Full Cryptocurrency Transactions Ban Planned in Russia

johnarb said:
You can get 8% APR on USDT which is just $
More...

Wanted to point out that Banks will be getting in on this game (most likely with less yield, maybe 3%-5%) but with the comfortability of speaking to a person face to face.

There is also competition from CEXs themselves - FTX, KuCoin, etc. (Coinbase got nixed by SEC)

I've been trying out KuCoin's lending for the past couple of months. On USDT I have averaged 10.28%

On a separate note I am pretty sure I can build a trading system off of lending rate fluctuations.

lend 9.PNG
Lend 50.PNG
 
They said:
My response is within the quote
More...

Awesome, just want to continue the convo on Pancakeswap. I made profits on it, got in and out, but I don't do charts I go by price action so on its way down, luckily started getting out around $19 and completely out by $17

The 64% APY is actually much lower than when I first got in many months ago

It used to be over 140% APY to cake stakers but that was during a time when the $cake tokens were extremely inflationary and they were paying yield farmers (LP's) in high APY $cake tokens in order to attract new assets listings

They have since cut down the APY's for everyone, yield farmers and cake stakers

The power has shifted and Pancakeswap platform now collects millions of $ worth of cake tokens (which they burn) when new coin projects want to get listed on Pancakeswap, in the same way Binance and other CEXes charge for a listing fee

The result is that $cake tokens are no longer inflationary. To date, Pancakeswap has burnt 339M $cake tokens which is more than the circulating $cake tokens supply of 257M

Why is the price of $cake tokens so low? Crypto bear market, other coins are also undervalued, CEL, NEXO, VGX, and many others

I would be loading up on $cake tokens at these prices and the high APY if I was not afraid of existential risk on the Binance Smart Chain

Don't want to fud, but Binance dot com has become very strict my account is now limited to withdrawal as I cannot KYC if you know what I mean

and the thing that scared me off that it might trickle to Binance Smart Chain is when they shut down the Binance-operated bridge a month or 2 ago

It was a bridge that blocked US IP addresses, but I really liked it a lot as it supported on-chain btc bridging with very reasonable fees. Great bridge btc back and forth to BSC and to the Bitcoin network

It also supported Tezos and PolkaDOT and many chains that are not EVM. Possible because it was a centralized Binance bridge

So the long about "fud" is that if Binance is being very strict on their exchange and now looking at their operations on the BSC and taking out regulatory risks, is it not possible they could shut down the BNB/BSC in the future if the DOJ/SEC tells them to?

Strictly my opinion, please take it with a bucket of salt. I have stayed away from BSC projects as a personal choice

As far as trading, 2021 year was lackluster for me (Jan-Dec). Won some, lost some, but nothing like CEL or NEXO returns when they were purchased for much lower in 2020

As I mentioned on another thread, I missed the trees from the forest, big macro trends, L1 smart contracts multi-chain reality and crypto gaming trends and metaverse plays and of course the NFT's

Hopefully this year we'll catch a good trend early
 
Last edited:
They said:
Wanted to point out that Banks will be getting in on this game (most likely with less yield, maybe 3%-5%) but with the comfortability of speaking to a person face to face.

There is also competition from CEXs themselves - FTX, KuCoin, etc. (Coinbase got nixed by SEC)

I've been trying out KuCoin's lending for the past couple of months. On USDT I have averaged 10.28%

On a separate note I am pretty sure I can build a trading system off of lending rate fluctuations.
More...

Banks are more or less competing with other centralized companies and not so much with AAVE, so they are more comparable to BlockFi, Celsius, Ledn, Nexo or Gemini Earn

They earn their yields from rehypothecation/prime brokerage/securities lending to institutional traders like Susquehanna

If they do not properly manage their counterparty risks, they could lose a lot of funds and pass on the losses to the crypto assets depositors. I only know of Cred that was in this business and went bankrupt

CEXes are bypassing the lending to the Institutional Traders by lending to the traders on the platform

Bottom line it looks like there's enough yields for everyone due to the high demand for use in trading markets and high velocity of money in the cryptos ecosystem

I think the best comparison for AAVE to a centralized business is Nexo that has the biggest business of retail lending through over-collaterlized loans

All other ones are partial collateral but even when we had a fast meltdown where the cryptos marketcap lost over $1 Trillion, none of them went bankrupt and Celsius said they did not have any margin liquidations as all of their Institutional borrowers were quick to send additional collateral and some even sent ahead of their notices (margin calls)
 
johnarb said:
Banks are more or less competing with other centralized companies and not so much with AAVE, so they are more comparable to BlockFi, Celsius, Ledn, Nexo or Gemini Earn

They earn their yields from rehypothecation/prime brokerage/securities lending to institutional traders like Susquehanna

If they do not properly manage their counterparty risks, they could lose a lot of funds and pass on the losses to the crypto assets depositors. I only know of Cred that was in this business and went bankrupt

CEXes are bypassing the lending to the Institutional Traders by lending to the traders on the platform

Bottom line it looks like there's enough yields for everyone due to the high demand for use in trading markets and high velocity of money in the cryptos ecosystem

I think the best comparison for AAVE to a centralized business is Nexo that has the biggest business of retail lending through over-collaterlized loans

All other ones are partial collateral but even when we had a fast meltdown where the cryptos marketcap lost over $1 Trillion, none of them went bankrupt and Celsius said they did not have any margin liquidations as all of their Institutional borrowers were quick to send additional collateral and some even sent ahead of their notices (margin calls)
More...


I'm sure all these banks who start onbording people into crypto will use outside custodial services. The yields will also come from non-traditional bank models via the crypto markets. These funds will just be part of a pool of funds sloshing around that can be lent and create yield.

There are micro loan services for the 3rd world that will be moving on chain and there will be yield there for those who lend.

As you said, more than enough to go around.
 
johnarb said:
Banks are more or less competing with other centralized companies and not so much with AAVE, so they are more comparable to BlockFi, Celsius, Ledn, Nexo or Gemini Earn

They earn their yields from rehypothecation/prime brokerage/securities lending to institutional traders like Susquehanna

If they do not properly manage their counterparty risks, they could lose a lot of funds and pass on the losses to the crypto assets depositors. I only know of Cred that was in this business and went bankrupt

CEXes are bypassing the lending to the Institutional Traders by lending to the traders on the platform

Bottom line it looks like there's enough yields for everyone due to the high demand for use in trading markets and high velocity of money in the cryptos ecosystem

I think the best comparison for AAVE to a centralized business is Nexo that has the biggest business of retail lending through over-collaterlized loans

All other ones are partial collateral but even when we had a fast meltdown where the cryptos marketcap lost over $1 Trillion, none of them went bankrupt and Celsius said they did not have any margin liquidations as all of their Institutional borrowers were quick to send additional collateral and some even sent ahead of their notices (margin calls)
More...


And then there is this...

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-rel...banks-to-mint-usdf-stablecoins-301458911.html
 
Sprout said:
You must mean Joe Retail Jr.

BTC determines the relative value of other crypto's whether it's included in one's portfolio or not.

The notion that it is relatively slow to development change is a benefit to those that seek it.
More...

No, I mean actual retail that enters the crypto market & is active with it, via the 3 different routes: 1)Defi, 2)NFTs 3)Memecoins. I gather anecdotal evidence on this daily. None of them have any interest in BTC. The numbers show the same. BTC wallet growth is stagnant. In fact, ETH Metamask growth is almost stagnant now (only NFT guys give it any real significance anymore).
The space is changing faster than the Boomer coin guys realize.

Alts aren't looked at as vs BTC anymore, 2017 is gone. They are now looked at as vs ETH, cause Uniswap.

I have not met one newly onboarded Coinbase user that gives one f**k about BTC. Not one. They view it as too expensive & too late for them. They can barely be convinced to focus their capital investment into ETH. They are too busy being attracted by the lower priced alts.

That's just the reality, the numbers show it. And no amount of BTC maxis spewing their outdated BTC narrative can change that.
 
Ed48 said:
Yep, and BTC isn't looking like the NGU it used to be. Four years on from the Dec 2017 high, it's only up a paltry 100%.

Investors these days are a fickle bunch and they'll soon move on if there seems like a better chance of GRQ (getting rich quick) with something else.
More...

That's because, at the core, "Number Go UP" is the only narrative that survived and mattered.
At least with ETH, and now competing L1s, there is a bunch of stuff to do with various network activity. Although that has now changed, thanks to obvious ETH problems that Vitalyk and greedy miners refused to tackle when needed.
 
Last edited:
johnarb said:
My first reaction was to fire back and argue stuff, but I re-read your post, started breaking it down, got it

I'd be splitting hairs just pointing at trivial stuff

Very good post and I agree with overall core arguments

Btc is still hard money for me (and the others in the btc camp) as it carries less risk so it acts more like a low-yield savings account. Alternative would be to hold cash/fiat or stablecoins

The rest of the capital (portfolio allocation) should be deployed for providing the best NGU returns in agreement with your post

I traded out of my Solana and Ethereum allocation. They're good but their exposure to VC/Institutional Investors may limit their upside as those "investors" cash out of big positions when the price of their holdings go up too much

NFA, I deployed the funds to the Fantom ecosystem as it may have a low exposure to those players

Saw a video on YouTube mentioning that DeFi Kingdom was going up during this "bear market" as it has lower exposure those guys. No position, just mentioning it

Anyway, on another thread I already mentioned that with those guys limiting the upside of btc and cryptos and providing a floor for btc and cryptos

We should take advantage of it and trim our cryptos positions when btc is above $60K and accumulate more cryptos when btc is near or lower than $30K

NFA, just thinking out loud
More...

What I've really learned, and mostly over the last couple of months, is to understand the narratives but not to buy into them.

While there is a small minority of people & devs in the crypto space that are truly in it for the tech, the driving force is "Number Go Up". That's the main value proposition and narratives are spun around it, because people cannot handle the truth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top