammers, put your smartphones in the faraday cage, the secret is: everybody wants you to lose. Everybody wants you to lose. Just like in a club. When you accept that, it's so much easier! The entire club wants you to prove you're a lesser man, like sit next to the bar waste your money on drinks (never on a hotel), parade in circles concentrically around the women dancing with their clique of girlfriends in the middle, asking like once or twice and feeling bad for months about being rejected, that's what the club wants the men to do. And there is violence at the club, it's not like "the worst that can happen is she says no" that's a load of shit, it depends on a lot of things.
So it's the same adversarial environment, everything going against you. Realize that, and it's suddenly much easier.
GDP is a flow. It would be better to compare the total assets of France to Bitcoin’s market cap. France’s public stocks have a market capitalization of over $2T alone. Then there are private firms, real estate, personal and government assets, IP, etc. In short, France’s actual worth far dwarfs that of the BTC market.
France's GDP results from liquid money already being moved around.
"Market cap" estimates assume that everyone could sell without the price moving. It's going to be far more sensitive to price changes than an actual country's GDP, it's based on what current trading prices are.
And Bitcoin, unlike a company with a huge market cap, isn't providing goods or services. E.g. if Apple disappeared into thin air, everyone hoping to buy new Apple phones or computers would be dramatically affected and that would have a ton of ripple effects. But if Apple's sales dropped to 0 and then they went out of business, their valuation would be down to 0 but a lot of people would've recouped some of their investment on the way down - the people selling earlier being better off than the ones later. This is a crazy scenario, though, since they're sales wouldn't go to 0 overnight.
So who's actually relying on Bitcoin? Some companies in the space, sure. Probably a bunch of individuals who did stuff like use bitcoin as part of their wealth portfolio when taking out loans. But if those people had those holdings wiped out, will the ramifications be huge? My guess is probably not but I don't actually know how many people would, for instance, be unable to pay their mortgage if their crypto holdings imploded.
(This will be interesting to see if a crash does happen: in a world where you believe prices always go up, the "clever" move is to not sell your bitcoin, but to borrow against it, so it appreciates in the background still. But in a world where there's a crash, this could leave you worse off than before, the debt won't go away just because the price fell.)
Reverse wealth effect will have a significant impact though: suddenly millions of people who thought they were well off will find out otherwise as their crypto investments melt into air at the same time as their stocks and bonds crater and central banks have few tools left to fix this as they are fighting inflation.
Market cap is a hilariously meaningless term in the world of crypto. $2 Trillion very simple <number of coins> * <last purchase price> calculation. Nowhere near $2 Trillion of actual money are in this system. Comparing this to the GDP of one of the largest economies on the planet is... well, it's just silly.
The economy of France is a device that generates the GDP. Erasing that device is not the same as taking away the (one year's worth of) product of that device. If you erase the economy of France then you erase a lot of companies doing business with a substantial fraction of the world. So you shake the whole world economy not simply through erasing some money owned by someone but business connections. You'll have a lot of companies in trouble for losing either customers or important suppliers.
Because it was right before COVID occured and pretty close to the average trading price for the prevous 5 or so years. Sure, the price has run significantly higher than that average for a month or two among those 5 years... If I wanted to be pedantically accurate, I would have added a few paragraphs of disclaimers, but it was an off-hand comment pointing out the obvious that the GP had ignored in their own off-hand comment.
There is a big difference though. GDP is measured per year. Bitcoin market cap is of its lifetime value on date when you measured it (based on exchange rate fluctuations of course). So Bitcoin collapsing is not the same as France's economy going out of existence.
France's economy actually produces things, though; it represents the economic output of 60 million people. Bitcoin is an asset in a class of assets that doesn't really do much of anything on its own.
It seems to be (I hope so anyway) quite inbred as well... for the most part, only those in the crypto space should be affected. with little repercussions in the wider world
Nah. As posted elsewhere, "Market cap" is a nonsense term in the crypto world, just utterly meaningless. I could create a new coin right now, call it MarketCapCoin, with an initial mint of 1 billion MCCs. If someone buys 0.01 MCCs for $10, that would mean the "market cap" of my shitcoin was $1 trillion. Does my stupid shitcoin represent 6% of US GDP? Of course not. There's no liquidity or economic value, it's just cosplaying with a spreadsheet.
Luckily we were still at the beginning of banks lending REAL money using Crypto as collateral.
So you won't see much effect in the real economy.
There is absurd amounts of Crypto lending that's probably causing a lot of margin calls forcing a negative feedback loop in Crypto prices.
Everytime this happened before - the Central Bank of Tether came to the rescue and printed 10% of the entire Crypto market cap in ~2 days to pump up the market ~30%.
Time will tell if they have the balls to do this now - when they're already under investigation in many jurisdictions.
It sounds like it's a business that has run out of its own money at exactly the wrong time. There's no customer deposits on this exchange in terms of crypto accoording to their FAQ so this is a case of "startup runs out of money", not "crypto is going to zero"
It looks exactly like Robinhood (a liquidity issue), but without the faceless an unaccountable entity sitting behind them telling them to suspend trading.
These guys appear to be acting as middlemen between their New Zealand customers and several exchanges. Bank transfers take days to finalize (and weeks to settle), so their business appears to be built around capitalizing on that time opportunity and allowing their customers to lock-in quotes without having to wait for their funds to appear in their exchange account if they dealt directly with an exchange.
While the crypto markets are stable and the volume is predictable, everything is fine and they can maintain a balance on their exchanges and in their bank account. A sudden surge in volume (due to a massive price swing) means having to close shop and suspend trading while the transfer from exchange to bank account (or the other way) finalizes.
If you're talking about the crypto market crashing,
yes, this is absolutely in context indicative of the speculative circus ending.
Everyone knows the coyote has been running in air, waiting for various planks of a putative bridge to somewhere to materialize; those who put money into this vision who do not have it out now, will not get it back in a meaningful time frame, modulo dead cat bounce.
IMO "hodling" anything other than the most conservative (sic) of "coins" means taking a total loss. Bitcoin and Ethereum and a few others may crawl back over a few years; whether there is appetitive for another bubble with them is TBD.
It is not rational to believe their putative utility will emerge in that time; any future run up will merely be another round of speculation..
Crypto is still a new and high-risk asset, and is considered a risk-on asset by all of the broader financial markets.
When Fed interest rates are low and credit is cheap, money supply increases and more of it flows into higher risk/return assets like crypto and drives their prices up.
When Fed interest rates go up and credit becomes more expensive, money supply decreases and funds flow out of high risk assets like crypto, driving their price down.
The current bear market will last as long as the Fed continues raising interest rates, then turn back into a bull market when that reverses. Unless there's a war going on, in which case all bets are off.
Exchanges are auxiliary to Bitcoin. The protocol works quite well without any need for an exchange. The exchange in question is a small-time player. Back when the biggest of the big time players, Mt Gox, went under in 2014, Bitcoin came back stronger than ever.
All you have to know is that any coin that has to be backed by anything is a shit coin. Think about that. Understand that. There's only one coin that is not backed by anything, that has no founder, that has no ulterior motive, that is not centralized, that is not designed as a get rich quick scheme for the founders. And the venture capitalist, in the backers. You know which one that is. So if you make that realization, however painful, that might be, you are neo, you have taken a red pill. And no, that real world, your first glimpse of it, it's not going to be pretty, but then, after you process, you will see it is beautiful, it is full of hope and love, you have found home.
I don't know about that. They include the word small. Judging from the original headline and HN story position, how big would you estimate this business to be?
Yes true, but my point is more that the headline is purposefully catchy (which is fine, it's a headline) but the actual content is not really noteworthy in any way except that "cryptocurrency failing" gets people's attention.
If BitPrime was a CRM SaaS that shut down and laid off all 6 of its employees or whatever nobody would think to write an article about it.
This seems to be a small player, so it's not especially concerning, but when the Coinbase CEO says his company has "no risk of bankruptcy," it's one of those moments where I wonder why he felt he needed to say that. Sure, they reported it as a possible risk to the SEC, but then "nothing to see here, folks" doesn't inspire confidence.
The question is here - how can they run out of liquidity in the first place? Surely as an honest exchange platform you match buyers and sellers, and take a transaction fee? This implies they have been playing games with customer deposits.
Which would be shocking for a cryptocurrency platform!
If they didn't have an exact match for the deal maybe they just were the other party - waiting for the other side of the txn. So, in the middle they kept losing a bit on each deal as crypto dropped and poof...the market-maker funding pool is zero.
They're an OTC platform and retailer. Meaning when customers buy or sell through their platform, the counterparty is Bitprime, not other customers. As for their "swap" service, that's just proxied to Changelly, another company.
Looks like they don't even maintain custody of user funds at all.
All this is very clear from the existing docs on their site.
> Our fee structure is different to that of a brokerage or exchange. As a retailer, our expenses are generally higher than a sole crypto trader’s.
So apparently not an "exchange platform", but rather a "retailer".
Presumably they're trying to cater to less-technical folks who'd pay extra for the convenience/ease.
> What you see is what you get! Our advertised rates include ALL fees, and the price agreed upon at the time of purchase is fixed regardless of what happens in the market. Our fees appear slightly higher than exchanges because we have done all the hard work for you – with education and support to help get you started, and no need for you to deal with multiple exchanges or currency conversions.
Yeah, as a retailer their business is far more at risk from market fluctuations I guess. They can ride high in the bull market but a drop in asset price puts everything at risk.
Sounds like a market maker. In traditional finance the market maker hedges their large liquidity position through options to limit any risk from wild fluctuations in either direction. In defi, I guess they just hodl and then go bankrupt.
I like the analogy/idea, or more precisely find it amusing. But this company doesn't have the necessary liquidity. Plus I am not sure if there can be a real market maker given the transaction volume and volatility of BTC: In the past the daily transaction volume was in the 3 to 8 * 10^9 [billion] US$ range[1], which is massive. And the volatility isn't exactly famously tame either. For comparison, that company self-reports to have moved a mere 92 million in 5 years.
That's like someone with a 500k to 700k portfolio doing 1M worth of transactions in 5 years (should be reasonable?) trying to be market maker for Tesla.
Quadriga CX was a Canadian cryptocurrency exchange that went under a few years ago (early 2018? unsure exactly when) .
Basically the founder lived the high life with his partner, multiple houses, a yacht, etc etc, and it looked like a stunningly successful and honest exchange. He died in India when he was there apparently building orphanages.
It turns out that he ran the entire thing from his laptop and nobody else could get in as he didn't share the passwords to anything. It further turns out that when people started investigating properly, the whole enterprise was insolvent, because he had viewed the customer funds and company funds as personal funds, 'normal' money and cryptocurrency alike, and he had gambled most of the cryptocurrency away in bad trades on other exchanges, and most/all of the 'fiat' was gone too. He also turns out to have had a history of involvement in scammy 'hyper-growth investment!' stuff.
His death looks very convenient, and IIRC his widow won't allow the body to be exhumed and checked to make sure it's really him (it probably is, I have no idea). The funds were gone.
the ex made a very convincing blog post some time ago that she was an innocent bystander to that train wreck.
As a neutral observer, she sounded somewhat believable, especially since she basically was along for the ride, and has almost nothing to show for the scam (and a lot of downside from being the person targeted by the ire of depositors)
> The company's CEO and founder, Gerald William Cotten (born 11 May 1988),[2] died in 2018 after traveling to India. Up to C$250 million (US$190 million) in cryptocurrency owed to 115,000 customers was missing[3] or could not be accessed because only Cotten held the password to off-line cold wallets.[4][5][6]
> Blockchain analysts have reported that they are unable to find evidence of Quadriga's cold wallets on the blockchain, a public ledger used for cryptocurrencies.[37][38]
> Ernst & Young found five Quadriga cold wallet addresses, but they were empty, containing no cryptocurrency since April 2018.
I spent a little time in the industry and the most prominent voices are just snake oil salesmen and charlatans now. Anyone who truly believed from the beginning made so much money that it’s not worth the risk for them to be publicly involved in the community.
It became an MLM for bros and basement-dwellers alike to gamble their stimulus checks on.
The latter answer is simple. Tether and other stable coins printing money from nothing. They have statements that they are backed as equivalent to dollars but it is utter nonsense.
Just yesterday tether printed another billion usdt.
They were openly proven to have only 3% of their currency backed by USD by the NY AG but everyone just ignores that judgement.
They never held under audit, have proven to not be backed by USD and refuse to disclose their holdings. Their CFO is an Italian surgeon who sold pirated copies of Windows.
When eventually that falls, the entire space I figure will implode.
The good news that their bank Deltec's chairman created Inspector Gadget, so when trouble looms he can just "go go Gadget helicopter" and fly out of trouble!
For me it means both. I know absolutely that btc/eth didn't grow organically to the levels it did without significant propping from tether and manipulation from exchanges.
Not a crypto optimist at all, just trying to be objective. For both crypto and gold, the price is supported by the amount of people willing to buy it as a store of value (yes, gold is also used for jewelry and some manufacturing, but that's a secondary use).
Crypto is new, so it's mostly recognized by early adopters - people that are more likely to change their mind in the changing circumstances. There's also a lot of the "get rich quick" crowd, money laundering, illegal purchases, and other activities there, but these are all the factors that support the price of crypto.
So yes, it's extremely volatile. Yes, its price depends on the mood of lots of moody people. But it's still a valid commodity backed by human greed.
Gold's intrinsic value is what makes it a store of value. Bitcoin doesn't have that directly - the coins directly don't have any value, but the ledger and mining technology behind it has real value as invented knowledge because it was novel at the time. That's like saying gold has intrinsic value because there are manufacturers of jewelry, but not because of the physical properties of gold.
IMO bitcoin can act as a commodity, but it needs more participation and infrastructure (importantly, the internet) to realize that. Mining bitcoin is cheaper than mining gold though, so that should be a good hint that if Bitcoin is any kind of store of value, it should end up cheaper than gold.
Maybe... from what I see (which is limited), "crypto" is feeling the same downward pressure that other stocks like tech are feeling (someone just posted an article about that). But people still haven't come around to the "this is just BS" phase yet that needs to happen. All crypto under current operating models is worth zero, it doesn't need to be marked down, it needs to (and will) be recognized as a scam and written off. I don't see progress towards that out of any of the news I've seen.
I don’t understand the go-to-zero case. Surely an open source, permissionless financial system has some value? There’s tons of value being captured in closed financial systems.
Surely an open source, battle-tested, massively widely used operating system like Linux has some value? There's tons of value being captured by closed operating systems.
I’m not “taking a victory lap”. You have a tech that supposed to be digital cash with gold properties that is insanely volatile, often takes a long time to settle and features opaque gas fees, etc.
It’s a cool experiment, but it’s almost like Uber - something with great promise that delivered something lesser.
Refreshing HN to find more signs of the cryptocalypse has definitely become a guilty pleasure of mine the last few days.
I really don't wish for it, because so many people would get caught in the crossfire, but there's still that fascination for the 'train wreck in slow motion'.
As a climate scientist (currently non-practicing) the cryptocalpyse is something I deeply wished for. If you want to make Ponzis that’s fine but there’s no reason to ruin the environment to do it. Tulips were a truly green asset bubble, maybe we could do them again. I feel sorry for the folks losing money, but not really because they still have more assets than I’ll ever have.
This is not a product anyone has heard of. Negative crypto stories get a lot more play on HN than the legions of tech startups laying off workers, and FAANG stocks ruining RSU packages. The whole world of markets is being popped right now. For example pension funds are doing terribly:
Not a scam as such, but definitely a service that's been propped up with investor money, and is only now facing the realities of having to deliver real profits.
Technology forum has articles about controversial (polarizing!) technology topic. Tbh, the tenor here also isn't doomsday predictions, it's some "elaborate on the core value, any value" with some jaded cynicism akin to assuming any unknown telephone number is a scam call
For some context, a few years ago, they only did OTC trades (you ask for a quote and have a few hours to confirm the price and send the funds), with quite a large minimum of a few thousand. You only really delt with them if you wanted to on-road or off-road large amounts of New Zealand dollars. They didn't even run their own crypto wallets or have any infrastructure. They would just run accounts on larger crypto exchanges (binance?) and manually confirm deposits.
Looks like they have updated their process recently to be more automated so they can accept lower minimums, but their process apparently hasn't changed. They still don't hold customer funds and only trade between crypto and NZD.
It's entirely possible they ran into problems because their model isn't compatible with large downward volatility. Or maybe an exchange froze their account?