The 'regulatory oversight' is a long time coming and most of the people organizing it seem to be pretty dim, leaving a huge vacuum for scammers to exploit
Most people I know who hold crypto seem to think that a lack of regulatory oversight is one of the main features and scream bloody murder at even the mildest proposals for legislation. As far as I can tell, they want it to be treated like money, just so long as it is not treated like money.
I occasionally think about starting $$Profit$$Coin$$ - crypto traded explicitly as the next bubble - and seeing how far it gets before the bubble pops.
The website visit figures are estimates by SimilarWeb. I never heard of them, but would take their estimates with a grain of salt until proven otherwise.
Next, flagging volume fake just because average volume per estimated visit is high? That's a leap I would not make. Some sites cater to market makers who have larger volumes and trade over API.
What about dark pool trades where one exchange does publish the figures while the other does not?
Also, what is fake? Reporting volume without the actual volume of reported trades adding up to the reported value? Or are some trades fake? If the trades are fake, are they wash trades? Is the exchange the counter-party in these trades?
I agree the evidence and reasoning is pretty shaky, but the conclusion isn't exactly surprising. See report from a few months ago with more rigor: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19465606
OpenMarketcap's aim is to track cryptocurrencies without fake volume by having a process to vet, identify and pull data only from trusted exchanges:
https://openmarketcap.com/exchanges
For a long time you didn’t even need two accounts to wash trade on Bitfinex, it would match two orders from the exact same account. So of course a lot of the volume is fake, the question is how much?
okay I can tell this...one of my recent still uncontrolled adhd failures..
I did not have my adhd under control well enough last year to explain why the Bitcoin economic value model was factually incorrect..most of you now know that the economic model once touted failed to take into consideration....
ie that the growth of internet in terms of chasm between early adopters and mainstream would be exactly the same for crypto coin...the fly in the cake was that the chasm between early and mina stream adopters of crypto coin is in fact very different from internet site user growth..
In short terms bitcoin value economic model wrong due to no data on the chasm between early adopters and main stream.
17 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 46.0 ms ] threadedit - see also; the online advertising industry
The 'regulatory oversight' is a long time coming and most of the people organizing it seem to be pretty dim, leaving a huge vacuum for scammers to exploit
The website visit figures are estimates by SimilarWeb. I never heard of them, but would take their estimates with a grain of salt until proven otherwise.
Next, flagging volume fake just because average volume per estimated visit is high? That's a leap I would not make. Some sites cater to market makers who have larger volumes and trade over API.
What about dark pool trades where one exchange does publish the figures while the other does not?
Also, what is fake? Reporting volume without the actual volume of reported trades adding up to the reported value? Or are some trades fake? If the trades are fake, are they wash trades? Is the exchange the counter-party in these trades?
I am unable to trust this analysis.
I did not have my adhd under control well enough last year to explain why the Bitcoin economic value model was factually incorrect..most of you now know that the economic model once touted failed to take into consideration....
ie that the growth of internet in terms of chasm between early adopters and mainstream would be exactly the same for crypto coin...the fly in the cake was that the chasm between early and mina stream adopters of crypto coin is in fact very different from internet site user growth..
In short terms bitcoin value economic model wrong due to no data on the chasm between early adopters and main stream.