pull down to refresh

Yes, but it also points out how easily bitcoin's price can be manipulated with "paper" leveraged bitcoin. It's the same way central banks suppress the price of gold.
If it’s true they only held 2 btc, that begs the question… was FTX directly responsible for any of bitcoin’s price movements? If so, how?
Obviously, I’m not an economist.
reply
Re-hypothecation. Pretty much promises to pay Bitcoin to someone in the future, even if you don't have it currently. We call it "paper Bitcoin".
This can still happen with Bitcoin, as @siggy47 just pointed out. But it is theoretically much more difficult to do a lot of re-hypothecation with Bitcoin sense there's no money printer to back it up. It can still happen, but it should be less of a problem under a Bitcoin Standard than it is with the current systems we have in place.
reply
at the moment of withdrawal they would buy bitcoin and send it to you.
reply
Ah, this just dawned on me… Paper bitcoin keeps the price of actual Bitcoin suppressed. It’s also probably why the feds approved bitcoin futures but not an ETF. It’s like an escape valve on the escape valve.
reply
You should check out Willy Woo's twitter thread take on "paper" bitcoin: https://twitter.com/woonomic/status/1571062841595269120?t=VWb45fnx72cBlHVYPEKJwA&s=19
reply
Yes it can still happen, if you buy paper bitcoin you accept the risk. If it's supposed to be "physical" bitcoin, you can check.
Wrapping has proved faithless, but presumably you took the risk for a reason.
This is what is different, with bitcoin you choose, with legacy finance, they made all the rules and all you get to do is follow them, while a few in power, like a Gensler, get to break them, "for the public good," of course.
reply
Well, if they created wrapped bitcoin and lie about having one to one reserves, that wrapped bitcoin can be shorted easily. This is true regarding any exchange and any blockchain that wraps coins
reply