/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>56451158
wonder how much they are allowed to "seed".
in theory etf buys / sells should be 1:1 with market.

>>56451172
You are correct, they're probably just seeding enough to make the ETF available to trade on day 1

>>56451158
wow thanks blackrock for letting us front run you!

>>56451158
Why would they buy TWAP when they have miners and can also buy OTC?

>>56451258
this guy gets it

how many times have we said "institutions are buying"
next up is normies are coming and mass adoption. what else

>>56451258
If this is not sarcasm, or whatever. Christ knows what kind of fucked up world we're in or whatever, but. If they actually "don't care" about retail front running them then they must be absolutely convinced that the average retail investor is just so dry of any spare capital that it won't make an impact. I guess they might not be wrong considering most people are what, living off credit cards right now?

>>56451286
nah. they don't care about "front running our etf"
they are not making any money based upon "buying low and selling high"....as etf custodian they make money on every trade.
a license to run an etf is basically a rent license. they get paid per transaction + money percentage. price movement is literally not a concern.

>>56451258
Yeah wonder what the catch is here

>>56451172
Every 1 bought net currently lifts the price 100x. When the mongs stop selling, it'll be rubberband time

>>56451284
>next up is normies are coming and mass adoption. what else
then after a few days or a few weeks of that, the FUD. china banning bitcoin because its bad for chingdao, texas authorities blowing up a bitcoin mining rig because its bad for the solar system, indian central banks saying they cant find their bitcoin, greta thurnberg dying of carbon monoxide poisoning outside of a bitcoin factory. its just all so formulaic

retard here, what are the implications of this news (assuming it is true)

>>56451445
>timing your etf so that it launches right as halving appears
>timing your etf so that it launches right as interest rates start to get lowered
based on history next ath should be $150k and new trading range about $60k
will be interesting to see what etf does to this....

>>56451467
At least. My base case is $150k without the etf, $230k with it, and in both cases a drop to the previous ATH in 25/26

>>56451158
Bearish. Fink bought up a ton of commercial and residential real estate in 2020-2022 and look what happened. Uncle Jamie is setting him up

>>56451482
this is probably 80% whats going to happen.
however there is the possibility that this etf fundamentally changes the market and we achieve escape velocity.
not because of normie buying pressure, but because larry-fink paper is paper that any and all public corps can hold.
it could be a saylor situation where every large cap allocates 1% of balance sheet to larry-fink-btc to mitigate usd risk.
eventually something like this scenario will be true because the dollar has never looked to be more in jeopardy and simultaneously the politicians never more hubristic.

>>56451665
Cogent, and reasoned. Is this really /biz/? I disagree with that 20% bc bitcoin isn't as ready as some think (thinking the recent LN cycling attack, BitVM, Ark): when peeps, including corps, realise that they'll try to frontrun the stampede out. To my mind this cannot be the last cycle

>>56451773
>ln, bitvm, etc
well not sure if anyone - especially large caps - cares about "btc utility". i think its purely a digital-gold play. we may never get nor need any of the other shit.
in retrospect basically freezing development after 2017 was the best thing possible for long term. push all "utility" to faggy side projects (LN) and shitcoins

>>56451158
>the jews
>we will tame bitcoin
>giggajew mega Corp
>we will offer a bitcoin ETF
>bizraelis
>OOOOOOOOOOOO
They are going to tame bitcorn with price suppression from paper bitcorn. It's ogre.

>>56451172
Rules for thee and not me goyim. Your fake internet money is over. We will begin operation golden crab. Once we get our ETF nothing will happen and it will keep not happening forever!

>>56451833
:-D

>>56451158
these buys are what the industry needs, and if it continues I might increase my positions as well, but for now, I'll enjoy those passive returns from staking my USDCs.

>>56451158
blackrock is sneeding, I repeat, blackrock is sneeding

>>56452209
>USDC
>not USDT

>>56453255

They sneeded meanwhile I chucked

Now they feed and I suck

>>56451833
>freezing development after 2017
will they be swapping to a quantum resistant signature scheme and freezing satoshi's coins? because he signed with those wallets and that is a massive time bomb

friendly reminder that etf approval is the boomer banking version of pic related.

friendly reminder that etf approval is the boomer banking version of pic related

>>56451172
Go read up on the ETF filings. I made a circuit on biz with my findings when the filings were first released and wont go through it all again...but the buys/sells that the custodians are doing are done via "baskets" The basket size will likely vary based on the custodian(ishares is 40k per basket). But the gist is, brokers have to buy an entire basket to be able to offer the ETF. Meaning, each broker(for ishares) will have to purchase a minimum of 40k shares(1share=1BTC according to the filing). Now, go find out how many brokers there are that are wanting to offer ishares BTC. Take that number multiply it by 40k and youll have an answer on the buy volume coming from the ETF. Know this: ONLY brokers can create a new basket / redeem a basket(sell). So basically, once the BTC is under Ishares control, its unlikely to be able to be sold.

>>56455036
Link to thread? I want more of your knowledge

How many brokers?

>>56451665
explain for brainlet please. i have .33 btc, been buying since 2020 but am an absolute poorfag, avg dca price probably like 17k, am i gonna make it?

>>56455036
>1share=1BTC according to the filing
Where does it say that 1 share has to be 1 BTC?
went through the filling, either I missed it or it doesn't explicitly say that.

>>56456569
He made it up, or meant to say 40k shares 1 BTC
No way in fuck brokers will have multiple “baskets” of 40k BTC. At todays prices 1 basket would be worth over 1.4 billion, and there isn’t such thing as that amount of liquidity, so some broker would be buying those bags at hundreds of billions which will not be happening.
Additionally, this is something crucial bitfucks need to understand: there is no settlement, none of this is on-chain. This is entirely paper BTC, all exchange volume is not only bot manipulated but it’s also not reflected in real-time on-chain, so all those billions of dollars moving daily aren’t actually moving, it’s all paper, and with ETFs and kikes onboard this will be exploited to the fullest.

>>56451158
My anus is ready for the big black rock.

>>56451158
Imagine my surprise when I gave no fucks about it, kek, I'll be when everything, including KAVA starts to pump

>>56456747
>This is entirely paper BTC, all exchange volume is not only bot manipulated but it’s also not reflected in real-time on-chain, so all those billions of dollars moving daily aren’t actually moving, it’s all paper
This is the most important thing. It takes BTC trades off the chain and into your everyday market the same way you click buy or sell on Etrade. People expecting a giga god candle may be surprised at what happens.

you have to be a mongoloid to believe BTC ETF will begin another bullrun, this is a buy the rumour sell the news event. And Blackrock has already bought all the BTC they need when it was at 26k, right now BTC is at 33k from retail FOMOing like usual just to get dumped on like textbook.

>>56456937
Well, I'm sorry to tell you but that won't happen

>>56454774
Absolutely, and I'm tired of pretending it's not

>>56456937
you're gonna remain poor I'm afraid

>>56456937
>This is (You)

>>56451158
>I assume no risk for these products myself Mark

>>56452027
What an ugly shitskin monkey, no wonder he doesn't understand dubs. I'm pajeet btw

JUST IN: BlackRock's iShares Spot #Bitcoin ETF relisted on the DTCC
https://twitter.com/WatcherGuru/status/1716937268848734355?s=20
>>56457306

>>56456747
>Additionally, this is something crucial bitfucks need to understand: there is no settlement, none of this is on-chain. This is entirely paper BTC, all exchange volume is not only bot manipulated but it’s also not reflected in real-time on-chain, so all those billions of dollars moving daily aren’t actually moving, it’s all paper, and with ETFs and kikes onboard this will be exploited to the fullest.
Not entirely paper BTC, they have to own real BTC as collateral to make shares.
But in general you are right, the Blackrock kikery is cryptos anti-thesis. Ironic as this is the death to crypto as we know it, but hey at least it will pump the price.

>>56457512
>the death to crypto as we know it
they cant make you put your own btc in their controlled wallets
btc is made to transact effortlessly peer to peer so let them play their games, as long as you can move your corns about crypto reason for existence is secure

>>56457512
>they have to own real BTC as collateral to make shares.
How much real BTC?

>>56451587
They dont need to sell. They can just rent them out. If you cant buy a home because theyre already all owned and there are high barriers to making new homes, you will rent. From them. Over time they will make more profit that way than from selling. Advantages of being the largest NGO investment firm in the world. They'll be taking formerly well to do housewives and their daughters for a week's rent at a time and theres nothing you can do about it unless they get liquidated or antitrusted (lol) or you choose to go to revolt (lmao).

>>56456219
like 100 brokers

>they are sneeding the ETF

>>56451158
If that's all the blackrock pump can do they are NGMI

>>56451158
HOLY FUCK WHY ARE YOU EVEN IN THE MARKET IF YOURE SELLING ME FUCKING BLANKS FUCKING GET SHOT ON YOUR LUNAR COLONY ASS

>>56451462
They’re trading with themselves until they settle on a price for the public market by Oct to then trade on reel.

>>56456747
Doesn't fucking matter. The ETF must hold bitcoin, which means less real bitcoin available to purchase. Besides, the ETF is primarily for large institutions who can't or are looking for an easy way to put bitcoin on their balance sheet. The treasury market is fubared and this is why anyone holding bonds needs this ETF.

>mongs on /biz/ think ETF will have any impact on price

90% of ETF trades happen virtually without affecting the underlying asset price

>>56460445
More IBTC demand means less real bitcoin available for purchase.

>>56460444
Mega checked

>>56460462
Clueless

The only way any asset ever booms is through retail / asset manager allocation decisions. If pension funds suddenly decide they need to allocate to Bitcoin that will drive up the price. People trading an ETF back and forth won't impact price in any way.

A bitcoin ETF by itself does nothing if the relative asset allocation percentages stay the same. And it's not like Bitcoin is particularly hard to get, the thesis that an ETF will increase allocation because it's "easier" to use is weak.

>>56460486
You might want to review the impact gold etfs had on its price.

>>56460592
no, just say what it was

>>56460486
there's probably a difference between an ETF that is 5% Microsoft on microsofts price and 100% Bitcoin on bitcoins price