14 Burst results for "Jake Stravinsky"
Crypto News Alerts | Daily Bitcoin (BTC) & Cryptocurrency News
"jake stravinsky" Discussed on Crypto News Alerts | Daily Bitcoin (BTC) & Cryptocurrency News
"Let's get it. In today's show, I'll be breaking down the latest technical analysis, as well as breaking news. Google Cloud to digitize El Salvador's governance, healthcare, and education, as well as Elon Musk's ex moves closer to crypto payments with their newest state license they just received, as well as breaking news. The SEC's first deadlines to approve seven Bitcoin ETFs are coming over the next week. We'll also be discussing Grayscale's roadmap to a Bitcoin spot ETF following the most recent SEC triumph, as well as Fidelity, one of the world's largest asset managers that currently control over four and a half trillion in assets under management are predicting a $1 billion price action for each Bitcoin. In fact, did you know they started accumulating Bitcoin all the way back in 2014, literally almost a decade ago? We'll also be taking a look at overall crypto market, all this plus so much more in today's show. 87. That's right. I'm your host JV. And we have a jam-packed session for you today. Looking at the market watch here, we can see Bitcoin after almost staying above 28,000. Unfortunately, it broke that support and we're back down to 27,200 at this time, but Ether also back in the red down 2% for the day trading at just above $1,700. And checking out coinmarketcap.com, we're barely sitting above a trillion dollars, which is that milestone we've been sitting at for quite some time regarding the overall crypto market and about 34 billion in volume in the past 24 hours with the Bitcoin dominance at 48.9% with the Ether dominance at 18.9%. And checking out the top 100 crypto gainers of the past 24 hours, we have XDC up 8% trading at 6.4 cents, followed by TonCoin up 6% trading at $1.75, followed by BlockStax up almost 3% trading just under 53 cents and checking out the top 100 crypto gainers for the past week. Yesterday was a sea of green as the price action pumped literally $2,000 in a span of 30 minutes off of the news of the SEC losing their trial versus grayscale with the conversion of the GBTC product into a spot ETF. But today we have corrected some with HEXB crypto greed and fear index. We're currently rated a 49, which is neutral. Yesterday was a 39 in fear last week at 37 and last month a 50, which is neutral. So there you have it. How many of you are currently bullish on the king crypto? Let me know. And how many of you are anticipating a lower price action so you can keep stacking them sats on the low? Holla at your boy. Now let's break down today's Bitcoin technical analysis. Check out the charts and what is popping right now in the markets. As you can see here, Bitcoin drifted towards $27,000, which again, we're just sitting above $27,200 at the time of this recording. At the Wall Street open, the dust settled on the digital asset manager, grayscale's legal victory. Here you're looking at the Bitcoin one hour candle chart. Now data from Cointelegraph showed a positive verdict for grayscale against US regulators, sparking almost 8% gains. Bitcoin managed to tap $28,100 on Bitstamp, its highest in almost two weeks, before returning to the current level. So despite closing the daily candle above two key moving averages, these had yet to return as definitive intraday support. And on the day, analysts were quite cautious. In a quick take post from on-chain analyst Crypto Quant, he goes on to share, noting that the grayscale move had originated on derivative exchanges. So despite funding rates remaining fairly neutral, there was a clear absence of value. However, it is difficult to see that the spot exchange led the price increase when the Bitcoin price rose yesterday. The reason is that the trading volume ratio shows that it had decrease rather than increase. Now additional data showed trading volumes were still below those seen during the upticks of earlier this year, quoting them here. Of course, there is a tendency for prices to change significantly, even with small trading volumes, because of the overall liquidity in the crypto market, which has decreased. However, it seems that there is a need to be a little cautious about the fact that this rally leads to a dramatic rally. Now let's discuss many similarities to Bitcoin's all-time high. According to crypto analyst Brett Capital, quoting him here, we're seeing many similarities between the double top of 2021 and what we're seeing right now, he warned. Should the similarities play out and Bitcoin produce a full fractal, 26,000 would flip from support to resistance to initiate further downside. So for the time being, we're seeing a lot of signs really playing into all of this in which he reiterated alongside this chart. Now, another target analysts are talking about right now is 23,000 becoming increasingly important. Rec capital likewise flagged that level of 23K as a prominent level versus the 2022 bear market bottom structure and inverse head and shoulders pattern, as he mentioned here, that's the level that we can see the price rebound from. So there you have it. Let me know if you feel we're likely to drop sub 25,000, potentially touch 23 before rising back up. Or do you think we'll take off from here, off of one of the biggest news stories of the year, which is a big fat L for the SEC and a big fat victory for the entire crypto industry. Let me know your thoughts. And with that being shared, fam, now let's discuss breaking news coming out of El Salvador with Google, which is actually quite interesting. Yesterday, I saw Nigel Bokele made a tweet and this is what it was in regards to Google Cloud announced a new partnership with the government of El Salvador. Interesting, right? On August 29th to establish an office and provide Google distributed cloud services in their country, the partnership aims to digitize the country, update government services and improve the healthcare and educational systems. The GDC will also help bring infrastructure closer to where data is generated for El Salvador. Bokele, the country's president said he believes El Salvador is quickly becoming a hub for innovation. As he shares here, El Salvador is moving forward. We believe technology and foreign investment are key for development. And here's where he announced the partnership in this, I shouldn't say tweet anymore, but on this post on X quoting Bokele, Google plans to establish operations in El Salvador and he shared the official press release from Google. Now, Thomas Curain, the CEO of Google Cloud said he believes cloud computing can truly transform Latin America. As shared here, access to cloud computing has dramatically expanded across industries and regions throughout the world, he said, enabling both small companies and the public sector to utilize the very same apps and services as more mature markets. Now, Cointelegraph also reached out to Google Cloud for additional comments on its recent expansion. The additional GDC infrastructure will help support El Salvador's active stance on Bitcoin adoption and integration into society. It allows for Bitcoin full nodes with ordinal protocol support. And additionally, back on August 8th, a few weeks ago, El Salvador granted the crypto exchange Binance a license to offer crypto services to users in the country. Bitcoin had began as legal tender in El Salvador back in 2021. And recently the Bitcoin Beach Initiative took to the classroom and taught over 25,000 students about Bitcoin, helping them earn a Bitcoin diploma via the country's educational system. The country has already seen immediate returns on the program with the example of one teenager who earned the diploma and then returned to his former school to teach the educators about the digital asset. That's what's up. I think mass adoption is likely to continue, especially in places like El Salvador that are ahead of the rest of the world. And I think more and more major companies are going to be opening up shop because it just makes so much sense. Why wouldn't they? That's why Binance just got their license. Jack Mallers Strike Company just got their license. Bitfinex got their license and they're opening up shop. And I believe that the Bitcoin game theory is in full effect and will continue to play out as the days go by. And with that being shared, fam, now let's break down our next story of the day. As you probably know, major news was actually released yesterday regarding X, which is the platform owned by Elon Musk to integrate crypto payments. We made a pretty big development, so let's break this down before we dissect the ETF deadlines. Rhode Island's regulators have granted X, formerly known as Twitter, a currency transmitter license, marking a step forward for the company's foray into the financial services sector. The license is legally required for companies conducting financial activities on behalf of users related to sending and receiving money, a definition that includes both fiat as well as crypto assets. Now, this approval will allow for X to custody, transfer and exchange digital currencies. Now, X's Rhode Island currency transmitter license was approved on August 28th, two days ago, according to the nationwide multi-state licensing system, NMLS. The move marks an important step forward for Elon's push for X to become an everything app, which would include crypto as well as fiat payments. Now, naturally, social networks like X are massive, so this could help usher in that mass adoption. Now, while sources have suggested that X's upcoming payments feature will initially only offer support for fiat currencies, Elon had reportedly instructed developers at X to build the platform's payment system in such a way that crypto functionality can be added into the future. Yeah, if you're not integrating Bitcoin into your payment system, then do you even have a payment system for the future as Bitcoin is the future of money? Just saying. The approval comes nearly two months after X secured money transmitter licenses, also in Michigan, Missouri, and New Hampshire, which were well-approved on July 5th. X's latest license marks a total of seven American states it secured transmitter licenses in, so my guess is they're going to have to continue getting more and more licenses for all the states. It remains unclear exactly what financial offerings will be made available if and when X rolls out their payments feature. People familiar with the company's plans have indicated that X will initially offer fiat currency transaction services similar to PayPal, which Musk co-founded with room for future crypto integration. Do you think Bitcoin will likely be an announcement that they will be accepting crypto payments? I mean, who cares about Doge if you don't have Bitcoin integrated? So, I feel Bitcoin is a given if they're going to be integrating crypto and it seems to be going that way. But how do you feel this is likely to play out? Let me know your honest thoughts in the comments right down below. And now let's break down everything you need to know regarding the recent spot ETF deadlines for the United States and regulators. And after we discuss all these deadlines, we're going to specifically be talking about the GBTC Grayscale product, getting that victory over the SEC and what that means moving forward with the Grayscale Bitcoin ETF. And then we'll be dissecting Fidelity, one of the largest asset managers in the world, and their $1 billion Bitcoin price prediction. And then we'll wrap up with our live Q &A. So yeah, let's discuss this. The US SEC is facing its first deadlines to decide on seven spot Bitcoin ETF apps, with the latest being September 4th, which is what, virtually five days away amid its defeat to Grayscale Investments in the US Federal Appeals Court. Investment firm Bitwise will learn if its ETF will win the SEC's approval September 1st, which is what, two days away. While BlackRock, VanEck, Fidelity, Invesco, and WisdomTree will all be awaiting the SEC's decision for their funds by September 2nd, three days away, according to several SEC filings. So, that's right around the corner. It's going to be a big week. Meanwhile, Valkyrie is set to hear back from the SEC on September 4th. The US Court of Appeals ruled on August 29th that the SEC's rejection of Grayscale's app to convert their GBTC into a spot Bitcoin ETF was arbitrary and capricious. But this doesn't mean that the SEC must approve Grayscale's app or others in the future, says Bloomberg ETF analyst, James Safart. And in August 29th Bloomberg Review, he explained that Grayscale's win will definitely increase the odds of a successful outcome for the SEC. But he is unsure when that day may come though, as the SEC can delay his decisions and has two more proposed deadlines for each fund before being forced to make a final decision on the 240th day post filing. Now, what a shame it would be if they make us wait the 240th final day before giving an answer. But hey, don't run it by them. I mean, don't put it past them, especially with Mr. No Clarity Gary as the chairman. But anyways, for the awaiting applicants, the final deadlines for the SEC are all in mid-March of next year. And as someone shared here, odd and free, 99.9999% chance that the world doesn't know that the SEC has to decide on seven Bitcoin ETFs within the next three days. And this does include the largest asset manager in the world, BlackRock, Bitwise, VanEck, WisdomTree, Investico, Fidelity, and Valkyrie. The suits are at our doorstep per each. And how many of you weren't aware of that, that the decision within the next seven days is going to be on those seven major asset managers. Now, after the August 29th ruling in favor of Grayscale, the regulators have 90 days to file an appeal with the US Supreme Court or apply for an en banc review where the full circuit court can overturn a ruling made by a three judge panel. However, the SEC hasn't made clear what the next move will be. If the SEC doesn't appeal, the court will need to specify how its ruling is executed, which could include instructing the SEC to approve Grayscale's app or at the very least revisit it. But either way, Safer only saw two viable options for the regulator. The first option is to concede defeat and approve Grayscale's conversion of its GBTC as a Bitcoin spot ETF. But alternatively, the SEC would need to revoke the listing of Bitcoin futures ETFs entirely or deny Grayscale's app based on a new argument, says Safer, quoting him here, the second potential avenue is to deny on reasons not used before yet, which I have been saying for months could have to do with custody or settlements of Bitcoin, which is not something that futures ETFs have to worry about. The SEC has made a lot of noise around custodians. However, fellow Bloomberg ETF analyst, Eric Balchunes, considered the odds of the SEC revoked in the Bitcoin futures ETFs as highly unlikely because of the SEC reported openness to Ethereum futures ETFs, in which he makes a great point, quoting Eric here. This guy turned the last paragraph of Judge Rao's legal smackdown today into a MGMTS stylish banger, really captures the modern. Well done. Well, so there you have it. I guess this is some song I haven't even listened to yet. So I'll jam to it a little later on. We'll see if it's any good. But anyways, fam, how do you think this is likely to play out by the SEC? Do you think they're likely to approve any of these seven ETFs or do you think they'll just continue to push it back until next year? Let me know your honest thoughts in the comments right down below. Now let's dive deeper with the latest breaking news regarding the grayscale ETF and their conversion of their product into a spot ETF. And did you know that their product literally has over 600,000 BTC? Hence, they'd be the perfect candidate for a spot Bitcoin ETF because they already hold the underlying asset. They don't need to purchase it. So I mean, they'd be a prime candidate along with BlackRock. Which one will get approval first is the million dollar question, but let's break it down. In a seismic shift for the Bitcoin industry, the DC Circuit Court ruled in favor of grayscale investments yesterday, which is breaking news, which we've been hearing all across social media. Now, Jake Stravinsky, the chief policy officer at Blockchain Association, described the ruling as massive, emphasizing it's extremely rare for a federal circuit court to find an agency like the SEC in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. Stravinsky stated that the DC Circuit soundly rejected the SEC's view that grayscale's ETF proposal was not designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices. So good for them. He also pointed out that the court did not order the SEC to approve the proposal, but rather mandated a review of grayscale's proposal with the court's ruling in mind. Stravinsky speculated on two possible scenarios for the SEC's next steps. One theory suggests the SEC could find another reason to include no clarity Gary towards crypto. And alternatively, the SEC might take this as a semi graceful exit from their anti ETF stance, especially under political pressure from traditional finance sectors ready for a Bitcoin ETF as we are long overdue. They first rejected the first Bitcoin ETF for a spot in the United States over a decade ago. And the app was from the Winklevoss twins with Gemini, just FYI. Now, many other issuers have proposed ETFs this year, include BlackRock and Larry Fink throws heavy punches in DC. Therefore, here's what the lawyer thinks. The only question is if the SEC wants to make this more painful for itself. Trust me, if there is another denial, there'll be another lawsuit. I strongly recommend that the SEC picks sooner. Let's see. Now, James Safart, the ETF analyst over at Bloomberg, corroborated the significance of the ruling stating it's a complete and utter rebuke of the SEC spot Bitcoin ETF denial orders. And quoting him here, I was initially thinking something like a deadline of 45 days or 60 days, but nothing in here saying that. However, he noted that the SEC has 45 days to file for that en banc hearing, which would involve all 17 judges on the court, good Lord, as opposed to the initial subset panel of only three judges. The Bloomberg analysts also outlined two main motions for the SEC. If they still wish to prevent the spot Bitcoin ETFs from listing, they either need to revoke the listing of Bitcoin futures ETFs or denied based on new reasons, possibly related to custodial or settlement issues, which have been a focal point for the SEC staff accounting bulletin 121. Now, Adam Cochran, partner of CEHV added another layer to the timeline speculation. He alludes to the SEC's pending decision on six other Bitcoins spot ETF filings due by September 1st for Bitwise and September 2nd for BlackRock, Fidelity and others. Here's what he had to share. Some folks are getting ahead of themselves thinking that grayscale decisions means bulk approval of ETFs by this Friday. Likely not the case. My hunches were looking at a late October, November timeline for an approval still, unless the SEC appeals in which case next spring. Now I'm not a gambling man, but if I was a gambling man, I just want to throw out there. I don't think the SEC has any intention to approve a spot Bitcoin ETF in the United States anytime soon because their actions demonstrate the complete opposite. The only thing they have interest in approving are more futures ETFs so they can continue to manipulate the markets through derivatives, which are financial weapons of mass destruction. Quoting Warren Buffett, it is what it is, but nonetheless, this is still a victory overall because they could only push it back for so long. And especially with BlackRock demanding, I shouldn't say demanding, but in so many words, they're the one that started this domino effect with new ETF apps arising with the SEC. They are the largest asset manager in the world, controlling over $10 trillion in assets under management. So I think if Larry Fink wants something, it's going to get done. But the million dollar question becomes when? I think they're going to push it back this year and probably spring next year, we're going to finally start to see the approval of spot Bitcoin ETFs in the United States. And as soon as we get that approval, that can help usher in literally trillions upon trillions of dollars that are currently sitting on the sidelines directly in to the best crypto asset in the world, which is none other than BTC. If you'd love to see that happen, let me know. And by what date or deadline do you think we're likely to get that first approval? And you already know once that approval comes, money is going to start ushering in and the Bitcoin price is going to go parabolic and in perfect time because we also have another major bullish catalyst around the corner. Six months out, the scheduled halving is estimated to be sometime in April of 2024. So between the ETF apps being approved by the United States regulators and the Bitcoin halving, I couldn't be more bullish on Bitcoin right now, which leads us to our next story of the day, which is going to be a $1 billion prediction from one of the largest asset managers in the world, which is Fidelity. Let's break this down. Then we'll dive into our live Q &A. Make sure to say hello in the live chat. Let me know where you're tuning in from. A massive shout out to everyone interacting. I greatly appreciate all the continued support. So here we go. $1 billion. That's a lot of zeros. That is nine to be exact. In 2021, a billion dollars seems like a lot of money. FYI, Fidelity initially made this prediction in 2021. I also want to point out here from some tweets, Fidelity head of sales, quoting them here, we started mining and accumulating Bitcoin all the way back in 2014. I bet you a lot of you did not know that. This was kind of under the radar, but they have been accumulating BTC almost for the past decade. So is this a surprise that they're predicting a $1 billion Bitcoin price by 2038? They're putting their money where their mouth is. But anyways, we have Julian Timmer, Director of Global Macro Fidelity, believing that one Bitcoin could be worth $1 billion per coin by the year 2038. Send it and let's go. Timmer also believes that the orange coin could hit $1 million before this decade is over, which means by the year 2030, roughly seven years away. So that would represent a 20X multiple, the current Bitcoin market price of 48,000. But now obviously we're half that price of what we was. So that would now be 40X. And I know anyone can make predictions like that, but Timmer lays out his cause using his own valuation model and another well-known model, which we all know here on the channel, known as the stock, the flow. Timmer's demand model is based upon Metcalfe's law. Metcalfe holds that as the number of users of a network grows linearly, the value of the network grows exponentially. Thus, if the number of users doubled, its value would grow at four times or the square of two. Now Timmer's demand model grows steadily to about $1 million by the chart. Now, by contrast, now let's discuss the stock to flow model created by synonymous analysts. Plan B is based on the supply of new coins growing at a decreasing rate each year. This occurs because of the built-in happenings every four years. So given increases and adoption and demand, the result will be prices expanding exponentially. Indeed, the price of Bitcoin has grown approximately 10X every four years. Take that, Peter Schiff. These are facts, not just by 50% slowdown in supply, pretty powerful stuff. That's right. Now, stock to flow predicts even faster growth in the price than does Timmer's demand model, especially after the year 2030. As I commonly cover here in the show, the stock to flow model is projecting roughly a half a million dollar Bitcoin price past the halving in 2024. In fact, the model shows a very wide array in their expectation, anywhere from a hundred thousand to a million dollars, with a half a million being dead in the middle, hence in a couple of episodes previously, if you missed it, we discussed Plan B's most recent prediction, which he shared on his YouTube channel, that he believes the Bitcoin price will be north of $530,000 per coin proceeding the Bitcoin halving in 2024. But let's get back to this math. This is the stock to flow model you're looking at right here. Now let's go back over here. This is some more insights. Timmer stated the value of the dollar changes in relation to other assets. And he further pointed out that just a dollar invested in stocks in the 18th century would be worth $4 billion in today's money. Isn't that insanity? Talk about super hyperinflation. So going by this assumption, $1 million in today's money can be worth a billion dollars in 20 years time. Good Lord. You better start stacking them now, fam. So changes in the dollar's value, especially depreciation over several decades, render the same amount with less purchasing power, which is why huge sums back then appear less by today's standards. For instance, $1 million can purchase a lot of significant things a few decades ago, but in today's perspective, reasonably higher end houses in the US cost between, I would say $200,000 and $500,000. The same $1 million may not suffice for the same class of houses today. This is a fact. Just here in Puerto Rico alone, I've seen the real estate market literally shoot up 100 to 300% since moving to this island roughly four years ago. And that's not just an exception to the rule. It's all across the United States, hyperinflation. I mean, check out the rent prices. That will give us some insights to the true nature of inflation. You can check out Zillow, check out real estate five years ago in comparison today, and you'll probably see something quite similar. But anyways, there's an increasing number of billionaires across the globe. Facts. Some observers even believe we may see the first trillionaire in this lifetime. I think it could potentially be CZ, the finance CEO, or even Michael Saylor of MicroStrategy. Now, the same applies to organizations with several companies now passing the $1 trillion mark valuation cap. Fidelity previously pegged Bitcoin to hit $1 million in initial prediction made by Jerry and Timmer by the year 2035. However, he ultimately said, we're way too conservative. Let's move this target on up from $1 million by the year 2035 to $1 billion by the year 2038. So there you have it. Do you feel the Bitcoin price can likely exceed their conservative target of $1 million by the year 2030 within the next seven years and hit as high as $100 million to $1 billion per coin by the year 2038? Let me know your honest thoughts in the comments right down below. And don't forget to check out cryptonewsalerts.net for the full premium experience with video and to participate in the live Q &A. And I look forward to seeing you on tomorrow's episode. HODL.
Crypto News Alerts | Daily Bitcoin (BTC) & Cryptocurrency News
A highlight from 1387: One Bitcoin Will Be Worth $1 Billion By This Date - Fidelity
"Let's get it. In today's show, I'll be breaking down the latest technical analysis, as well as breaking news. Google Cloud to digitize El Salvador's governance, healthcare, and education, as well as Elon Musk's ex moves closer to crypto payments with their newest state license they just received, as well as breaking news. The SEC's first deadlines to approve seven Bitcoin ETFs are coming over the next week. We'll also be discussing Grayscale's roadmap to a Bitcoin spot ETF following the most recent SEC triumph, as well as Fidelity, one of the world's largest asset managers that currently control over four and a half trillion in assets under management are predicting a $1 billion price action for each Bitcoin. In fact, did you know they started accumulating Bitcoin all the way back in 2014, literally almost a decade ago? We'll also be taking a look at overall crypto market, all this plus so much more in today's show. 87. That's right. I'm your host JV. And we have a jam -packed session for you today. Looking at the market watch here, we can see Bitcoin after almost staying above 28 ,000. Unfortunately, it broke that support and we're back down to 27 ,200 at this time, but Ether also back in the red down 2 % for the day trading at just above $1 ,700. And checking out coinmarketcap .com, we're barely sitting above a trillion dollars, which is that milestone we've been sitting at for quite some time regarding the overall crypto market and about 34 billion in volume in the past 24 hours with the Bitcoin dominance at 48 .9 % with the Ether dominance at 18 .9%. And checking out the top 100 crypto gainers of the past 24 hours, we have XDC up 8 % trading at 6 .4 cents, followed by TonCoin up 6 % trading at $1 .75, followed by BlockStax up almost 3 % trading just under 53 cents and checking out the top 100 crypto gainers for the past week. Yesterday was a sea of green as the price action pumped literally $2 ,000 in a span of 30 minutes off of the news of the SEC losing their trial versus grayscale with the conversion of the GBTC product into a spot ETF. But today we have corrected some with HEXB crypto greed and fear index. We're currently rated a 49, which is neutral. Yesterday was a 39 in fear last week at 37 and last month a 50, which is neutral. So there you have it. How many of you are currently bullish on the king crypto? Let me know. And how many of you are anticipating a lower price action so you can keep stacking them sats on the low? Holla at your boy. Now let's break down today's Bitcoin technical analysis. Check out the charts and what is popping right now in the markets. As you can see here, Bitcoin drifted towards $27 ,000, which again, we're just sitting above $27 ,200 at the time of this recording. At the Wall Street open, the dust settled on the digital asset manager, grayscale's legal victory. Here you're looking at the Bitcoin one hour candle chart. Now data from Cointelegraph showed a positive verdict for grayscale against US regulators, sparking almost 8 % gains. Bitcoin managed to tap $28 ,100 on Bitstamp, its highest in almost two weeks, before returning to the current level. So despite closing the daily candle above two key moving averages, these had yet to return as definitive intraday support. And on the day, analysts were quite cautious. In a quick take post from on -chain analyst Crypto Quant, he goes on to share, noting that the grayscale move had originated on derivative exchanges. So despite funding rates remaining fairly neutral, there was a clear absence of value. However, it is difficult to see that the spot exchange led the price increase when the Bitcoin price rose yesterday. The reason is that the trading volume ratio shows that it had decrease rather than increase. Now additional data showed trading volumes were still below those seen during the upticks of earlier this year, quoting them here. Of course, there is a tendency for prices to change significantly, even with small trading volumes, because of the overall liquidity in the crypto market, which has decreased. However, it seems that there is a need to be a little cautious about the fact that this rally leads to a dramatic rally. Now let's discuss many similarities to Bitcoin's all -time high. According to crypto analyst Brett Capital, quoting him here, we're seeing many similarities between the double top of 2021 and what we're seeing right now, he warned. Should the similarities play out and Bitcoin produce a full fractal, 26 ,000 would flip from support to resistance to initiate further downside. So for the time being, we're seeing a lot of signs really playing into all of this in which he reiterated alongside this chart. Now, another target analysts are talking about right now is 23 ,000 becoming increasingly important. Rec capital likewise flagged that level of 23K as a prominent level versus the 2022 bear market bottom structure and inverse head and shoulders pattern, as he mentioned here, that's the level that we can see the price rebound from. So there you have it. Let me know if you feel we're likely to drop sub 25 ,000, potentially touch 23 before rising back up. Or do you think we'll take off from here, off of one of the biggest news stories of the year, which is a big fat L for the SEC and a big fat victory for the entire crypto industry. Let me know your thoughts. And with that being shared, fam, now let's discuss breaking news coming out of El Salvador with Google, which is actually quite interesting. Yesterday, I saw Nigel Bokele made a tweet and this is what it was in regards to Google Cloud announced a new partnership with the government of El Salvador. Interesting, right? On August 29th to establish an office and provide Google distributed cloud services in their country, the partnership aims to digitize the country, update government services and improve the healthcare and educational systems. The GDC will also help bring infrastructure closer to where data is generated for El Salvador. Bokele, the country's president said he believes El Salvador is quickly becoming a hub for innovation. As he shares here, El Salvador is moving forward. We believe technology and foreign investment are key for development. And here's where he announced the partnership in this, I shouldn't say tweet anymore, but on this post on X quoting Bokele, Google plans to establish operations in El Salvador and he shared the official press release from Google. Now, Thomas Curain, the CEO of Google Cloud said he believes cloud computing can truly transform Latin America. As shared here, access to cloud computing has dramatically expanded across industries and regions throughout the world, he said, enabling both small companies and the public sector to utilize the very same apps and services as more mature markets. Now, Cointelegraph also reached out to Google Cloud for additional comments on its recent expansion. The additional GDC infrastructure will help support El Salvador's active stance on Bitcoin adoption and integration into society. It allows for Bitcoin full nodes with ordinal protocol support. And additionally, back on August 8th, a few weeks ago, El Salvador granted the crypto exchange Binance a license to offer crypto services to users in the country. Bitcoin had began as legal tender in El Salvador back in 2021. And recently the Bitcoin Beach Initiative took to the classroom and taught over 25 ,000 students about Bitcoin, helping them earn a Bitcoin diploma via the country's educational system. The country has already seen immediate returns on the program with the example of one teenager who earned the diploma and then returned to his former school to teach the educators about the digital asset. That's what's up. I think mass adoption is likely to continue, especially in places like El Salvador that are ahead of the rest of the world. And I think more and more major companies are going to be opening up shop because it just makes so much sense. Why wouldn't they? That's why Binance just got their license. Jack Mallers Strike Company just got their license. Bitfinex got their license and they're opening up shop. And I believe that the Bitcoin game theory is in full effect and will continue to play out as the days go by. And with that being shared, fam, now let's break down our next story of the day. As you probably know, major news was actually released yesterday regarding X, which is the platform owned by Elon Musk to integrate crypto payments. We made a pretty big development, so let's break this down before we dissect the ETF deadlines. Rhode Island's regulators have granted X, formerly known as Twitter, a currency transmitter license, marking a step forward for the company's foray into the financial services sector. The license is legally required for companies conducting financial activities on behalf of users related to sending and receiving money, a definition that includes both fiat as well as crypto assets. Now, this approval will allow for X to custody, transfer and exchange digital currencies. Now, X's Rhode Island currency transmitter license was approved on August 28th, two days ago, according to the nationwide multi -state licensing system, NMLS. The move marks an important step forward for Elon's push for X to become an everything app, which would include crypto as well as fiat payments. Now, naturally, social networks like X are massive, so this could help usher in that mass adoption. Now, while sources have suggested that X's upcoming payments feature will initially only offer support for fiat currencies, Elon had reportedly instructed developers at X to build the platform's payment system in such a way that crypto functionality can be added into the future. Yeah, if you're not integrating Bitcoin into your payment system, then do you even have a payment system for the future as Bitcoin is the future of money? Just saying. The approval comes nearly two months after X secured money transmitter licenses, also in Michigan, Missouri, and New Hampshire, which were well -approved on July 5th. X's latest license marks a total of seven American states it secured transmitter licenses in, so my guess is they're going to have to continue getting more and more licenses for all the states. It remains unclear exactly what financial offerings will be made available if and when X rolls out their payments feature. People familiar with the company's plans have indicated that X will initially offer fiat currency transaction services similar to PayPal, which Musk co -founded with room for future crypto integration. Do you think Bitcoin will likely be an announcement that they will be accepting crypto payments? I mean, who cares about Doge if you don't have Bitcoin integrated? So, I feel Bitcoin is a given if they're going to be integrating crypto and it seems to be going that way. But how do you feel this is likely to play out? Let me know your honest thoughts in the comments right down below. And now let's break down everything you need to know regarding the recent spot ETF deadlines for the United States and regulators. And after we discuss all these deadlines, we're going to specifically be talking about the GBTC Grayscale product, getting that victory over the SEC and what that means moving forward with the Grayscale Bitcoin ETF. And then we'll be dissecting Fidelity, one of the largest asset managers in the world, and their $1 billion Bitcoin price prediction. And then we'll wrap up with our live Q &A. So yeah, let's discuss this. The US SEC is facing its first deadlines to decide on seven spot Bitcoin ETF apps, with the latest being September 4th, which is what, virtually five days away amid its defeat to Grayscale Investments in the US Federal Appeals Court. Investment firm Bitwise will learn if its ETF will win the SEC's approval September 1st, which is what, two days away. While BlackRock, VanEck, Fidelity, Invesco, and WisdomTree will all be awaiting the SEC's decision for their funds by September 2nd, three days away, according to several SEC filings. So, that's right around the corner. It's going to be a big week. Meanwhile, Valkyrie is set to hear back from the SEC on September 4th. The US Court of Appeals ruled on August 29th that the SEC's rejection of Grayscale's app to convert their GBTC into a spot Bitcoin ETF was arbitrary and capricious. But this doesn't mean that the SEC must approve Grayscale's app or others in the future, says Bloomberg ETF analyst, James Safart. And in August 29th Bloomberg Review, he explained that Grayscale's win will definitely increase the odds of a successful outcome for the SEC. But he is unsure when that day may come though, as the SEC can delay his decisions and has two more proposed deadlines for each fund before being forced to make a final decision on the 240th day post filing. Now, what a shame it would be if they make us wait the 240th final day before giving an answer. But hey, don't run it by them. I mean, don't put it past them, especially with Mr. No Clarity Gary as the chairman. But anyways, for the awaiting applicants, the final deadlines for the SEC are all in mid -March of next year. And as someone shared here, odd and free, 99 .9999 % chance that the world doesn't know that the SEC has to decide on seven Bitcoin ETFs within the next three days. And this does include the largest asset manager in the world, BlackRock, Bitwise, VanEck, WisdomTree, Investico, Fidelity, and Valkyrie. The suits are at our doorstep per each. And how many of you weren't aware of that, that the decision within the next seven days is going to be on those seven major asset managers. Now, after the August 29th ruling in favor of Grayscale, the regulators have 90 days to file an appeal with the US Supreme Court or apply for an en banc review where the full circuit court can overturn a ruling made by a three judge panel. However, the SEC hasn't made clear what the next move will be. If the SEC doesn't appeal, the court will need to specify how its ruling is executed, which could include instructing the SEC to approve Grayscale's app or at the very least revisit it. But either way, Safer only saw two viable options for the regulator. The first option is to concede defeat and approve Grayscale's conversion of its GBTC as a Bitcoin spot ETF. But alternatively, the SEC would need to revoke the listing of Bitcoin futures ETFs entirely or deny Grayscale's app based on a new argument, says Safer, quoting him here, the second potential avenue is to deny on reasons not used before yet, which I have been saying for months could have to do with custody or settlements of Bitcoin, which is not something that futures ETFs have to worry about. The SEC has made a lot of noise around custodians. However, fellow Bloomberg ETF analyst, Eric Balchunes, considered the odds of the SEC revoked in the Bitcoin futures ETFs as highly unlikely because of the SEC reported openness to Ethereum futures ETFs, in which he makes a great point, quoting Eric here. This guy turned the last paragraph of Judge Rao's legal smackdown today into a MGMTS stylish banger, really captures the modern. Well done. Well, so there you have it. I guess this is some song I haven't even listened to yet. So I'll jam to it a little later on. We'll see if it's any good. But anyways, fam, how do you think this is likely to play out by the SEC? Do you think they're likely to approve any of these seven ETFs or do you think they'll just continue to push it back until next year? Let me know your honest thoughts in the comments right down below. Now let's dive deeper with the latest breaking news regarding the grayscale ETF and their conversion of their product into a spot ETF. And did you know that their product literally has over 600 ,000 BTC? Hence, they'd be the perfect candidate for a spot Bitcoin ETF because they already hold the underlying asset. They don't need to purchase it. So I mean, they'd be a prime candidate along with BlackRock. Which one will get approval first is the million dollar question, but let's break it down. In a seismic shift for the Bitcoin industry, the DC Circuit Court ruled in favor of grayscale investments yesterday, which is breaking news, which we've been hearing all across social media. Now, Jake Stravinsky, the chief policy officer at Blockchain Association, described the ruling as massive, emphasizing it's extremely rare for a federal circuit court to find an agency like the SEC in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. Stravinsky stated that the DC Circuit soundly rejected the SEC's view that grayscale's ETF proposal was not designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices. So good for them. He also pointed out that the court did not order the SEC to approve the proposal, but rather mandated a review of grayscale's proposal with the court's ruling in mind. Stravinsky speculated on two possible scenarios for the SEC's next steps. One theory suggests the SEC could find another reason to include no clarity Gary towards crypto. And alternatively, the SEC might take this as a semi graceful exit from their anti ETF stance, especially under political pressure from traditional finance sectors ready for a Bitcoin ETF as we are long overdue. They first rejected the first Bitcoin ETF for a spot in the United States over a decade ago. And the app was from the Winklevoss twins with Gemini, just FYI. Now, many other issuers have proposed ETFs this year, include BlackRock and Larry Fink throws heavy punches in DC. Therefore, here's what the lawyer thinks. The only question is if the SEC wants to make this more painful for itself. Trust me, if there is another denial, there'll be another lawsuit. I strongly recommend that the SEC picks sooner. Let's see. Now, James Safart, the ETF analyst over at Bloomberg, corroborated the significance of the ruling stating it's a complete and utter rebuke of the SEC spot Bitcoin ETF denial orders. And quoting him here, I was initially thinking something like a deadline of 45 days or 60 days, but nothing in here saying that. However, he noted that the SEC has 45 days to file for that en banc hearing, which would involve all 17 judges on the court, good Lord, as opposed to the initial subset panel of only three judges. The Bloomberg analysts also outlined two main motions for the SEC. If they still wish to prevent the spot Bitcoin ETFs from listing, they either need to revoke the listing of Bitcoin futures ETFs or denied based on new reasons, possibly related to custodial or settlement issues, which have been a focal point for the SEC staff accounting bulletin 121. Now, Adam Cochran, partner of CEHV added another layer to the timeline speculation. He alludes to the SEC's pending decision on six other Bitcoins spot ETF filings due by September 1st for Bitwise and September 2nd for BlackRock, Fidelity and others. Here's what he had to share. Some folks are getting ahead of themselves thinking that grayscale decisions means bulk approval of ETFs by this Friday. Likely not the case. My hunches were looking at a late October, November timeline for an approval still, unless the SEC appeals in which case next spring. Now I'm not a gambling man, but if I was a gambling man, I just want to throw out there. I don't think the SEC has any intention to approve a spot Bitcoin ETF in the United States anytime soon because their actions demonstrate the complete opposite. The only thing they have interest in approving are more futures ETFs so they can continue to manipulate the markets through derivatives, which are financial weapons of mass destruction. Quoting Warren Buffett, it is what it is, but nonetheless, this is still a victory overall because they could only push it back for so long. And especially with BlackRock demanding, I shouldn't say demanding, but in so many words, they're the one that started this domino effect with new ETF apps arising with the SEC. They are the largest asset manager in the world, controlling over $10 trillion in assets under management. So I think if Larry Fink wants something, it's going to get done. But the million dollar question becomes when? I think they're going to push it back this year and probably spring next year, we're going to finally start to see the approval of spot Bitcoin ETFs in the United States. And as soon as we get that approval, that can help usher in literally trillions upon trillions of dollars that are currently sitting on the sidelines directly in to the best crypto asset in the world, which is none other than BTC. If you'd love to see that happen, let me know. And by what date or deadline do you think we're likely to get that first approval? And you already know once that approval comes, money is going to start ushering in and the Bitcoin price is going to go parabolic and in perfect time because we also have another major bullish catalyst around the corner. Six months out, the scheduled halving is estimated to be sometime in April of 2024. So between the ETF apps being approved by the United States regulators and the Bitcoin halving, I couldn't be more bullish on Bitcoin right now, which leads us to our next story of the day, which is going to be a $1 billion prediction from one of the largest asset managers in the world, which is Fidelity. Let's break this down. Then we'll dive into our live Q &A. Make sure to say hello in the live chat. Let me know where you're tuning in from. A massive shout out to everyone interacting. I greatly appreciate all the continued support. So here we go. $1 billion. That's a lot of zeros. That is nine to be exact. In 2021, a billion dollars seems like a lot of money. FYI, Fidelity initially made this prediction in 2021. I also want to point out here from some tweets, Fidelity head of sales, quoting them here, we started mining and accumulating Bitcoin all the way back in 2014. I bet you a lot of you did not know that. This was kind of under the radar, but they have been accumulating BTC almost for the past decade. So is this a surprise that they're predicting a $1 billion Bitcoin price by 2038? They're putting their money where their mouth is. But anyways, we have Julian Timmer, Director of Global Macro Fidelity, believing that one Bitcoin could be worth $1 billion per coin by the year 2038. Send it and let's go. Timmer also believes that the orange coin could hit $1 million before this decade is over, which means by the year 2030, roughly seven years away. So that would represent a 20X multiple, the current Bitcoin market price of 48 ,000. But now obviously we're half that price of what we was. So that would now be 40X. And I know anyone can make predictions like that, but Timmer lays out his cause using his own valuation model and another well -known model, which we all know here on the channel, known as the stock, the flow. Timmer's demand model is based upon Metcalfe's law. Metcalfe holds that as the number of users of a network grows linearly, the value of the network grows exponentially. Thus, if the number of users doubled, its value would grow at four times or the square of two. Now Timmer's demand model grows steadily to about $1 million by the chart. Now, by contrast, now let's discuss the stock to flow model created by synonymous analysts. Plan B is based on the supply of new coins growing at a decreasing rate each year. This occurs because of the built -in happenings every four years. So given increases and adoption and demand, the result will be prices expanding exponentially. Indeed, the price of Bitcoin has grown approximately 10X every four years. Take that, Peter Schiff. These are facts, not just by 50 % slowdown in supply, pretty powerful stuff. That's right. Now, stock to flow predicts even faster growth in the price than does Timmer's demand model, especially after the year 2030. As I commonly cover here in the show, the stock to flow model is projecting roughly a half a million dollar Bitcoin price past the halving in 2024. In fact, the model shows a very wide array in their expectation, anywhere from a hundred thousand to a million dollars, with a half a million being dead in the middle, hence in a couple of episodes previously, if you missed it, we discussed Plan B's most recent prediction, which he shared on his YouTube channel, that he believes the Bitcoin price will be north of $530 ,000 per coin proceeding the Bitcoin halving in 2024. But let's get back to this math. This is the stock to flow model you're looking at right here. Now let's go back over here. This is some more insights. Timmer stated the value of the dollar changes in relation to other assets. And he further pointed out that just a dollar invested in stocks in the 18th century would be worth $4 billion in today's money. Isn't that insanity? Talk about super hyperinflation. So going by this assumption, $1 million in today's money can be worth a billion dollars in 20 years time. Good Lord. You better start stacking them now, fam. So changes in the dollar's value, especially depreciation over several decades, render the same amount with less purchasing power, which is why huge sums back then appear less by today's standards. For instance, $1 million can purchase a lot of significant things a few decades ago, but in today's perspective, reasonably higher end houses in the US cost between, I would say $200 ,000 and $500 ,000. The same $1 million may not suffice for the same class of houses today. This is a fact. Just here in Puerto Rico alone, I've seen the real estate market literally shoot up 100 to 300 % since moving to this island roughly four years ago. And that's not just an exception to the rule. It's all across the United States, hyperinflation. I mean, check out the rent prices. That will give us some insights to the true nature of inflation. You can check out Zillow, check out real estate five years ago in comparison today, and you'll probably see something quite similar. But anyways, there's an increasing number of billionaires across the globe. Facts. Some observers even believe we may see the first trillionaire in this lifetime. I think it could potentially be CZ, the finance CEO, or even Michael Saylor of MicroStrategy. Now, the same applies to organizations with several companies now passing the $1 trillion mark valuation cap. Fidelity previously pegged Bitcoin to hit $1 million in initial prediction made by Jerry and Timmer by the year 2035. However, he ultimately said, we're way too conservative. Let's move this target on up from $1 million by the year 2035 to $1 billion by the year 2038. So there you have it. Do you feel the Bitcoin price can likely exceed their conservative target of $1 million by the year 2030 within the next seven years and hit as high as $100 million to $1 billion per coin by the year 2038? Let me know your honest thoughts in the comments right down below. And don't forget to check out cryptonewsalerts .net for the full premium experience with video and to participate in the live Q &A. And I look forward to seeing you on tomorrow's episode. HODL.
Bankless
"jake stravinsky" Discussed on Bankless
"Right. The Winklevoss ETF denied. Right. Like all of the other crypto native ETF proposals denied. And they're just the claim, the conspiracy is that they were just biding their time for some of the bigger players to come in. And it's just interesting that Fidelity, Citadel, BlackRock, all of these trad institutions with trillions of dollars of AUM and strong political connections all seem to come into crypto at once. Right after the SEC and other regulators start hammering crypto native orgs. And so just the timing on this is curious. I don't know if I think if I talk to somebody like Jake Stravinsky or somebody a little bit more measured, they would just say, yes, it's curious, but there's not really a there there. But I think everyone in crypto is like, yo, what the F is up with this timing? Do you have any thoughts on that Anthony? Yeah, I mean, the timing is what I think a lot of people are latching onto when it comes to putting their conspiracy hat on. Right. But there is another lens you can view this from. You can basically view this as these tradfi institutions had their hands forced by the SEC because the SEC went after Coinbase, the biggest crypto company in the US. They went after a bunch of different tokens or used those tokens as evidence against Coinbase. Obviously, they went after Binance, which isn't US. I mean, Binance US, but obviously they're trying to extend that to Binance Global as well. So I think that maybe these tradfi institutions were already interested in getting into crypto. They just hadn't announced their plans yet. And then because the SEC went after Coinbase especially, they're like, OK, well, we need to send the signal back now that we're actually wanting to play in this arena. And the SEC needs to calm down with whatever they're trying to do. Interesting. OK, so that's actually just like the pro crypto. It's like they were they were always ready to pull this trigger.
Bankless
"jake stravinsky" Discussed on Bankless
"Permissioned and permissionless nodes to join the network, maximizing its potential scalability for ETHX while preserving the values of decentralization and openness behind its liquid staking token. Go to staterlabs .com slash ETH and sign up to get access to the Stater staking protocol. Bankless Nation, we are back with our favorite person ever. Gary Gensler. Anthony, you ready to hear from Gary Gensler? Here we go. We don't need more digital currency. We already have digital currency. It's called the US dollar. It's called the euro. It's called the yen. They're all digital right now. We already have digital investments and you have entrepreneurs representing digital investments on this program all day long. It's whether it's the big tech companies, the automobile companies, you name it. It's all digital right now, the investing world. What do you think about that, Anthony? Oh man, he just really revealed his true intentions, huh? It seems like his true intentions for crypto is to basically effectively ban it in the US because he seems to personally not like crypto, which is just ridiculous because a bureaucrat like this shouldn't have the power to do that, let alone be able to just openly say that and basically try to impart his own views on an entire industry. It's ridiculous. Honestly, I believe at this point he should resign, given not only what he said here, but a lot of the stuff that he's been doing, but unfortunately, due to politics, I don't think that's going to happen because the Democrats don't want to have their SEC chair that they appointed resign because it would look really bad on them. But generally, him saying this is literally just him being like, oh well, I'm going to drop the facade now and I'm basically going to tell the world what I really think. Yeah, that's exactly what Jake Stravinsky's take was. It's like he has been operating by a veil of obfuscation and uncertainty and unclarity and now with suing Coinbase and Binance after doing the whole thing. Coinbase, you're totally allowed to go public. You're totally fine. And then suing them later after the fact. That's exactly what Jake said too. He's just now revealing his true intention, his true colors. Even though we all kind of knew it, it was still just a gut feeling that we knew it.
Bankless
"jake stravinsky" Discussed on Bankless
"Welcome to Bankless, where we explore the frontier of internet money, and we protect that frontier from rogue, unelected regulators whose sole focus appears to be stopping anyone from exploring and settling on that crypto frontier. Bankless Nation, on Monday, the SEC announced their lawsuit against CZ and Binance. On Tuesday, yesterday, while Coinbase's chief legal officer was busy testifying in front of the House Agricultural Committee about a new and progressive market structure bill for digital assets, the SEC announced their lawsuit against Coinbase. What are they accusing Coinbase of exactly? Allowing securities to trade on its platform, an activity that is integral and fundamental to both Coinbase and the entire crypto industry, and is also an activity that the SEC themselves approved of when they allowed Coinbase to become a public company back in 2021. So what gives? What gives is the question. And today on the show, we're bringing on two legal minds to help answer that question. Legal minds from outside of Coinbase. We had Paul Graywall on yesterday to give us the Coinbase perspective. But today on the show, we have Jake Stravinsky and Amanda Tuminelli from the Blockchain Association and the DeFi Education Fund to give their independent objective perspectives on the matters at hand. But before we get into that, into the conversation with Jake and Amanda, first got to talk about asymmetric protocol. If you are familiar with pool together, asymmetrics is like pool together except for eth staking. Is regular old 4 .5, 5 % eth yield just not boring enough? How about anywhere between zero and a thousand percent? With asymmetrics, you can put all of your ether into the asymmetrics protocol, it will stake it on your behalf, and you have a chance of winning everyone's yield or nothing at all. The yield goes to one lucky winner. Right now, 315 users are competing over 6 .6 ether worth of reward that is accumulated over the last five or six days. Rewards get sent out every seven days. So if you want to add a little bit more excitement to the eth staking in your life, asymmetrics protocol can get you anywhere between zero and one thousand percent yields.
Bankless
"jake stravinsky" Discussed on Bankless
"Welcome to Bankless, where we explore the frontier of internet money, and we protect that frontier from rogue, unelected regulators whose sole focus appears to be stopping anyone from exploring and settling on that crypto frontier. Bankless Nation, on Monday, the SEC announced their lawsuit against CZ and Binance. On Tuesday, yesterday, while Coinbase's chief legal officer was busy testifying in front of the House Agricultural Committee about a new and progressive market structure bill for digital assets, the SEC announced their lawsuit against Coinbase. What are they accusing Coinbase of exactly? Allowing securities to trade on its platform, an activity that is integral and fundamental to both Coinbase and the entire crypto industry, and is also an activity that the SEC themselves approved of when they allowed Coinbase to become a public company back in 2021. So what gives? What gives is the question. And today on the show, we're bringing on two legal minds to help answer that question. Legal minds from outside of Coinbase. We had Paul Graywall on yesterday to give us the Coinbase perspective. But today on the show, we have Jake Stravinsky and Amanda Tuminelli from the Blockchain Association and the DeFi Education Fund to give their independent objective perspectives on the matters at hand. But before we get into that, into the conversation with Jake and Amanda, first got to talk about asymmetric protocol. If you are familiar with pool together, asymmetrics is like pool together except for eth staking. Is regular old 4 .5, 5 % eth yield just not boring enough? How about anywhere between zero and a thousand percent? With asymmetrics, you can put all of your ether into the asymmetrics protocol, it will stake it on your behalf, and you have a chance of winning everyone's yield or nothing at all. The yield goes to one lucky winner. Right now, 315 users are competing over 6 .6 ether worth of reward that is accumulated over the last five or six days. Rewards get sent out every seven days. So if you want to add a little bit more excitement to the eth staking in your life, asymmetrics protocol can get you anywhere between zero and one thousand percent yields.
The Breakdown
"jake stravinsky" Discussed on The Breakdown
"What's going on guys? It is Tuesday. Make second in today we are talking about the latest in operation choke .2, new evidence is here. A few quick notes before we dive in. First, if you are enjoying the breakdown, I would so appreciate it if you would leave a 5 star rating or review. Second, if you're really enjoying the breakdown, I would love it if you would join our community. The breakers Discord is a great place to talk about all things Bitcoin, crypto, macro, you name it. Bit LY slash breakdown pod. Third, now that the breakdown network is up and running, we will be out recruiting a line sponsors again. If you're interested in sponsoring the show, shoot me an email at sponsors at breakdown dot network. And for those of you dreading hateful ads, I promise there will be ad free versions available. But with that, let's shift to our story today, and it is a bombshell. Last night, gen Vietnam from New York magazine dropped a story all about operation choke .2. And while some have commented that they were surprised that this particular piece appeared in New York magazine, they clearly haven't been following Jen. Jen has been covering crypto for more than 6 years now for numerous publications and has a very good read on the industry. She also went to northwestern as an undergrad, so obviously, you know, she has game. Anyway, we'll come back to Jen's story in a moment, but we have to move a bit farther back. I don't think that any of you listening to the show right now won't be familiar with the idea of operation choke .2. Operation choke point was an Obama era program that basically used political pressure to block unwanted or unloved industries out of banking access. So it was things like payday loans or gambling or pornography, right? That program was eventually halted during the Trump administration, but the seeds of it clearly remained. In fact, one of the people in charge of architecting operation choke .1 would go on to become the head of the FDIC under Biden. There has been a strong suspicion among the crypto crowd that ever since the collapse of FTX, there has been a largely coordinated push to block out legal crypto businesses from having access to the banking industry. It has at times seemed very transparent and has at other times just been reflected in what feels like impossible to ignore coordinated actions. Well, trying to get a little bit more information about how real this thing is. On March 16th, Jake stravinsky, the chief policy officer at the blockchain association, wrote today, blockchain association sent freedom of information act request to the fed, FDIC, and OCC demanding information about the unlawful de banking of crypto companies. We're also collecting evidence of de banking. Here's the situation.
The Breakdown
New York Magazine Finds Evidence of Operation Choke Point 2.0
"Let's shift to our story today, and it is a bombshell. Last night, gen Vietnam from New York magazine dropped a story all about operation choke .2. And while some have commented that they were surprised that this particular piece appeared in New York magazine, they clearly haven't been following Jen. Jen has been covering crypto for more than 6 years now for numerous publications and has a very good read on the industry. She also went to northwestern as an undergrad, so obviously, you know, she has game. Anyway, we'll come back to Jen's story in a moment, but we have to move a bit farther back. I don't think that any of you listening to the show right now won't be familiar with the idea of operation choke .2. Operation choke point was an Obama era program that basically used political pressure to block unwanted or unloved industries out of banking access. So it was things like payday loans or gambling or pornography, right? That program was eventually halted during the Trump administration, but the seeds of it clearly remained. In fact, one of the people in charge of architecting operation choke .1 would go on to become the head of the FDIC under Biden. There has been a strong suspicion among the crypto crowd that ever since the collapse of FTX, there has been a largely coordinated push to block out legal crypto businesses from having access to the banking industry. It has at times seemed very transparent and has at other times just been reflected in what feels like impossible to ignore coordinated actions. Well, trying to get a little bit more information about how real this thing is. On March 16th, Jake stravinsky, the chief policy officer at the blockchain association, wrote today, blockchain association sent freedom of information act request to the fed, FDIC, and OCC demanding information about the unlawful de banking of crypto companies. We're also collecting evidence of de banking. Here's the situation. There are troubling reports of crypto companies having their bank accounts closed, often with no notice and no explanation. They've struggled to open new accounts, too. This disturbing trend suggests that regulators are trying to cut crypto entirely out of the banking system.
CoinDesk Podcast Network
"jake stravinsky" Discussed on CoinDesk Podcast Network
"Chairman hill apparently felt the need to address this outburst, clarifying that the Republican side of the subcommittee welcomed any legislative effort from Democrats and that all his party has done is revised the bill from where it stood in September. In no way, he said, is the bill posted to the hearing, the be all or end all. This really is an opportunity for both sides of the aisle to fully engage with this superb panel and think through the right way to revise the good work of waters and mchenry last fall. Now again, what's not being spoken is why the stablecoin legislation fell apart at the end of last year. Part of it was the simple reality of political schedules with everyone dealing with their own reelections in the fall, but part of it was the fact that even throughout the negotiations, there was a loud part of the Democratic Party and specifically the Biden administration that, according to people in Washington, who were there at the time, believed that any legislation at all was a legitimizing force for crypto, and so should be opposed. I hate how partisan this industry is becoming. But when you have one party who has an entire wing that believes that an industry shouldn't even exist, and that any legislation to give it rules of the road would be tantamount to saying it's allowed to exist, how are you going to get anything done? Now, on to who was actually testifying, this was one of the absolute bright spots of this whole thing. We heard from Dante deporte, the chief strategy officer for USD C issuer circle, Austin Campbell, adjunct professor at Columbia business school, former head of portfolio management at paxos and recent guest on this show, Jake stravinsky, chief policy officer at the blockchain association and Uber, Twitter threader, and then the folks who were nominally supposed to be the not crypto crowd. Adrienne Harris, the superintendent for the New York State Department of financial services, which oversees the bit license state regulatory scheme, and the late edition of delicia Reynolds hand, who's the director at financial fairness, which is a consumer advocacy group. Let's talk first about Austin Campbell, who was recently on this show and whose testimony naked called out. In it, Austin explains the status of the U.S. regulatory landscape on a granular level. And makes the case for clear stablecoin regulations as a tool to continue the dominance of the U.S. dollar well into this century. Campbell opened by explaining the difference between the various instruments called stablecoins and advocated for more clarity in the language. Many things he said are called stablecoins which should not be. What we need is clarity to define stablecoin so that we understand that stablecoins built right are not new and a relatively mundane financial instruments. The main thrust of Campbell's testimony was a warning that the current regulatory framework for stablecoins is his word chaos. Issuers have no idea which regulator will come knocking, and this lack of certainty is pushing firms offshore. He said I can say this with certainty because I advise my clients right now to do exactly that. Campbell argued that this status quo is not only bad for jobs and the status of the U.S. dollar, but it's quote particularly bad for national security, as blockchains have a significant degree of transparency. Next up, Jake stravinsky gave a simple message to the subcommittee on behalf of the more than 100 companies represented by the blockchain association. Congress, he said, must pass stablecoin legislation. Jake argued that this moment is pivotal while enemies of the U.S. are actively undermining the global dominance of the dollar. Presented three main points. First, that the U.S. payment system had failed to keep up with digital technology and the always open economy that goes along with it. Second, that the dollar is under threat from competitors like the digital yuan. And the best way to bolster its global use quickly is to spread U.S. dollar stablecoins around the world. Third, the the entrepreneurs that are interested in building this industry are already leaving for more friendly jurisdictions. Adopting stable Quinn legislation now, he said, we'll send an important message to the job creators and the taxpayers in the blockchain industry that they are still welcome here at home. Congressional mainstay Dante deporte gave a rundown of the technology and capabilities of circle's USD C he explained that circle had always taken a quote regulatory first approach based on trust, transparency, accountability, and financial integrity. USD C he said had facilitated more than $10 trillion in transactions across more than 90 countries. He joined the other panelists and warning that the U.S. is falling behind due to a lack of a clear regulatory framework. Financial innovation, inclusion and protecting the integrity of the financial system, he said, are not competing objectives. Finally, there were the two witnesses who were nominally supposed to be not pro or at least not clearly so. There was that late addition delicia Reynolds hand who presented a wide range of consumer concerns from the lack of payments reversals in the cryptosystem to the commingling of funds and some crypto firms. Her critics definitely were less about stablecoin specifically and more about the crypto industry as a whole. For example, she discussed the targeting of African American populations in crypto advertising, and the need for protection of minority investors. Now one interesting note about that is that by any statistical measure, basically, non white Americans are much faster adopters. This makes sense if you understand the patterns of historical discrimination and how much harder it is for minority communities to get good banking access in America. Whether that means they need more consumer protection is a reasonable and open question. But the distinction I'm trying to draw is that African American communities aren't being targeted more by crypto advertising because they're more susceptible. They're being targeted as a desirable consumer because they're already opting into the system.
Bankless
"jake stravinsky" Discussed on Bankless
"Okay. Oh my God, I didn't know that. Not looking great, not looking great. So the traditional way to kind of I'm going to say bailout, but save depositors as a bank is to have a bigger bank buy it. Buy all the depositors assets, right? And this is saying that maybe any buyer of signature has to agree to give up all the crypto business at the bank. How is this legal? Yeah, I don't know. I don't know. So here is zero hedge commenting on that recent Nick Carter take. Crypto is now a political issue. The Democrats want to crush it. And the Republicans, GOP will use that in 2024. We'll see what that happens when the elections. I hope this doesn't become a left versus right thing. Is congressman Tom emmer Republican saying, today I sent any letter to FDIC chairman grunberg regarding reports that the FDIC is weaponizing recent instability in the banking sector to purge legal activity from the United States. So Tom hammer, a member of Congress, also we are in talks with him about coming on bankless, so we will talk to him directly soon. I think he's coming on next Friday, David. But that is not all. So here's Jake stravinsky tweeting out today the blockchain associate association sent four year request that is freedom of information act request to the fed, the FDIC and OCC demanding information about the unlawful banking of crypto companies. We are collecting evidence of de banking, share your story with us, and he gives an email to do that, de banked at the blockchain association dot org plus a threat. So whether or not that this was a run on signature bank or this was a targeted political takedown of one of the few remaining crypto banks, sounds like we're going to get down to the bottom of it because we have the blockchain association with freedom of information because we live in a democracy. And also a congressman going after this as well. So the sleuths are on the case. We will find this out. We'll see if the allegations are true. Yeah, Jake kravinsky here tweeting their troubling reports of crypto companies having their bank accounts closed with no notice in the explanation. And this is a disturbing trend suggesting that regulators are trying to cut crypto entirely out of the banking system, not legal to target an industry like that and to target a specific set of depositors. David, let's go back to the USD C story though, because that hit crypto, of course, crypto didn't stop trading. USD C was still trading against other stablecoin assets, dropped down to 88 cents. We had Jeremy lair on the podcast earlier. But this is his statement that he issued right after that fed letter was sent out that all depositors at Silicon Valley and signature bank would be made whole. What's the story for USD C here? Yeah, so I've pulled out three tweets out of his thread that I thought were worth stating. 100% of reserves are safe and sound and we will complete our transfer of remaining SVB Silicon Valley bank cached two B and Y melon. Much bigger, bigger bank with a closure bank announced tonight.
The Breakdown
"jake stravinsky" Discussed on The Breakdown
"Shifts remaking our world. The breakdown is produced and distributed by coindesk. What's going on guys? It is Friday, February 24th and today we are talking about whether NFTs are securities about SPF getting more charges, it is a Friday extravaganza and I am excited to have you here. Before we get into that, however, if you are enjoying the breakdown, please go subscribe to it, give it a rating, give it a review or if you want to dive deeper into the conversation. Come join us on the breakers Discord. You can find a link in the show notes or go to bit dot LY slash breakdown pod. I'll write Friends, happy Friday. Today we are catching up with some interesting legal developments to close out our week here. We're going to start with dapper labs and for those unfamiliar dapper were the creators of crypto kitties and then later NBA top shot. In many ways, NBA top shot was the first mainstream breakout of the NFT bull market that brought a huge number of new people into the space around 2020, 2021. While recently dapper has been facing a class action lawsuit, which is predicated on the idea that top shots are unregistered securities. Now, it's important to note here that this is a group of plaintiffs making this argument not the SEC. Now, because of this, dapper lawyers have tried to get the case thrown out on the basis of top shots, clearly, and obviously not being securities. On Wednesday, a number of headlines were shared on Twitter that were somewhere between intentionally and unintentionally misleading, and which were in either case clickbaity and not exactly accurate. Those headlines all read some version of judge declares NBA top shots to be a security, but that wasn't exactly true. What actually happened was that the judge hearing the case in the southern district of New York dismissed dapper's application to dismiss the case. That judge found that there are reasonable arguments that the NFTs in this specific case could satisfy the howey tests. To how he tested, of course, the legal threshold for whether an asset can be deemed an investment contract with the implication that securities laws apply to it. The legal argument in this case is a little more in depth than simply the idea that dapper's digital basketball cards are securities. The judge accepted the plaintiff's arguments that the underlying protocols tokens create value across the NFT ecosystem. Quote, plaintiffs have alleged that, without flow tokens, no transactions on the float blockchain can be validated. Indeed, the proof of stake mechanism employed by the flow blockchain requires flow to power it, and incentivize miners to validate transactions. In that respect flows utility creates value for moments through the network's consensus as to ownership in the price of each transaction. Now I'm not trying to get into the details here only to point out that this is a specific decision about the specifics of this case and it involves a company that has their own blockchain and that is working with their own blockchain. And so that should color the extent to which we think there are other precedents here that might be more concerning. Still, lawyers for dapper labs reiterated their rather clear legal argument. They said basketball cards are not securities. Pokémon cards are not securities. Baseball cards are not securities. Common sense says so, the law says so, and courts say so however, this judge said it's not that clear, particularly the judge noted that unlike cardboard collectibles, the value of dapper's digital trading cards, hinges on dapper's continuous operation of the flow blockchain, and the existence of a secondary market operated by the company. Quote, the allegations that dapper labs created and maintains a private blockchain is fundamental to the court's conclusion. By privatizing the blockchain on which the moment's value depends and restricting the trade of moments to only the flow blockchain, purchasers must rely on dapper lab's expertise in managerial efforts, as well as its continued success in existence. The judge also noted that dapper's marketing materials implied the expectation of profit, which is something we'll come back to in just a minute. The judge also highlighted that his interpretation was very narrow and does not imply that all NFTs are securities. Quote, it is the particular scheme by which dapper labs offers moments that creates a sufficient legal relationship between investor and promoter to establish an investment contract and thus a security under howey. In some plaintiffs adequately alleged that dapper labs offer of the NFT moments was an offer of an investment contract and therefore a security required to be registered with the SEC. Still, the really important thing here and the thing that was lost in the initial discussion was that this was simply a hearing about whether the case would be thrown out without a hearing. Essentially, the judge was only asked to decide whether the argument raised by the plaintiffs was plausible, not whether it was correct. So when the judge was talking about that private blockchain and what it meant, he wasn't saying that ultimately he agreed with the plaintiffs that that meant that top shots were a security, but only that it was a plausible argument. The case will now go ahead and arguments will be formally heard on whether or not top shots was offering a security. Dapper labs tweeted today's order which the court has described as a close call only denied our motion to dismiss the complaint of the case's pleading stage. The judge did not conclude that the plaintiffs were right, and it's not a final ruling on the case's merits. Courts have repeatedly held the consumer goods, including art and collectibles like basketball cards, are not securities under federal law. We're confident the same claim holds true for moments in other collectibles digital or otherwise. As we argued to the court, moments are simply modernized trading cards, not financial instruments. Unlike securities, moments are unique in nature, non fungible, and don't contain rights to any underlying financial asset. We look forward to vigorously defending our position in court as the case continues. While Twitter was initially flooded with the incorrect headlines it didn't take long for a more thoughtful set to do some correcting. Jake stravinsky writes the judge didn't decide anything. He allowed the case to proceed past a motion to dismiss because the securities claims were at least plausible, an extremely low bar and not a final ruling at all. Do I really have to say basketball cards are not securities? Now Evan Cohen, the founder at invest with Vincent responded and said, frankly, the private blockchain argument is interesting. And I look forward to the actual hearing. To which Jake again responded, this dispute aside, it would be absurd if all valuable digital assets stored on centralized databases were securities. This would turn every major video game developer every event ticketing platform travel rewards program, et cetera, into a public reporting company regulated by the SEC. James Murphy at metal lawman also discussed whether it had relevance to another big securities related trial in ripple versus the SEC. He writes, a federal judge in New York has ruled that a complaint plausibly alleges that dapper lab's initial sale of NBA top shot NFTs qualifies as a security under the howey test. I don't believe this ruling should impact the analysis in the ripple case and here's why. The top shot decision does not address secondary market sales of the top shot NFTs. And the judge emphasized it his opinion that the underlying facts matter because, quote, not all NFTs offered or sold by any company will constitute a security. The judge cited the fact that top shots trade on a private blockchain run by the issuer as a key factor in his ruling. XRP trades on a public blockchain. For this reason, the top shot opinion could be considered net positive for ripple. Not a legal opinion just a tweet. Now obviously this is still not great for dapper as they have to go have this fight now. And in fact, the block obtained an email sent to investors on Wednesday that informed them of a further 20% reduction in headcount at dapper labs, which follows layoffs amounting to 22% of their staff last November. Lastly, one part of the ruling that should give social media professionals pause, the federal court judge alleged that emojis like the rocket ship emoji, the up chart emoji, and the bag of money emoji, objectively mean a financial return on investment. And so have legal consequences. Join coin desks consensus 2023. The most important conversation in crypto and web three. Happening April 26th through 28th in Austin, Texas. Consensus is the industry's only event bringing together all sides of crypto web three and the metaverse. Immerse yourself in all that blockchain technology has to offer creators, builders, founders, brand leaders, entrepreneurs, and more. Use code breakdown to get 15% off your pass. Visit consensus that coin desk dot com or check the link in the show notes. Speaking of legal consequences, let's do an update on SPF. An updated indictment against Sam bankman freed was unsealed on Thursday, adding four additional fraud and campaign finance charges to his criminal case, which is currently scheduled to go to trial in October. The document also adds significant additional background material on what went on at FTX. Adding to the existing fraud charges, the DoJ alleges that Sam quote falsely represented to a financial institution that the account would be used for trading and market making. The indictment claims that Sam opened a company with the deliberately misleading name of north dimension, with the aim of telling a false story to an unnamed bank that had previously been reluctant to service FTX companies. Still, the bulk of the additions relate to campaign finance violations.
HASHR8
"jake stravinsky" Discussed on HASHR8
"I want to go back to that operation choke point, point you brought up because it's really important. We had a great article from Nick Carter. I was just published last week and I'm sure you read it, it was on pirate wires, which is like a for those listening as a substack from a venture capitalist, definitely go check it out. And it made some interesting points. Drew some conclusions from headlines, from press releases, and it really does look like the U.S. government is taking FTX debacle and museums turnaround move against the industry. What's your take on worst case scenario? What's your case on good scenarios on what's your case on what likely outcome is here? Really just asking for more questions about operation choke point from your purview. Yeah, sure. So if you look at the timeline in that article and I had kind of already been sort of assembling a timeline like that, it's been a startling maybe. Is the word I would use that you have sort of similar talking points coming out of you had a statement on January 3rd from all three banking regulators, the fed, the OCC, and the FDIC all saying that crypto assets are inconsistent with safe and sound banking practices. That is a, that's a pretty clear signal. From these regulators, those are buzz words that like any financial institution is going to hear that and say, ah, okay, so they don't want me in this industry. That is, I saw it referred to by Jake stravinsky from the blockchain association, as regulation by blog post. It's not even regulation by endorsement. It's regulated by blog posts. It's just them sending signals to their regulated entities, which means that the regulator is saying, okay, so when we come and do our examination of your business and we determine whether you are appropriately de risked when we give you a score, well, you know, we're going to look at whether your service in this industry,
The Breakdown
"jake stravinsky" Discussed on The Breakdown
"Is produced and distributed by coin desk. What's going on guys? It is Sunday, February 19th, and that means it's time for long read Sunday. Before we get into that, however, if you are enjoying the breakdown, please go subscribe to it, give it a rating, give it a review or if you want to dive deeper into the conversation. Come join us on the breakers Discord. You can find a link in the show notes or go to bit LY slash breakdown pod. All right, Friends, well, today we are really picking up on the theme of 2023 so far, which is as it turns out not just fallout from FTX, but specifically, the emergence of a dramatic regulatory battle around crypto in the United States. I think many of us felt that this was inevitable coming off of the events of last year, but it is playing out in very specific ways, which I think demands specific responses. We're going to read one essay in a couple of threads today, and we start with a piece by Michael Casey from coin desk called regulating crypto by enforcement and stealth will set the U.S. back. Michael writes, call me naive, but I've always resisted the conspiracy theory that the anti crypto stance adopted by certain U.S. regulators is meant to strangle this industry and protect the financial establishment it seeks to disrupt. I've preferred to see it as a wrong headed but well intended effort to protect consumers. Recent events have me wondering if something more sinister isn't afoot, and that maybe I am naive. First, all indications are that the securities and exchange commission will outright prohibit companies from providing staking services to retail customers in the U.S. products that give investors an opportunity to share and the token rewards that proof of stake blockchains delivered a validators. Following a hint from coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong, that's such a band was coming, news broke that in response to an SEC lawsuit, coinbase competitor kraken is indefinitely abandoning the staking service it offered to U.S. customers and paying a $30 million fine. Second, per observations from castle island ventures general partner Nick Carter and blockchain association chief policy officer Jake stravinsky, and evident in other signs such as binance's problems with U.S. dollar bank transactions, it seems regulators are pushing U.S. banks to stop surfacing crypto companies. These latest moves will make it even harder for average U.S. citizens to participate in this industry.
The Breakdown
Fighting Back Against Rogue Regulators
"All right, Friends, well, today we are really picking up on the theme of 2023 so far, which is as it turns out not just fallout from FTX, but specifically, the emergence of a dramatic regulatory battle around crypto in the United States. I think many of us felt that this was inevitable coming off of the events of last year, but it is playing out in very specific ways, which I think demands specific responses. We're going to read one essay in a couple of threads today, and we start with a piece by Michael Casey from coin desk called regulating crypto by enforcement and stealth will set the U.S. back. Michael writes, call me naive, but I've always resisted the conspiracy theory that the anti crypto stance adopted by certain U.S. regulators is meant to strangle this industry and protect the financial establishment it seeks to disrupt. I've preferred to see it as a wrong headed but well intended effort to protect consumers. Recent events have me wondering if something more sinister isn't afoot, and that maybe I am naive. First, all indications are that the securities and exchange commission will outright prohibit companies from providing staking services to retail customers in the U.S. products that give investors an opportunity to share and the token rewards that proof of stake blockchains delivered a validators. Following a hint from coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong, that's such a band was coming, news broke that in response to an SEC lawsuit, coinbase competitor kraken is indefinitely abandoning the staking service it offered to U.S. customers and paying a $30 million fine. Second, per observations from castle island ventures general partner Nick Carter and blockchain association chief policy officer Jake stravinsky, and evident in other signs such as binance's problems with U.S. dollar bank transactions, it seems regulators are pushing U.S. banks to stop surfacing crypto companies. These latest moves will make it even harder for average U.S. citizens to participate in this industry. Limiting it to large institutional investors, while various innovative startups look to disrupt those same rent seeking intermediaries will struggle to access liquidity. It's hard to understand how these actions serve to protect consumers or further other policy objectives such as expanding financial inclusion. It feels as if government agents are deliberately trying to force this industry into the hands of Wall Street fat cats.