Exactly, I have no problem with people at Coinbase "insider trading" as it was no Insider trading; it was announced publicly on Coinbase website that they will release the Bitcoin Cash to the holders (I even got an e-mail about it from them) and the announcement also mentioned that they will consider to put it up as a listed currency. level 2. Bitcoin keeps trading at increasingly high prices since it debuted in , attracting more and more interest from investors. Visit Business Insider's Investing Reference library for more stories. Signal insider trading bitcoin illegal Singapore groups predominantly operate in telegram groups with thousands of members. This is a esignal rtd insider trading bitcoin illegal Singapore excel swing day trading strategies for sharing ideas and requesting new features for TradingView.
Insider trading bitcoinBloomberg - Are you a robot?
But while it has certainly attracted plenty of attention , not just of late but throughout its year-old life, Bitcoin still remains a mystery to casual and experienced investors alike. This shouldn't really be the case, since the basics of Bitcoin and how it works are relatively easy to understand. Here's a brief Bitcoin biography: An overview of its origins, operations — and how to invest in it. Bitcoin is a cryptocurrency, an electronic version of money that verifies transactions using cryptography the science of encoding and decoding information.
As Bitcoin educator, developer, and entrepreneur Jimmy Song explains, Bitcoin is "decentralized, digital, and scarce money":. When you use bitcoin to buy something, it records the transaction on a blockchain, which is essentially a ledger or database whose entries can't be modified or erased.
Transactions are validated by Bitcoin through a process known as a proof-of-work, in which "miners" i. Anyone with a shovel can dig and look for gold, just as anyone with a computer can look for proof-of-work," says Song. These technicalities aside, one of the main draws of Bitcoin — and one of the reasons why it has attracted so much hype in recent years — is that it's a form of private money that operates without the involvement of a central bank or government.
Because the technology is open source and entirely decentralized, it is protected from influence by external sources such as governments, who typically control fiscal policy and fiat currency circulation," says Simon Peters, a market analyst at eToro. This independence from central authorities is key to understanding the beginnings of Bitcoin, which was first formalized by a person identified only as "Satoshi Nakamoto" in an October whitepaper.
Working with various members of a cryptography mailing list, the pseudonymous Nakamoto launched Bitcoin on January 3, Other individuals had attempted to develop forms of electronic money before e. Nakamoto's main solution to this problem was to introduce a timestamped, permanent transactions ledger: the blockchain.
This effectively makes every bitcoin traceable and unique, insofar as the transaction history of each individual bitcoin is publicly visible on the bitcoin blockchain. The blockchain technology behind the Bitcoin network is what excites most people about the digital currency. Because the record-keeping technology is decentralized — so no single group has control — advocates believe it has the power to transform the world's financial institutions and business dealings for the better, resulting in faster but more secure transactions, along with improved transparency and communications.
At the very beginning of its life, Bitcoin was used to make trial purchases and payments, with developer Laszlo Hanyecz famously using 10, bitcoins to buy two pizzas on May 22, It was also around this time that traders first began speculating with the currency, with the now-defunct BitcoinMarket. Still, the major trend has been that the currency's price has risen over the longer term, with each new peak being higher than the last in most cases.
One reason for the volatility: Considerable suspicion and skepticism that have dogged the cryptocurrency throughout its history. Bitcoin's blockchain may be immune to interference, but bitcoin itself may not be, skeptics have said. Research published in concluded that "there was serious market manipulation in Mt. Gox exchange," which was the largest cryptocurrency marketplace until hacking forced its shutdown , incurring the loss of some , bitcoins.
Similar charges have been made with regards to the cryptocurrency Tether. A so-called "stablecoin," it's widely used to purchase bitcoins in regions particularly Asia where using traditional fiat currencies for such a purpose isn't legal.
Its operators originally claimed that every Tether token was backed by US dollars held in reserve, yet researchers have suggested that this backing is a myth and that Tether is a tool used just to inflate bitcoin prices.
Then there's Bitcoin's association with criminals and shady operators. Most notoriously, it was the medium of exchange used by Silk Road, a clandestine black market eventually shut down by the FBI in This stigma has stuck ever since, and not without cause.
Bitcoin may be a relatively new asset, but it has provided outsized returns in almost every year of its existence. So you want a decentralized pseudonymous payment network and at the same time you want it regulated by the government.
Oh the delusion. The people who mined or acquired thousands in the beginning that can influence the market. Unfortunately, that feeling was too much and I had to get out. If you are worried about a small group of people wielding too much influence over the market, the traditional financial system should scare u MUCH MUCH more than bitcoin does. This is especially true of any fiat system. Fiat is inherently a pyramid scheme.
Trickle down economics means money is printed for those at the top and diluted as it flows down the pyramid to the masses. Money is a tool you set its value when you jew around with people, i have 4 banana's but you have on orange and thats unqiue or special so i trade 2 of my banana's for your one orange now you have two things Well then, don't day trade, buy and hold.
If you have been doing this since the beginning you would be up huge. Nothing to be scared of. It hasn't happened with an exchange that is providing data to highly regulated futures markets before.
But its a big issue because this is the most mainstream coin. Pump and dumps happen all the time for alt coins, but because its bitcoin and a fork of it, and on coinbase, it becomes something else.
I think we can all agree that exchanges like Coinbase have a duty of care to people finding bitcoin for the first time and ensuring their funds are secure and safe. It's not like we don't have examples of exchanges taking their responsibility seriously, such as Gemini and Bitstamp i. Do we actually have evidence of coinbase employees taking advantage of their knowledge that bcash would be added to the site?
Not really. Can't really do much about the cryptos. It's funny how the whole point of bitcoin is a currency that is decoupled from the government and now people are mad that people didn't play nice in the sandbox.
It's "magic internet money," and you're all mad that they didn't play by your rules? This is part of a larger movement to attack the freedom of crypto. This sub is now experiencing social engineering for the pro-regulation forces. The freedom to buy and sell whatever crypto you like is your choice. People or companies pumping and dumping is their choice. This community is filled with people that believe Bitcoin is some sort of Crypto-Jesus.
If that is true, it will remain untouchable in the long-run regardless of media portrayal or temporary scandal. If a few people doing a few things against the precious jesus-coin plummet its value, then it really isn't all that it's cracked up to be. The only reason why bitcoin got so valuable in the first place is the same media running puff pieces like "bitcoin, can it be stopped?
What is happening is that the surface of the bubble is starting to tear. People who are asking "how do I get bitcoin? Exactly, I have no problem with people at Coinbase "insider trading" as it was no Insider trading; it was announced publicly on Coinbase website that they will release the Bitcoin Cash to the holders I even got an e-mail about it from them and the announcement also mentioned that they will consider to put it up as a listed currency.
I mean, it was definitely the biggest. People with singular thought logic spread it around like the flu. Their point was made, and it only stood on common phrasing rather than being a robust concept to rest on.
It's an ad absurdum argument to show the ridiculousness of the original statement. Inside trading is unethical and there's a reason why it's illegal. Regulation is there because some humans can't be trusted to not fuck others over if they get a chance.
Shares of a company are worth more to shareholders that have privileged insider information than they are to those without it. Ideally, insider trading should be assumed to be taking place in all markets unless otherwise stated.
Companies that wish to offer shares of ownership that are fungibly equitable to all participants may market the shares as such and thereby be held legally responsible for such claims. A company may limit such liability by requiring contracts to be agreed to prior to entering ownership of a share. Shareholders to be would be required to agree to uphold the ethical parameters set by the contract or be held legally responsible for fraud.
Alternately, everybody could wake up and realize that mathematical anonymity is possible and will be utilized by individuals with privileged information able to front run the market. Whether it is an algo trading on natural language processing that gives it an edge against humans when trading based on news, or the CEO of a company sending encrypted messages to decentralized token markets that allow anonymous trading, shorting, leverage, futures markets the effect is the same: there will always be those with privileged information.
Eventually regulation will be impossible to enforce, so it is time to get real and think about how to perform in a future that looks very different. Er, no. The material nonpublic information allows a person to anticipate how it will affect the value of the shares when it becomes public knowledge, which may be an increase in value or a decrease. This is also not true. Most shares are bought on the secondary market, not from the company.
There would be no contract between the secondary buyer and the company. And if you try to stipulate in the contact that those who buy your shares sell on the condition that the buyer enter into this contract, you're not actually guaranteeing that will happen.
A shareholder who sells without doing that would still have sold their share, the company would just be able to seek civil damages for breach of contract. Assuming such a contract is even valid in the first place. I don't see how this connects to what I was responding to, the claim that shares are worth more to you if you hold material nonpublic information.
They're not. You merely have the ability to anticipate how the public will value them once that information becomes public. You merely have the ability to anticipate and act on how the public will value them once that information becomes public. Yes duh. You're missing my point. The shares aren't worth more because you hold the information. Are you capable of having a coherent conversation? It is useful in this instance to understand that there is no "company" that sells shares, only owners of shares that sell stakes in a company to other owners to be.
It is possible to loan, rent, borrow shares, but then the owner ought to take on the legal onus of the actions of their clients, or require that they agree to behave according to the same contractual obligations that an owner must. The government isn't going around looking for shit like insider trading in unregulated markets.
They're looking for people complaining about being fleeced. When there are enough complaints and people lose enough money, they'll look into it. Soooo, people here champion bitcoin as a unregulated and decentralized currency without the need for government intervention.
But what do you know a few people acquired a large amount of bitcoin and can now manipulate the market and now people are crying for the government to do something about insider trading There is no insider trading with bitcoin, just as there is no insider trading with gold.
If you had inside knowledge that a new source of gold was found that would double the total supply on earth and you short it, your are not committing insider trading. It only applies to inside knowledge of a companies status in regards to that company's stock.
It pertains to any material nonpublic information. It could be something about the company or it could be any other information which will effect the market once it becomes public information. Except that's not what happened. They announced 1 hour prior to release so there was no liquidity and hype was at its max. Insider trading is one thing, fucking over your entire user base to make sure no one else could profit from your insider ploy is fucking despicable.
They halted trading because they opened up trades too quickly and there wasn't enough liquidity and price had become volotile. Do you honestly think Coinbase would risk their entire business to make some friends happy? Give me a freaking break. If they didn't want to hype the market they would have announced their product more than a day in advance, you know, the way every other financial exchange operates? Giving 1 hours notice before trading starts makes it physically impossible to "price in" the listing so of course they won't have liquidity.
You could not have a rigged a better pump. A couple employees will get fired, their business will be fine. That is a ridiculous postulation. All I ever saw was the trading was halted, including purchase of bitcoin cash. Sources on any of that? Hey man. It's a free market. You can set up your own exchange. This is is the free market in action. Fucking deal with it. Government regulates exchanges, not cryptocurrencies.
Coinbase already complies with a bunch of regulations. Complaining about insider trading is how you get regulation. Can everyone get of their high horse. You KNOW that if you could insuder trade, you would. Anyone who says otherwise is lying. You are only angry cause you didnt get the chance to insider trade. Insider trading is a certainty in unregulated asset markets where insider information exists.
Market participants need to decide what the lesser evil is. Can someone explain this to me? I'm understanding that Coinbase added Bitcoin Cash and transactions spiked before they did, yada yada But I read about Bitcoin Cash coming to Coinbase a week or so ago on their website in some help article about forks So it wasn't really THAT last minute, was it?
A better question is "Who opposes regulation" and the answer I believe is the bitcoin community. Also, how do you define inside trading on the context of crypto-currencies? There is no "Bitcoin insider", everything that happens with BTC is public. CoinBase does not own Bitcoin. If any lawyer around knows that info I'd be highly appreciative for it. Actually, regulation to the bitcoin market, brings trust to the mainstream people, even if it's just marketing. You would lose most of its advantages.
I think you misread my meaning. I meant that this sub hates regulation and bad-mouths it all the time, and they're being hypocrites by now going "hurr durr insider trading, why isn't this illegal". All part of the learning process, although it shouldn't have been necessary in the first place.
If I beat the shit out of you until you give me your private keys, and you call the cops on me afterwards and they put me in jail, is that the big bad boogeyman of government regulation on bitcoin? Insider trading laws are used to attack opponents, they aren't applied fairly. It's why you see Martha Stewart imprisoned while central bankers and politicians roam free. They also are used to restrict freedom of speech and freedom to act as you see fit.
Only someone so naive to trust government would be in favor of the laws. OP isn't defending insider trading by any stretch: he's just warning people in the space to act ethically, so that they won't attract unnecessary and damaging government intervention. It's unethical.