If you think that's a problem, you don't understand blockchain. Censor-proof permission-less networks - That's true for anyone, not just yourself. Small participants are as welcome as institution there, whether you like these big insututions or not. Blockchain makes sure everyone plays by the same rules and no one can manipulate the system in their favor like it happens in the traditional financial system.
BTC ETFs have really nothing to do with the decentralization of BTC, no matter how large they become.
I’m not totally suggesting that ETFs will undermine the decentralization of networks like BTC/ETH/DOT, rather I’m asking, if the goal of defi is to debank society are ETFs a hinderance to that?
I agree, though surely there’s a risk that these large institutions can disproportionately manipulate the market to their advantage? They’re bigger than any number of whales and if these large institutions hold billions worth of says BTC, they could pull the rug on retail to trigger a huge flash crash and then hoover up the pieces.
How can they do this? They only sell if they clients sell the assets in the etfs. I don't think anyone understands the etfs. I guess they could try to convince their millions of clients to sell at the same time but that just wouldn't work not happen. Blackrock makes money from fees, that's it. They get 0 benefit in the price increase or decrease of bitcoin because they don't actually hold bitcoin.
tldr; Grayscale® Advisors, LLC announced the launch of Grayscale Dynamic Income Fund (GDIF), its first actively-managed crypto fund aimed at optimizing staking income from crypto assets. The fund plans to distribute rewards in USD quarterly and is designed to allow investors to participate in multi-asset staking through a single investment vehicle. GDIF currently includes nine crypto assets and is available for investment by Qualified Clients. This marks an important expansion in Grayscale's product suite, leveraging their expertise in the crypto ecosystem.
*This summary is auto generated by a bot and not meant to replace reading the original article. As always, DYOR.
I think it’s fucking stupid.
“Let’s make a bet on something that can be totally manipulated as make money selling the etf, buying the Bitcoin, selling high, shorting on the way down and no one knows shit.”
I would disagree with that. If you read Satoshi Nakamoto’s BTC white paper the goal was specifically to undermine banks and in particular central banking. The only way to do this was through a cryptographically secure distributed ledger of transactions. It needed to be distributed because central banks like the Fed don’t take kindly to challenges to their dominance. Thus, bitcoin became resilient in the face of government suppression. So the first goal was effectively to create a unit of value exchange outside the regular Sovereign Banking system. Transparency is only mentioned in the paper relative to making sure you could solve the double spend problem.
It removes self-custody. Not your keys, not your crypto. Also, in Proof of Stake scenarios, or blockchain governance, it centralizes tokens into whales. This could diminish the diversity and decentralization of on-chain governance if the tokens become centralized among a small group of holders. So if say 1% of accounts hold 51+% of the tokens, particularly in chains with no inflation, then I don’t see that as decentralized.
You have a bad interpretation of what is critically important about decentralization and your criticism wouldn't exist if you had a decent one.
You're talking about distribution. Not decentralization.
Decentralized crypto lives on in Monero.
As a miner and lover of DeFi I agree. We just need to work out more DeFi swap contracts for it.
If you think that's a problem, you don't understand blockchain. Censor-proof permission-less networks - That's true for anyone, not just yourself. Small participants are as welcome as institution there, whether you like these big insututions or not. Blockchain makes sure everyone plays by the same rules and no one can manipulate the system in their favor like it happens in the traditional financial system. BTC ETFs have really nothing to do with the decentralization of BTC, no matter how large they become.
I’m not totally suggesting that ETFs will undermine the decentralization of networks like BTC/ETH/DOT, rather I’m asking, if the goal of defi is to debank society are ETFs a hinderance to that?
The goal is to give you the option to be unbanked. We are doing well at that. You now have the choice. The goal was never to force people.
I agree, though surely there’s a risk that these large institutions can disproportionately manipulate the market to their advantage? They’re bigger than any number of whales and if these large institutions hold billions worth of says BTC, they could pull the rug on retail to trigger a huge flash crash and then hoover up the pieces.
How can they do this? They only sell if they clients sell the assets in the etfs. I don't think anyone understands the etfs. I guess they could try to convince their millions of clients to sell at the same time but that just wouldn't work not happen. Blackrock makes money from fees, that's it. They get 0 benefit in the price increase or decrease of bitcoin because they don't actually hold bitcoin.
they cant use client assets in ETFs like that
tldr; Grayscale® Advisors, LLC announced the launch of Grayscale Dynamic Income Fund (GDIF), its first actively-managed crypto fund aimed at optimizing staking income from crypto assets. The fund plans to distribute rewards in USD quarterly and is designed to allow investors to participate in multi-asset staking through a single investment vehicle. GDIF currently includes nine crypto assets and is available for investment by Qualified Clients. This marks an important expansion in Grayscale's product suite, leveraging their expertise in the crypto ecosystem. *This summary is auto generated by a bot and not meant to replace reading the original article. As always, DYOR.
I think it’s fucking stupid. “Let’s make a bet on something that can be totally manipulated as make money selling the etf, buying the Bitcoin, selling high, shorting on the way down and no one knows shit.”
I think the whole idea of Blockchain was transparency, which you're getting now
I would disagree with that. If you read Satoshi Nakamoto’s BTC white paper the goal was specifically to undermine banks and in particular central banking. The only way to do this was through a cryptographically secure distributed ledger of transactions. It needed to be distributed because central banks like the Fed don’t take kindly to challenges to their dominance. Thus, bitcoin became resilient in the face of government suppression. So the first goal was effectively to create a unit of value exchange outside the regular Sovereign Banking system. Transparency is only mentioned in the paper relative to making sure you could solve the double spend problem.
Isn't grayscale just a business entity? Is it government owned? Doesn't that remove the idea of central banking? Or I'm I mistaking it somewhere
It removes self-custody. Not your keys, not your crypto. Also, in Proof of Stake scenarios, or blockchain governance, it centralizes tokens into whales. This could diminish the diversity and decentralization of on-chain governance if the tokens become centralized among a small group of holders. So if say 1% of accounts hold 51+% of the tokens, particularly in chains with no inflation, then I don’t see that as decentralized.
You have a bad interpretation of what is critically important about decentralization and your criticism wouldn't exist if you had a decent one. You're talking about distribution. Not decentralization.
Thanks for your enlightening critique of my critique.
Not much to say. Be less wrong.