Filing a Complaint Against a Forex Broker in the UK: How-To

Google Play to Ban Binary Options

Google Play set to ban binary options

Google Play recently came out with new updates and policies for April 2018 spanning over a number of topics including hate speech, child endangerment, user produced content, fantasy sports apps, and app metadata. Additionally, included in the April memo was a short note concerning “a new policy on Binary Options”, in which Google play states the following:
“We do not allow apps that provide users with the ability to trade binary options.”
Last summer, after coming under intensive scrutiny from financial ombudsman across the globe, including ASIC of Australia and Canada’s several regional regulators, Google acted against a number of financial-related apps providing either unlicensed services, or apps that were known to promote dishonest behavior. Most of that “action” included removing numerous Binary Options trading apps linked to unlicensed and unregulated “offshore” firms. However, there was never a blanket ban against those types of apps. Regulated brokers providing Binary Options trading could remain on Google Play until now.
Apple, however, passed a complete ban on Binary Options apps at around the same time in its App Store. Last month, after increased pressure from various regulators Google AdWords issued a ban on all Binary Options associated ads, as part of a new controlled financial products procedure. Additionally, Google banned all crypto and ICO ads, and in June 2018 it will demand prior advertiser certification for running ads pertaining to other types of financial trading products including Contracts for Difference (CFDs) and spot forex. It comes as no surprise that Google Play is now taking similar action by instituting a blanket ban on Binary apps.

Is the end of binary options?

It’s becoming increasingly apparent that Binary Options trading – even when regulated – will not be able to make a comeback. Leading European regulator ESMA is additionally preparing a Binary Options ban. This comes as it is in the midst of enacting new laws governing leveraged and online trading. The new regulations are scheduled to come into effect across the EU later this year.
The new Google Play binary options policy for April 2018 can be seen here.

Contact us today

If you have fallen victim to a cryptocurrency scam, send a complaint to at [[email protected]](mailto:[email protected]), and we will do our very best to get into contact with you as soon as we can to initiate your funds recovery process.
submitted by asaston to u/asaston [link] [comments]

FCA Updates Forex Broker Scam List

FCA Targets More Forex & Binary Brokers

The FCA (Financial Conduct Authority) finally got around to updating its list of unregulated online trading brokers. This list includes both forex and binary options unregulated brokers. Despite the fact, these brokers supposedly offer numerous services they are located in financial havens such as Seychelles, the Marshall Islands or Vanuatu and provide little to no information as to who they really are, and which parent company operates them. So, without further ado let’s introduce these fraudulent companies

SolidCFD

Owned by LOK Marketing Ltd, this forex broker is supposedly located in Vanuatu, a tax haven for any illicit business. Apparently, SolidCFD appears to be forging a path for current forex brokers and others that would like to set up shop in the country, whose major exports are frozen fish and distinct floating edifices. However, upon further inspection, the SolidCFD has two other offices registered on their website.
The first is under the name MGNC Marketing Ltd. and it is located in Cyprus. A quick google search tells us all that we need to know. MGNC Marketing LTD (Solid CFD) cold-calls potential investors and offers them unauthorized or prohibited financial services. An additional address is attributed to an area in West London. However, upon further review, there is no real company located there. Unsurprisingly no company is registered in the UK under SolidCFD, LOK marketing or MGNC Marketing, which implies that the broker has no physical presence in the United Kingdom.
Furthermore, there is a whole list of negative reviews pertaining to SolidCFD. This includes clients being unable to withdraw their funds, aggressive salesmen and not being able to log back into an account once a withdrawal request is made.

StratX Markets

Registered in the Marshal Islands, the company supposedly has an office in North London. However, the address that is provided is used by a company that enables other companies to register their business under their address. This obviously implies that StratX has no workers at its given address.
Just by merely glancing at a few of the reviews tells you that StratX Markets is operated by a bunch of con-artists. In fact what is more alarming, a number of former clients are claiming that StratX personnel are operating a fraudulent fund recovery company called Linrow Clarion Solvency that claims they can recover money that was lost to illegitimate brokers like Stratx Markets.

Options Stars Global

Last but not least this “broker” is registered in Samoa, but apparently has some sort of a branch in Cyprus that is regulated by CySEC. That is patently false.
Additionally, although the website has a U.K. phone number none of their of operations occur in the country. Not only Are there plenty of negative reviews about them, there is a dedicated Facebook page against them
Users of the website report an inability to withdraw funds, threatening salesmen, and pushy brokers who tempt traders into depositing more cash into their accounts. The company has done so badly they even have a Facebook page against them.

Take Action

If you have fallen victim to a cryptocurrency scam, send a complaint to at [[email protected]](mailto:[email protected]), and we will do our very best to get into contact with you as soon as we can to initiate your funds recovery process.

submitted by asaston to u/asaston [link] [comments]

Google Play to Ban Binary Options

Google Play set to ban binary options

Google Play recently came out with new updates and policies for April 2018 spanning over a number of topics including hate speech, child endangerment, user produced content, fantasy sports apps, and app metadata. Additionally, included in the April memo was a short note concerning “a new policy on Binary Options”, in which Google play states the following:
“We do not allow apps that provide users with the ability to trade binary options.”
Last summer, after coming under intensive scrutiny from financial ombudsman across the globe, including ASIC of Australia and Canada’s several regional regulators, Google acted against a number of financial-related apps providing either unlicensed services, or apps that were known to promote dishonest behavior. Most of that “action” included removing numerous Binary Options trading apps linked to unlicensed and unregulated “offshore” firms. However, there was never a blanket ban against those types of apps. Regulated brokers providing Binary Options trading could remain on Google Play until now.
Apple, however, passed a complete ban on Binary Options apps at around the same time in its App Store. Last month, after increased pressure from various regulators Google AdWords issued a ban on all Binary Options associated ads, as part of a new controlled financial products procedure. Additionally, Google banned all crypto and ICO ads, and in June 2018 it will demand prior advertiser certification for running ads pertaining to other types of financial trading products including Contracts for Difference (CFDs) and spot forex. It comes as no surprise that Google Play is now taking similar action by instituting a blanket ban on Binary apps.

Is the end of binary options?

It’s becoming increasingly apparent that Binary Options trading – even when regulated – will not be able to make a comeback. Leading European regulator ESMA is additionally preparing a Binary Options ban. This comes as it is in the midst of enacting new laws governing leveraged and online trading. The new regulations are scheduled to come into effect across the EU later this year.
The new Google Play binary options policy for April 2018 can be seen here.

Contact us today

If you are the victim of an HBC Broker scam be sure to send your complaint to [[email protected]](mailto:[email protected]), and we will do our very best to get into contact with you as soon as we can to initiate your funds recovery process.
submitted by taifkhan420 to u/taifkhan420 [link] [comments]

Finding Trading Edges: Where to Get High R:R trades and Profit Potential of Them.

Finding Trading Edges: Where to Get High R:R trades and Profit Potential of Them.
TL;DR - I will try and flip an account from $50 or less to $1,000 over 2019. I will post all my account details so my strategy can be seen/copied. I will do this using only three or four trading setups. All of which are simple enough to learn. I will start trading on 10th January.
----
As I see it there are two mains ways to understand how to make money in the markets. The first is to know what the biggest winners in the markets are doing and duplicating what they do. This is hard. Most of the biggest players will not publicly tell people what they are doing. You need to be able to kinda slide in with them and see if you can pick up some info. Not suitable for most people, takes a lot of networking and even then you have to be able to make the correct inferences.
Another way is to know the most common trades of losing traders and then be on the other side of their common mistakes. This is usually far easier, usually everyone knows the mind of a losing trader. I learned about what losing traders do every day by being one of them for many years. I noticed I had an some sort of affinity for buying at the very top of moves and selling at the very bottom. This sucked, however, is was obvious there was winning trades on the other side of what I was doing and the adjustments to be a good trader were small (albeit, tricky).
Thus began the study for entries and maximum risk:reward. See, there have been times I have bought aiming for a 10 pip scalps and hit 100 pips stops loss. Hell, there have been times I was going for 5 pips and hit 100 stop out. This can seem discouraging, but it does mean there must be 1:10 risk:reward pay-off on the other side of these mistakes, and they were mistakes.
If you repeatedly enter and exit at the wrong times, you are making mistakes and probably the same ones over and over again. The market is tricking you! There are specific ways in which price moves that compel people to make these mistakes (I won’t go into this in this post, because it takes too long and this is going to be a long post anyway, but a lot of this is FOMO).
Making mistakes is okay. In fact, as I see it, making mistakes is an essential part of becoming an expert. Making a mistake enough times to understand intrinsically why it is a mistake and then make the required adjustments. Understanding at a deep level why you trade the way you do and why others make the mistakes they do, is an important part of becoming an expert in your chosen area of focus.
I could talk more on these concepts, but to keep the length of the post down, I will crack on to actual examples of trades I look for. Here are my three main criteria. I am looking for tops/bottoms of moves (edge entries). I am looking for 1:3 RR or more potential pay-offs. My strategy assumes that retail trades will lose most of the time. This seems a fair enough assumption. Without meaning to sound too crass about it, smart money will beat dumb money most of the time if the game is base on money. They just will.
So to summarize, I am looking for the points newbies get trapped in bad positions entering into moves too late. From these areas, I am looking for high RR entries.
Setup Examples.
I call this one the “Lightning Bolt correction”, but it is most commonly referred to as a “two leg correction”. I call it a “Lightning Bolt correction” because it looks a bit like one, and it zaps you. If you get it wrong.

https://preview.redd.it/t4whwijse2721.png?width=1326&format=png&auto=webp&s=c9050529c6e2472a3ff9f8e7137bd4a3ee5554cc
Once I see price making the first sell-off move and then begin to rally towards the highs again, I am waiting for a washout spike low. The common trades mistakes I am trading against here is them being too eager to buy into the trend too early and for the to get stopped out/reverse position when it looks like it is making another bearish breakout. Right at that point they panic … literally one candle under there is where I want to be getting in. I want to be buying their stop loss, essentially. “Oh, you don’t want that ...okay, I will have that!”
I need a precise entry. I want to use tiny stops (for big RR) so I need to be cute with entries. For this, I need entry rules. Not just arbitrarily buying the spike out. There are a few moving parts to this that are outside the scope of this post but one of my mains ways is using a fibs extension and looking for reversals just after the 1.61% level. How to draw the fibs is something else that is outside the scope of this but for one simple rule, they can be drawn on the failed new high leg.

https://preview.redd.it/2cd682kve2721.png?width=536&format=png&auto=webp&s=f4d081c9faff49d0976f9ffab260aaed2b570309
I am looking for a few specific things for a prime setup. Firstly, I am looking for the false hope candles, the ones that look like they will reverse the market and let those buying too early get out break-even or even at profit. In this case, you can see the hammer and engulfing candle off the 127 level, then it spikes low in that “stop-hunt” sort of style.
Secondly I want to see it trading just past my entry level (161 ext). This rule has come from nothing other than sheer volume. The amount of times I’ve been stopped out by 1 pip by that little sly final low has gave birth to this rule. I am looking for the market to trade under support in a manner that looks like a new strong breakout. When I see this, I am looking to get in with tiny stops, right under the lows. I will also be using smaller charts at this time and looking for reversal clusters of candles. Things like dojis, inverted hammers etc. These are great for sticking stops under.
Important note, when the lightning bolt correction fails to be a good entry, I expect to see another two legs down. I may look to sell into this area sometimes, and also be looking for buying on another couple legs down. It is important to note, though, when this does not work out, I expect there to be continued momentum that is enough to stop out and reasonable stop level for my entry. Which is why I want to cut quick. If a 10 pips stop will hit, usually a 30 pips stop will too. Bin it and look for the next opportunity at better RR.

https://preview.redd.it/mhkgy35ze2721.png?width=1155&format=png&auto=webp&s=a18278b85b10278603e5c9c80eb98df3e6878232
Another setup I am watching for is harmonic patterns, and I am using these as a multi-purpose indicator. When I see potentially harmonic patterns forming, I am using their completion level as take profits, I do not want to try and run though reversal patterns I can see forming hours ahead of time. I also use them for entering (similar rules of looking for specific entry criteria for small stops). Finally, I use them as a continuation pattern. If the harmonic pattern runs past the area it may have reversed from, there is a high probability that the market will continue to trend and very basic trend following strategies work well. I learned this from being too stubborn sticking with what I thought were harmonic reversals only to be ran over by a trend (seriously, everything I know I know from how it used to make me lose).

https://preview.redd.it/1ytz2431f2721.png?width=1322&format=png&auto=webp&s=983a7f2a91f9195004ad8a2aa2bb9d4d6f128937
A method of spotting these sorts of M/W harmonics is they tend to form after a second spike out leg never formed. When this happens, it gives me a really good idea of where my profit targets should be and where my next big breakout level is. It is worth noting, larger harmonics using have small harmonics inside them (on lower time-frames) and this can be used for dialling in optimum entries. I also use harmonics far more extensively in ranging markets. Where they tend to have higher win rates.
Next setup is the good old fashioned double bottoms/double top/one tick trap sort of setup. This comes in when the market is highly over extended. It has a small sell-off and rallies back to the highs before having a much larger sell-off. This is a more risky trade in that it sells into what looks like trending momentum and can be stopped out more. However, it also pays a high RR when it works, allowing for it to be ran at reduced risk and still be highly profitable when it comes through.

https://preview.redd.it/1bx83776f2721.png?width=587&format=png&auto=webp&s=2c76c3085598ae70f4142d26c46c8d6e9b1c2881
From these sorts of moves, I am always looking for a follow up buy if it forms a lightning bolt sort of setup.
All of these setups always offer 1:3 or better RR. If they do not, you are doing it wrong (and it will be your stop placement that is wrong). This is not to say the target is always 1:3+, sometimes it is best to lock in profits with training stops. It just means that every time you enter, you can potentially have a trade that runs for many times more than you risked. 1:10 RR can be hit in these sorts of setups sometimes. Paying you 20% for 2% risked.
I want to really stress here that what I am doing is trading against small traders mistakes. I am not trying to “beat the market maker”. I am not trying to reverse engineer J.P Morgan’s black boxes. I do not think I am smart enough to gain a worthwhile edge over these traders. They have more money, they have more data, they have better softwares … they are stronger. Me trying to “beat the market maker” is like me trying to beat up Mike Tyson. I might be able to kick him in the balls and feel smug for a few seconds. However, when he gets up, he is still Tyson and I am still me. I am still going to be pummeled.
I’ve seen some people that were fairly bright people going into training courses and coming out dumb as shit. Thinking they somehow are now going to dominate Goldman Sachs because they learned a chart pattern. Get a grip. For real, get a fucking grip. These buzz phrases are marketeering. Realististically, if you want to win in the markets, you need to have an edge over somebody.
I don’t have edges on the banks. If I could find one, they’d take it away from me. Edges work on inefficiencies in what others do that you can spot and they can not. I do not expect to out-think a banks analysis team. I know for damn sure I can out-think a version of me from 5 years ago … and I know there are enough of them in the markets. I look to trade against them. I just look to protect myself from the larger players so they can only hurt me in limited ways. Rather than letting them corner me and beat me to a pulp (in the form of me watching $1,000 drop off my equity because I moved a stop or something), I just let them kick me in the butt as I run away. It hurts a little, but I will be over it soon.
I believe using these principles, these three simple enough edge entry setups, selectiveness (remembering you are trading against the areas people make mistakes, wait for they areas) and measured aggression a person can make impressive compounded gains over a year. I will attempt to demonstrate this by taking an account of under $100 to over $1,000 in a year. I will use max 10% on risk on a position, the risk will scale down as the account size increases. In most cases, 5% risk per trade will be used, so I will be going for 10-20% or so profits. I will be looking only for prime opportunities, so few trades but hard hitting ones when I take them.
I will start trading around the 10th January. Set remind me if you want to follow along. I will also post my investor login details, so you can see the trades in my account in real time. Letting you see when I place my orders and how I manage running positions.
I also think these same principles can be tweaked in such a way it is possible to flip $50 or so into $1,000 in under a month. I’ve done $10 to $1,000 in three days before. This is far more complex in trade management, though. Making it hard to explain/understand and un-viable for many people to copy (it hedges, does not comply with FIFO, needs 1:500 leverage and also needs spreads under half a pip on EURUSD - not everyone can access all they things). I see all too often people act as if this can’t be done and everyone saying it is lying to sell you something. I do not sell signals. I do not sell training. I have no dog in this fight, I am just saying it can be done. There are people who do it. If you dismiss it as impossible; you will never be one of them.
If I try this 10 times with $50, I probably am more likely to make $1,000 ($500 profit) in a couple months than standard ideas would double $500 - I think I have better RR, even though I may go bust 5 or more times. I may also try to demonstrate this, but it is kinda just show-boating, quite honestly. When it works, it looks cool. When it does not, I can go bust in a single day (see example https://www.fxblue.com/users/redditmicroflip).
So I may or may not try and demonstrate this. All this is, is just taking good basic concepts and applying accelerated risk tactics to them and hitting a winning streak (of far less trades than you may think). Once you have good entries and RR optimization in place - there really is no reason why you can not scale these up to do what may people call impossible (without even trying it).
I know there are a lot of people who do not think these things are possible and tend to just troll whenever people talk about these things. There used to be a time when I’d try to explain why I thought the way I did … before I noticed they only cared about telling me why they were right and discussion was pointless. Therefore, when it comes to replies, I will reply to all comments that ask me a question regarding why I think this can be done, or why I done something that I done. If you are commenting just to tell me all the reasons you think I am wrong and you are right, I will probably not reply. I may well consider your points if they are good ones. I just do not entering into discussions with people who already know everything; it serves no purpose.

Edit: Addition.

I want to talk a bit more about using higher percentage of risk than usual. Firstly, let me say that there are good reasons for risk caps that people often cite as “musts”. There are reasons why 2% is considered optimum for a lot of strategies and there are reasons drawing down too much is a really bad thing.
Please do not be ignorant of this. Please do not assume I am, either. In previous work I done, I was selecting trading strategies that could be used for investment. When doing this, my only concern was drawdown metrics. These are essential for professional money management and they are also essential for personal long-term success in trading.
So please do not think I have not thought of these sorts of things Many of the reasons people say these things can’t work are basic 101 stuff anyone even remotely committed to learning about trading learns in their first 6 months. Trust me, I have thought about these concepts. I just never stopped thinking when I found out what public consensus was.
While these 101 rules make a lot of sense, it does not take away from the fact there are other betting strategies, and if you can know the approximate win rate and pay-off of trades, you can have other ways of deriving optimal bet sizes (risk per trade). Using Kelly Criterion, for example, if the pay-off is 1:3 and there is a 75% chance of winning, the optimal bet size is 62.5%. It would be a viable (high risk) strategy to have extremely filtered conditions that looked for just one perfect set up a month, makingover 150% if it was successful.
Let’s do some math on if you can pull that off three months in a row (using 150% gain, for easy math). Start $100. Month two starts $250. Month three $625. Month three ends $1,562. You have won three trades. Can you win three trades in a row under these conditions? I don’t know … but don’t assume no-one can.
This is extremely high risk, let’s scale it down to meet somewhere in the middle of the extremes. Let’s look at 10%. Same thing, 10% risk looking for ideal opportunities. Maybe trading once every week or so. 30% pay-off is you win. Let’s be realistic here, a lot of strategies can drawdown 10% using low risk without actually having had that good a chance to generate 30% gains in the trades it took to do so. It could be argued that trading seldomly but taking 5* the risk your “supposed” to take can be more risk efficient than many strategies people are using.
I am not saying that you should be doing these things with tens of thousands of dollars. I am not saying you should do these things as long term strategies. What I am saying is do not dismiss things out of hand just because they buck the “common knowns”. There are ways you can use more aggressive trading tactics to turn small sums of money into they $1,000s of dollars accounts that you exercise they stringent money management tactics on.
With all the above being said, you do have to actually understand to what extent you have an edge doing what you are doing. To do this, you should be using standard sorts of risks. Get the basics in place, just do not think you have to always be basic. Once you have good basics in place and actually make a bit of money, you can section off profits for higher risk versions of strategies. The basic concepts of money management are golden. For longevity and large funds; learned them and use them! Just don’t forget to think for yourself once you have done that.

Update -

Okay, I have thought this through a bit more and decided I don't want to post my live account investor login, because it has my full name and I do not know who any of you are. Instead, for copying/observing, I will give demo account login (since I can choose any name for a demo).
I will also copy onto a live account and have that tracked via Myfxbook.
I will do two versions. One will be FIFO compliant. It will trade only single trade positions. The other will not be FIFO compliant, it will open trades in batches. I will link up live account in a week or so. For now, if anyone wants to do BETA testing with the copy trader, you can do so with the following details (this is the non-FIFO compliant version).

Account tracking/copying details.

Low-Medium risk.
IC Markets MT4
Account number: 10307003
Investor PW: lGdMaRe6
Server: Demo:01
(Not FIFO compliant)

Valid and Invalid Complaints.
There are a few things that can pop up in copy trading. I am not a n00b when it comes to this, so I can somewhat forecast what these will be. I can kinda predict what sort of comments there may be. Some of these are valid points that if you raise I should (and will) reply to. Some are things outside of the scope of things I can influence, and as such, there is no point in me replying to. I will just cover them all here the one time.

Valid complains are if I do something dumb or dramatically outside of the strategy I have laid out here. won't do these, if I do, you can pitchfork ----E

Examples;

“Oi, idiot! You opened a trade randomly on a news spike. I got slipped 20 pips and it was a shit entry”.
Perfectly valid complaint.

“Why did you open a trade during swaps hours when the spread was 30 pips?”
Also valid.

“You left huge trades open running into the weekend and now I have serious gap paranoia!”
Definitely valid.

These are examples of me doing dumb stuff. If I do dumb stuff, it is fair enough people say things amounting to “Yo, that was dumb stuff”.

Invalid Complains;

“You bought EURUSD when it was clearly a sell!!!!”
Okay … you sell. No-one is asking you to copy my trades. I am not trading your strategy. Different positions make a market.

“You opened a position too big and I lost X%”.
No. Na uh. You copied a position too big. If you are using a trade copier, you can set maximum risk. If you neglect to do this, you are taking 100% risk. You have no valid compliant for losing. The act of copying and setting the risk settings is you selecting your risk. I am not responsible for your risk. I accept absolutely no liability for any losses.
*Suggested fix. Refer to risk control in copy trading software

“You lost X trades in a row at X% so I lost too much”.
Nope. You copied. See above. Anything relating to losing too much in trades (placed in liquid/standard market conditions) is entirely you. I can lose my money. Only you can set it up so you can lose yours. I do not have access to your account. Only mine.
*Suggested fix. Refer to risk control in copy trading software

“Price keeps trading close to the pending limit orders but not filling. Your account shows profits, but mine is not getting them”.
This is brokerage. I have no control over this. I use a strategy that aims for precision, and that means a pip here and there in brokerage spreads can make a difference. I am trading to profit from my trading conditions. I do not know, so can not account for, yours.
* Suggested fix. Compare the spread on your broker with the spread on mine. Adjust your orders accordingly. Buy limit orders will need to move up a little. Sell limit orders should not need adjusted.

“I got stopped out right before the market turned, I have a loss but your account shows a profit”.
This is brokerage. I have no control over this. I use a strategy that aims for precision, and that means a pip here and there differences in brokerage spreads can make a difference. I am trading to profit from my trading conditions. I do not know, so can not account for, yours.
** Suggested fix. Compare the spread on your broker with the spread on mine. Adjust your orders accordingly. Stop losses on sell orders will need to move up a bit. Stops on buy orders will be fine.

“Your trade got stopped out right before the market turned, if it was one more pip in the stop, it would have been a winner!!!”
Yeah. This happens. This is where the “risk” part of “risk:reward” comes in.

“Price traded close to take profit, yours filled but mines never”.
This is brokerage. I have no control over this. I use a strategy that aims for precision, and that means a pip here and there differences in brokerage spreads can make a difference. I am trading to profit from my trading conditions. I do not know, so can not account for, yours.
(Side note, this should not be an issue since when my trade closes, it should ping your account to close, too. You might get a couple less pips).
*** Suggested fix. Compare the spread on your broker with the spread on mine. Adjust your orders accordingly. Take profits on buys will need to move up a bit. Sell take profits will be fine.

“My brokers spread jumped to 20 during the New York session so the open trade made a bigger loss than it should”.
Your broker might just suck if this happens. This is brokerage. I have no control over this. My trades are placed to profit from my brokerage conditions. I do not know, so can not account for yours. Also, if accounting for random spread spikes like this was something I had to do, this strategy would not be a thing. It only works with fair brokerage conditions.
*Suggested fix. Do a bit of Googling and find out if you have a horrific broker. If so, fix that! A good search phrase is; “(Broker name) FPA reviews”.

“Price hit the stop loss but was going really fast and my stop got slipped X pips”.
This is brokerage. I have no control over this. I use a strategy that aims for precision, and that means a pip here and there differences in brokerage spreads can make a difference. I am trading to profit from my trading conditions. I do not know, so can not account for, yours.
If my trade also got slipped on the stop, I was slipped using ECN conditions with excellent execution; sometimes slips just happen. I am doing the most I can to prevent them, but it is a fact of liquidity that sometimes we get slipped (slippage can also work in our favor, paying us more than the take profit would have been).

“Orders you placed failed to execute on my account because they were too large”.
This is brokerage. I have no control over this. Margin requirements vary. I have 1:500 leverage available. I will not always be using it, but I can. If you can’t, this will make a difference.

“Your account is making profits trading things my broker does not have”
I have a full range of assets to trade with the broker I use. Included Forex, indices, commodities and cryptocurrencies. I may or may not use the extent of these options. I can not account for your brokerage conditions.

I think I have covered most of the common ones here. There are some general rules of thumb, though. Basically, if I do something that is dumb and would have a high probability of losing on any broker traded on, this is a valid complain.

Anything that pertains to risk taken in standard trading conditions is under your control.

Also, anything at all that pertains to brokerage variance there is nothing I can do, other than fully brief you on what to expect up-front. Since I am taking the time to do this, I won’t be a punchbag for anything that happens later pertaining to this.

I am not using an elitist broker. You don’t need $50,000 to open an account, it is only $200. It is accessible to most people - brokerage conditions akin to what I am using are absolutely available to anyone in the UK/Europe/Asia (North America, I am not so up on, so can’t say). With the broker I use, and with others. If you do not take the time to make sure you are trading with a good broker, there is nothing I can do about how that affects your trades.

I am using an A book broker, if you are using B book; it will almost certainly be worse results. You have bad costs. You are essentially buying from reseller and paying a mark-up. (A/B book AKA ECN/Market maker; learn about this here). My EURUSD spread will typically be 0.02 pips or so, if yours is 1 pip, this is a huge difference.
These are typical spreads I am working on.

https://preview.redd.it/yc2c4jfpab721.png?width=597&format=png&auto=webp&s=c377686b2485e13171318c9861f42faf325437e1


Check the full range of spreads on Forex, commodities, indices and crypto.

Please understand I want nothing from you if you benefit from this, but I am also due you nothing if you lose. My only term of offering this is that people do not moan at me if they lose money.

I have been fully upfront saying this is geared towards higher risk. I have provided information and tools for you to take control over this. If I do lose people’s money and I know that, I honestly will feel a bit sad about it. However, if you complain about it, all I will say is “I told you that might happen”, because, I am telling you that might happen.

Make clear headed assessments of how much money you can afford to risk, and use these when making your decisions. They are yours to make, and not my responsibility.

Update.

Crazy Kelly Compounding: $100 - $11,000 in 6 Trades.

$100 to $11,000 in 6 trades? Is it a scam? Is it a gamble? … No, it’s maths.

Common sense risk disclaimer: Don’t be a dick! Don’t risk money you can’t afford to lose. Do not risk money doing these things until you can show a regular profit on low risk.
Let’s talk about Crazy Kelly Compounding (CKC). Kelly criterion is a method for selecting optimal bet sizes if the odds and win rate are known (in other words, once you have worked out how to create and assess your edge). You can Google to learn about it in detail. The formula for Kelly criterion is;
((odds-1) * (percentage estimate)) - (1-percent estimate) / (odds-1) X 100
Now let’s say you can filter down a strategy to have a 80% win rate. It trades very rarely, but it had a very high success rate when it does. Let’s say you get 1:2 RR on that trade. Kelly would give you an optimum bet size of about 60% here. So if you win, you win 120%. Losing three trades in a row will bust you. You can still recover from anything less than that, fairly easily with a couple winning trades.
This is where CKC comes in. What if you could string some of these wins together, compounding the gains (so you were risking 60% each time)? What if you could pull off 6 trades in a row doing this?
Here is the math;

https://preview.redd.it/u3u6teqd7c721.png?width=606&format=png&auto=webp&s=3b958747b37b68ec2a769a8368b5cbebfe0e97ff
This shows years, substitute years for trades. 6 trades returns $11,338! This can be done. The question really is if you are able to dial in good enough entries, filter out enough sub-par trades and have the guts to pull the trigger when the time is right. Obviously you need to be willing to take the hit, obviously that hit gets bigger each time you go for it, but the reward to risk ratio is pretty decent if you can afford to lose the money.
We could maybe set something up to do this on cent brokers. So people can do it literally risking a couple dollars. I’d have to check to see if there was suitable spreads etc offered on them, though. They can be kinda icky.
Now listen, I am serious … don’t be a dick. Don’t rush out next week trying to retire by the weekend. What I am showing you is the EXTRA rewards that come with being able to produce good solid results and being able to section off some money for high risk “all or nothing” attempts; using your proven strategies.
I am not saying anyone can open 6 trades and make $11,000 … that is rather improbable. What I am saying is once you can get the strategy side right, and you can know your numbers; then you can use the numbers to see where the limits actually are, how fast your strategy can really go.
This CKC concept is not intended to inspire you to be reckless in trading, it is intended to inspire you to put focus on learning the core skills I am telling you that are behind being able to do this.
submitted by inweedwetrust to Forex [link] [comments]

Trump Didn’t Kill the Global Trade System. He Split It in Two.

This article is taken from the Wall Street Journal written about nine months ago and sits behind a a paywall, so I decided to copy and paste it here. This article explains Trump's policies toward global trade and what has actually happened so far. I think the article does a decent job of explaining the Trade War. While alot has happenedsince the article was written, I still think its relevant.
However, what is lacking in the article, like many articles on the trade war, is it doesn't really explain the history of US trade policy, the laws that the US administration is using to place tariffs on China and the official justification for the US President in enacting tariffs against China. In my analysis I will cover those points.

SUMMARY

When Trump entered the White House people feared he would dismantle the global system the US and its allies had built over the last 75 years, but he hasn't. He has realign into two systems. One between the US and its allies which looks similar to the one built since the 1980s with a few of quota and tariffs. As the article points out
Today, Korus and Nafta have been replaced by updated agreements(one not yet ratified) that look much like the originals. South Korea accepted quotas on steel. Mexico and Canada agreed to higher wages, North American content requirements and quotas for autos. Furthermore, the article points out Douglas Irwin, an economist and trade historian at Dartmouth College, calls these results the “status quo with Trumpian tweaks: a little more managed trade sprinkled about for favored industries. It’s not good, but it’s not the destruction of the system.” Mr. Trump’s actions so far affect only 12% of U.S. imports, according to Chad Bown of the Peterson Institute for International Economics. In 1984, 21% of imports were covered by similar restraints, many imposed by Mr. Reagan, such as on cars, steel, motorcycles and clothing. Protectionist instincts go so far in the US, there are strong lobby groups for both protectionist and freetrade in the US.
The second reflects a emerging rivalry between the US and China. Undo some of the integration that followed China accession to the WTO. Two questions 1) How far is the US willing to decouple with China 2) Can it persuade allies to join.
The second is going to be difficult because China's economic ties are greater than they were between the Soviets, and China isn't waging an ideological struggle. Trump lacks Reagan commitment to alliance and free trade. The status quo with China is crumbling Dan Sullivan, a Republican senator from Alaska, personifies these broader forces reshaping the U.S. approach to the world. When Mr. Xi visited the U.S. in 2015, Mr. Sullivan urged his colleagues to pay more attention to China’s rise. On the Senate floor, he quoted the political scientist Graham Allison: “War between the U.S. and China is more likely than recognized at the moment.” Last spring, Mr. Sullivan went to China and met officials including Vice President Wang Qishan. They seemed to think tensions with the U.S. will fade after Mr. Trump leaves the scene, Mr. Sullivan recalled. “I just said, ‘You are completely misreading this.’” The mistrust, he told them, is bipartisan, and will outlast Mr. Trump. both Bush II and Obama tried to change dialogue and engagement, but by the end of his term, Obama was questioning the approach. Trump has declared engagement. “We don’t like it when our allies steal our ideas either, but it’s a much less dangerous situation,” said Derek Scissors, a China expert at the American Enterprise Institute whose views align with the administration’s more hawkish officials. “We’re not worried about the war-fighting capability of Japan and Korea because they’re our friends.”
The article also points out unlike George Kennan in 1946 who made a case for containing the Soviet Union, the US hasn't explicitly made a case for containing the Soviets, Trump's administration hasn't, because as the the article explains its divided Michael Pillsbury a Hudson Institute scholar close to the Trump team, see 3 scenarios
Pillsbury thinks the third is most likely to happen, even though the administration hasn't said that it has adopted that policy. The US is stepping efforts to draw in other trading partners. The US, EU and Japan have launched a WTO effort to crack down on domestic subsidies and technology transfers requirement. US and Domestic concerns with prompted some countries to restrict Huawei. The US is also seeking to walloff China from other trade deals. However, there are risk with this strategy

ARTICLE

Trump Didn’t Kill the Global Trade System. He Split It in Two.

INTRODUCTION

My main criticism of this article is it tries like the vast majority of articles to fit US trade actions in the larger context of US geopolitical strategy. Even the author isn't certain "The first goes to the heart of Mr. Trump’s goal. If his aim is to hold back China’s advance, economists predict he will fail.". If you try to treat the trade "war" and US geopolitical strategy toward China as one, you will find yourself quickly frustrated and confused. If you treat them separately with their different set of stakeholders and histories, were they intersect with regards to China, but diverge. During the Cold War, trade policy toward the Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc was subordinated to geopolitical concerns. For Trump, the trade issues are more important than geopolitical strategy. His protectionist trade rhetoric has been fairly consistent since 1980s. In his administration, the top cabinet members holding economic portfolios, those of Commerce, Treasury and US Trade Representative are the same people he picked when he first took office. The Director of the Economic Council has changed hands once, its role isn't as important as the National Security Advisor. While State, Defense, CIA, Homeland Security, UN Ambassador, National Security Advisor have changed hands at least once. Only the Director of National Intelligence hasn't changed.
International Trade makes up 1/4 of the US economy, and like national security its primarily the responsibility of the Federal government. States in the US don't implement their own tariffs. If you add the impact of Treasury policy and how it relates to capital flows in and out of the US, the amounts easily exceed the size of the US economy. Furthermore, because of US Dollar role as the reserve currency and US control of over global system the impact of Treasury are global. Trade policy and investment flows runs through two federal departments Commerce and Treasury and for trade also USTR. Defense spending makes up 3.3% of GDP, and if you add in related homeland security its at most 4%. Why would anyone assume that these two realms be integrated let alone trade policy subordinate to whims of a national security bureaucracy in most instances? With North Korea or Iran, trade and investment subordinate themselves to national security, because to Treasury and Commerce bureaucrats and their affiliated interest groups, Iran and the DPRK are well, economic midgets, but China is a different matter.
The analysis will be divided into four sections. The first will be to provide a brief overview of US trade policy since 1914. The second section will discuss why the US is going after China on trade issues, and why the US has resorted using a bilateral approach as opposed to going through the WTO. The third section we will talk about how relations with China is hashed out in the US.
The reason why I submitted this article, because there aren't many post trying to explain US-China Trade War from a trade perspective. Here is a post titled "What is the Reasons for America's Trade War with China, and not one person mentioned Article 301 or China's WTO Commitments. You get numerous post saying that Huawei is at heart of the trade war. Its fine, but if you don't know what was inside the USTR Investigative report that lead to the tariffs. its like skipping dinner and only having dessert When the US President, Donald J Trump, says he wants to negotiate a better trade deal with other countries, and has been going on about for the last 35 years, longer than many of you have been alive, why do people think that the key issues with China aren't primarily about trade at the moment.

OVERVIEW OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE ORIENTATION

Before 1940s, the US could be categorized as a free market protectionist economy. For many this may seem like oxymoron, how can an economy be free market and protectionist? In 1913, government spending made up about 7.5% of US GDP, in the UK it was 13%, and for Germany 18% (Public Spending in the 20th Century A Global Perspective: Ludger Schuknecht and Vito Tanzi - 2000). UK had virtual zero tariffs, while for manufactured goods in France it was 20%, 13% Germany, 9% Belgium and 4% Netherlands. For raw materials and agricultural products, it was almost zero. In contrast, for the likes of United States, Russia and Japan it was 44%, 84% and 30% respectively. Even though in 1900 United States was an economic powerhouse along with Germany, manufactured exports only made up 30% of exports, and the US government saw tariffs as exclusively a domestic policy matter and didn't see tariffs as something to be negotiated with other nations. The US didn't have the large constituency to push the government for lower tariffs abroad for their exports like in Britain in the 1830-40s (Reluctant Partners: A History of Multilateral Trade Cooperation, 1850-2000).
The Underwood Tariffs Act of 1913 which legislated the income tax, dropped the tariffs to 1850 levels levels.Until 16th amendment was ratified in 1913 making income tax legal, all US federal revenue came from excise and tariffs. In contrast before 1914, about 50% of UK revenue came from income taxes. The reason for US reluctance to introduced income tax was ideological and the United State's relative weak government compared to those in Europe. After the First World War, the US introduced the Emergency Tariff Act of 1921, than the Fordney–McCumber Tariff of 1922 followed by a Smoot-Hawley Act of 1930. Contrary to popular opinion, the Smoot-Hawley Act of 1930 had a small negative impact on the economy, since imports and exports played a small part of the US economy, and the tariffs were lower than the average that existed from 1850-1914.
Immediately after the Second World War, when the US economy was the only industrialized economy left standing, the economic focus was on rehabilitation and monetary stability. There was no grandiose and ideological design. Bretton Woods system linked the US dollar to gold to create monetary stability, and to avoid competitive devaluation and tariffs that plagued the world economy after Britain took itself off the gold in 1931. The US$ was the natural choice, because in 1944 2/3 of the world's gold was in the US. One reason why the Marshall Plan was created was to alleviate the chronic deficits Europeans countries had with the US between 1945-50. It was to rebuild their economies so they could start exports good to the US. Even before it was full implemented in 1959, it was already facing problems, the trade surpluses that the US was running in the 1940s, turned to deficits as European and Japanese economies recovered. By 1959, Federal Reserves foreign liabilities had already exceeded its gold reserves. There were fears of a run on the US gold supply and arbitrage. A secondary policy of the Bretton woods system was curbs on capital outflows to reduce speculation on currency pegs, and this had a negative impact on foreign investment until it was abandoned in 1971. It wasn't until the 1980s, where foreign investment recovered to levels prior to 1914. Factoring out the big spike in global oil prices as a result of the OPEC cartel, it most likely wasn't until the mid-1990s that exports as a % of GDP had reached 1914 levels.
Until the 1980s, the US record regarding free trade and markets was mediocre. The impetus to remove trade barriers in Europe after the Second World War was driven by the Europeans themselves. The EEC already had a custom union in 1968, Canada and the US have yet to even discuss implementing one. Even with Canada it took the US over 50 years to get a Free Trade Agreement. NAFTA was inspired by the success of the EEC. NAFTA was very much an elite driven project. If the Americans put the NAFTA to a referendum like the British did with the EEC in the seventies, it most likely wouldn't pass. People often look at segregation in the US South as a political issue, but it was economic issue as well. How could the US preach free trade, when it didn't have free trade in its own country. Segregation was a internal non-tariff barrier. In the first election after the end of the Cold War in 1992, Ross Perot' based most of independent run for the Presidency on opposition to NAFTA. He won 19% of the vote. Like Ross Perot before him, Donald Trump is not the exception in how America has handled tariffs since the founding of the Republic, but more the norm.
The embrace of free trade by the business and political elite can be attributed to two events. After the end of Bretton Woods in 1971, a strong vested interest in the US in the form of multinationals and Wall Street emerged advocating for removal of tariffs and more importantly the removal of restrictions on free flow of capital, whether direct foreign investment in portfolio investment. However, the political class embrace of free trade and capital only really took off after the collapse of the Soviet Union propelled by Cold War triumphalism.
As mentioned by the article, the US is reverting back to a pre-WTO relations with China. As Robert Lighthizer said in speech in 2000
I guess my prescription, really, is to move back to more of a negotiating kind of a settlement. Return to WTO and what it really was meant to be. Something where you have somebody make a decision but have it not be binding.
The US is using financial and legal instruments developed during the Cold War like its extradition treaties (with Canada and Europe), and Section 301. Here is a very good recent article about enforcement commitment that China will make.‘Painful’ enforcement ahead for China if trade war deal is reached with US insisting on unilateral terms
NOTE: It is very difficult to talk about US-China trade war without a basic knowledge of global economic history since 1914. What a lot of people do is politicize or subordinate the economic history to the political. Some commentators think US power was just handed to them after the Second World War, when the US was the only industrialized economy left standing. The dominant position of the US was temporary and in reality its like having 10 tonnes of Gold sitting in your house, it doesn't automatically translate to influence. The US from 1945-1989 was slowly and gradually build her influence in the non-Communist world. For example, US influence in Canada in the 1960s wasn't as strong as it is now. Only 50% of Canadian exports went to the US in 1960s vs 80% at the present moment.

BASIS OF THE US TRADE DISCUSSION WITH CHINA

According to preliminary agreement between China and the US based on unnamed sources in the Wall Street Journal article US, China close in on Trade Deal. In this article it divides the deal in two sections. The first aspects have largely to do with deficits and is political.
As part of a deal, China is pledging to help level the playing field, including speeding up the timetable for removing foreign-ownership limitations on car ventures and reducing tariffs on imported vehicles to below the current auto tariff of 15%. Beijing would also step up purchases of U.S. goods—a tactic designed to appeal to President Trump, who campaigned on closing the bilateral trade deficit with China. One of the sweeteners would be an $18 billion natural-gas purchase from Cheniere Energy Inc., people familiar with the transaction said.
The second part will involve the following.
  1. Commitment Regarding Industrial Policy
  2. Provisions to protect IP
  3. Mechanism which complaints by US companies can be addressed
  4. Bilateral meetings adjudicate disputes. If talks don't produce agreement than US can raise tariffs unilaterally
This grouping of conditions is similar to the points filled under the 301 investigation which serve the basis for initiating the tariffs. I have been reading some sources that say this discussion on this second group of broader issues could only be finalized later
The official justifications for placing the tariffs on Chinese goods is found under the March 2018 investigation submitted by the office of the President to Congress titled FINDINGS OF THE INVESTIGATION INTO CHINA’S ACTS, POLICIES, AND PRACTICES RELATED TO TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, AND INNOVATION UNDER SECTION 301 OF THE TRADE ACT OF 1974. From this investigation the United States Trade Representative (USTR) place US Tariffs on Chinese goods as per Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. Here is a press release by the USTR listing the reasons for placing tariffs, and the key section from the press release. Specifically, the Section 301 investigation revealed:
In the bigger context of trade relations between US and China, China is not honoring its WTO commitments, and the USTR issued its yearly report to Congress in early February about the status of China compliance with its WTO commitments. The points that served as a basis for applying Section 301, also deviate from her commitments as Clinton's Trade Representative Charlene Barshefsky paving the way for a trade war. Barshefsky argues that China's back sliding was happening as early as 2006-07, and believes the trade war could have been avoided has those commitments been enforced by previous administrations.
I will provide a brief overview of WTO membership and China's process of getting into the WTO.
WTO members can be divided into two groups, first are countries that joined in 1995-97, and were members of GATT, than there are the second group that joined after 1997. China joined in 2001. There is an argument that when China joined in 2001, she faced more stringent conditions than other developing countries that joined before, because the vast majority of developing countries were members of GATT, and were admitted to the WTO based on that previous membership in GATT. Here is Brookings Institute article published in 2001 titled "Issues in China’s WTO Accession"
This question is all the more puzzling because the scope and depth of demands placed on entrants into the formal international trading system have increased substantially since the formal conclusion of the Uruguay Round of trade negotiations in 1994, which expanded the agenda considerably by covering many services, agriculture, intellectual property, and certain aspects of foreign direct investment. Since 1994, the international community has added agreements covering information technology, basic telecommunications services, and financial services. WTO membership now entails liberalization of a much broader range of domestic economic activity, including areas that traditionally have been regarded by most countries as among the most sensitive, than was required of countries entering the WTO’s predecessor organization the GATT.
The terms of China’s protocol of accession to the World Trade Organization reflect the developments just described and more. China’s market access commitments are much more far-reaching than those that governed the accession of countries only a decade ago. And, as a condition for membership, China was required to make protocol commitments that substantially exceed those made by any other member of the World Trade Organization, including those that have joined since 1995. The broader and deeper commitments China has made inevitably will entail substantial short-term economic costs.
What are the WTO commitments Barshefsky goes on about? When countries join the WTO, particularly those countries that weren't members of GATT and joined after 1997, they have to work toward fulfilling certain commitments. There are 4 key documents when countries make an accession to WTO membership, the working party report, the accession protocol paper, the goods schedule and service schedule.
In the working party report as part of the conclusion which specifies the commitment of each member country what they will do in areas that aren't compliant with WTO regulations on the date they joined. The problem there is no good enforcement mechanism for other members to force China to comply with these commitments. And WTO punishments are weak.
Here is the commitment paragraph for China
"The Working Party took note of the explanations and statements of China concerning its foreign trade regime, as reflected in this Report. The Working Party took note of the commitments given by China in relation to certain specific matters which are reproduced in paragraphs 18-19, 22-23, 35-36, 40, 42, 46-47, 49, 60, 62, 64, 68, 70, 73, 75, 78-79, 83-84, 86, 91-93, 96, 100-103, 107, 111, 115-117, 119-120, 122-123, 126-132, 136, 138, 140, 143, 145, 146, 148, 152, 154, 157, 162, 165, 167-168, 170-174, 177-178, 180, 182, 184-185, 187, 190-197, 199-200, 203-207, 210, 212-213, 215, 217, 222-223, 225, 227-228, 231-235, 238, 240-242, 252, 256, 259, 263, 265, 270, 275, 284, 286, 288, 291, 292, 296, 299, 302, 304-305, 307-310, 312-318, 320, 322, 331-334, 336, 339 and 341 of this Report and noted that these commitments are incorporated in paragraph 1.2 of the Draft Protocol. "
This is a tool by the WTO that list all the WTO commitment of each country in the working paper. In the goods and service schedule they have commitments for particular sectors. Here is the a press release by the WTO in September 2001, after successfully concluding talks for accession, and brief summary of key areas in which China hasn't fulfilled her commitments. Most of the commitments made by China were made to address its legacy as a non-market economy and involvement of state owned enterprises. In my opinion, I think the US government and investors grew increasingly frustrated with China, after 2007 not just because of China's back sliding, but relative to other countries who joined after 1997 like Vietnam, another non-market Leninist dictatorship. When comparing China's commitments to the WTO its best to compare her progress with those that joined after 1997, which were mostly ex-Soviet Republics.
NOTE: The Chinese media have for two decades compared any time the US has talked about China's currency manipulation or any other issue as a pretext for imposing tariffs on China to the Plaza Accords. I am very sure people will raise it here. My criticism of this view is fourfold. First, the US targeted not just Japan, but France, Britain and the UK as well. Secondly, the causes of the Japan lost decade were due largely to internal factors. Thirdly, Japan, UK, Britain and France in the 1980s, the Yuan isn't undervalued today. Lastly, in the USTR investigation, its China's practices that are the concern, not so much the trade deficit.

REASONS FOR TRUMPS UNILATERAL APPROACH

I feel that people shouldn't dismiss Trump's unilateral approach toward China for several reasons.
  1. The multilateral approach won't work in many issues such as the trade deficit, commercial espionage and intellectual property, because US and her allies have different interest with regard to these issues. Germany and Japan and trade surpluses with China, while the US runs a deficit. In order to reach a consensus means the West has to compromise among themselves, and the end result if the type of toothless resolutions you commonly find in ASEAN regarding the SCS. Does America want to "compromise" its interest to appease a politician like Justin Trudeau? Not to mention opposition from domestic interest. TPP was opposed by both Clinton and Trump during the election.
  2. You can't launch a geopolitical front against China using a newly formed trade block like the TPP. Some of the existing TPP members are in economic groups with China, like Malaysia and Australia.
  3. China has joined a multitude of international bodies, and at least in trade, these bodies haven't changed its behavior.
  4. Dealing with China, its a no win situation whether you use a tough multilateral / unilateral approach. If the US endorse a tough unilateral approach gives the impression that the US is acting like the British during the Opium War. If you take a concerted Western approach you are accused of acting like the 8 Powers Alliance in 1900.
  5. Trump was elected to deal with China which he and his supporters believe was responsible for the loss of millions manufacturing jobs when China joined the WTO in 2001. It is estimate the US lost 6 Million jobs, about 1/4 of US manufacturing Jobs. This has been subsequently advanced by some economists. The ball got rolling when Bill Clinton decided to grant China Most Favored Nation status in 1999, just a decade after Tiananmen.
  6. China hasn't dealt with issues like IP protection, market access, subsidies to state own companies and state funded industrial spying.
To his credit, Trump has said his aim was not to overthrow authoritarian governments, and that even applies to the likes of Iran. The Arab spring scared Russia and China, because the US for a brief moment placed the spread of democracy over its security interest.

UNDERSTANDING HOW THE US MAKES DECISIONS REGARDING CHINA

At this moment, China or the trade war isn't an area of great concern for the American public, among international issues it ranks lower than international terrorism, North Korea and Iran's nuclear program.
According to the survey, 39 percent of the country views China’s growing power as a “critical threat” to Americans. That ranked it only eighth among 12 potential threats listed and placed China well behind the perceived threats from international terrorism (66 percent), North Korea’s nuclear program (59 percent) and Iran’s nuclear program (52 percent). It’s also considerably lower than when the same question was asked during the 1990s, when more than half of those polled listed China as a critical threat. That broadly tracks with a recent poll from the Pew Research Center that found concern about U.S.-China economic issues had decreased since 2012.
In looking at how US conducts relations foreign policy with China, we should look at it from the three areas of most concern - economic, national security and ideology. Each sphere has their interest groups, and sometimes groups can occupy two spheres at once. Security experts are concerned with some aspects of China's economic actions like IP theft and industrial policy (China 2025), because they are related to security. In these sphere there are your hawks and dove. And each sphere is dominated by certain interest groups. That is why US policy toward China can often appear contradictory. You have Trump want to reduce the trade deficit, but security experts advocating for restrictions on dual use technology who are buttressed by people who want export restrictions on China, as a way of getting market access.
Right now the economic concerns are most dominant, and the hawks seem to dominate. The economic hawks traditionally have been domestic manufacturing companies and economic nationalist. In reality the hawks aren't dominant, but the groups like US Companies with large investment in China and Wall Street are no longer defending China, and some have turned hawkish against China. These US companies are the main conduit in which China's lobby Congress, since China only spends 50% of what Taiwan spends lobbying Congress.
THE ANGLO SAXON WORLD AND CHINA
I don't think many Chinese even those that speak English, have a good understanding Anglo-Saxon society mindset. Anglo Saxons countries, whether US, UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Ireland are commerce driven society governed by sanctity of contracts. The English great philosophical contributions to Western philosophy have primarily to do with economics and politics like Adam Smith, John Locke, David Hume and Thomas Hobbes. This contrast with the French and Germans. Politics in the UK and to a lesser extent the US, is centered around economics, while in Mainland Europe its religion. When the Americans revolted against the British Empire in 1776, the initial source of the grievances were taxes.
Outside of East Asia, the rest of the World's relationship with China was largely commercial, and for United States, being an Anglosaxon country, even more so. In Southeast Asia, Chinese aren't known for high culture, but for trade and commerce. Outside Vietnam, most of Chinese loans words in Southeast Asian languages involve either food or money. The influence is akin to Yiddish in English.
Some people point to the Mao and Nixon meeting as great strategic breakthrough and symbol of what great power politics should look like. The reality is that the Mao-Nixon meeting was an anomaly in the long history of relations with China and the West. Much of China-Western relations over the last 500 years was conducted by multitudes of nameless Chinese and Western traders. The period from 1949-1979 was the only period were strategic concerns triumphed trade, because China had little to offer except instability and revolution. Even in this period, China's attempt to spread revolution in Southeast Asia was a threat to Western investments and corporate interest in the region. During the nadir of both the Qing Dynasty and Republican period, China was still engaged in its traditional commercial role. Throughout much of history of their relations with China, the goals of Britain and the United States were primarily economic,
IMAGINE JUST 10% OF CHINA BOUGHT MY PRODUCT
From the beginning, the allure of China to Western businesses and traders has been its sheer size I. One of the points that the USTR mentions is lack of market access for US companies operating in China, while Chinese companies face much less restrictions operating in the US.
This is supported by remarks by Henry Paulson and Charlene Barshefsky. As Paulson remarked
Trade with China has hurt some American workers. And they have expressed their grievances at the ballot box.
So while many attribute this shift to the Trump Administration, I do not. What we are now seeing will likely endure for some time within the American policy establishment. China is viewed—by a growing consensus—not just as a strategic challenge to the United States but as a country whose rise has come at America’s expense. In this environment, it would be helpful if the US-China relationship had more advocates. That it does not reflects another failure:
In large part because China has been slow to open its economy since it joined the WTO, the American business community has turned from advocate to skeptic and even opponent of past US policies toward China. American business doesn’t want a tariff war but it does want a more aggressive approach from our government. How can it be that those who know China best, work there, do business there, make money there, and have advocated for productive relations in the past, are among those now arguing for more confrontation? The answer lies in the story of stalled competition policy, and the slow pace of opening, over nearly two decades. This has discouraged and fragmented the American business community. And it has reinforced the negative attitudinal shift among our political and expert classes. In short, even though many American businesses continue to prosper in China, a growing number of firms have given up hope that the playing field will ever be level. Some have accepted the Faustian bargain of maximizing today’s earnings per share while operating under restrictions that jeopardize their future competitiveness. But that doesn’t mean they’re happy about it. Nor does it mean they aren’t acutely aware of the risks — or thinking harder than ever before about how to diversify their risks away from, and beyond, China.
What is interesting about Paulson's speech is he spend only one sentence about displaced US workers, and a whole paragraph about US business operating in China. While Kissinger writes books about China, how much does he contribute to both Democrats and the Republicans during the election cycle? China is increasingly makING it more difficult for US companies operating and those exporting products to China.

CONTINUED

submitted by weilim to IntlScholars [link] [comments]

The truth about Bitfinex and Tether...

EDIT: I realize this is long, but I feel it's important to have this info out there. Maybe save it for later when you see this narrative being pushed around so you can come back and get the other side.
EDIT 2: TL:DR - Most negative analysis on this sub lately of Tether are likely from a single biased source that stretches a lot to make his points, and there is simply not enough Tether in the market nor is it concentrated enough to create a catastrophic problem or significant inflation for any USDT currency pair.
Like many of you, I have heard the stories and posts about the fraudulent tether, I trade in this space on many exchanges and the growing concern is worrying, so I did my due diligence, and I would like to share it with the community.
First and most importantly IMO, all this controversy stems from just one account/person. A person on twitter going by the handle @Bitfinexed - https://twitter.com/Bitfinexed
Here you can see this person's writings - https://medium.com/@bitfinexed/latest
Spoofy, Tethers and institutional investors are what they contend to be the lies and fraud, AND that this entire rally in 2017 is based on fraudulent Tethers and spoofing, and that this will implode the markets.
I feel this is also important… Turns out this person sold at $1000, maybe the real reason he is on this mission??… https://twitter.com/whalepool/status/896460700461277185
Now for some troubling info, the majority of this narrative (FUD??) here on Reddit in the last month come from just three accounts.
https://www.reddit.com/useAtlasRand1/submitted/
https://www.reddit.com/usecetusfund/submitted/
https://www.reddit.com/useAnythingForSuccess
As you can see these accounts entire mission is to post constantly about this. They all show up on the other’s post to comment regularly.
Btw, some people on the pro-finex side think this is a smear campaign from other exchanges. I don’t believe this to be the case. This person(s) only talk about TetheFinex, yet Tether is used and traded by the $millions daily on 3 of the top 5 exchanges, Finex, Bittrex, Polo, yet never a word about those other exchanges. (Check the USDT volume on other exchanges) https://coinmarketcap.com/assets/tethe#markets
Therefore, if it is an exchange, it isn’t Trex/Polo because this would affect them as well. If it was an exchange other than Trex/Polo they would have plenty of fire power against 3 of the top 5 exchanges with Tether fraud.
This leads me to believe it is most likely a sad person(s) with an ax to grind. They might have lost their $ on Finex to what they believe are spoofers/fraud and or they were part of the finex hack and sold there BFX too early.
Btw I see contention that Bitfinex did NOT pay back the $ from the hack. They did, but some people are mad because they sold BFX early and didn’t recoup full $ amount from haircuts, but that was their decision.
~ POINTS OF CONTENTION
SPOOFING This is what set my alarm bells off about these articles I read from Bitfinexed. Specifically spoofing… https://hackernoon.com/meet-spoofy-how-a-single-entity-dominates-the-price-of-bitcoin-39c711d28eb4
and this nugget…“And who the hell is going to go margin long so dramatically after a huge crash?” from this article… https://medium.com/@bitfinexed/are-fraudulent-tethers-being-used-for-margin-lending-on-bitfinex-5de9dd80f330
Claiming spoofing shows this person has limited markets/trading knowledge. Clearly they haven’t watched an order book of any exchange in crypto, equities, or Forex.
This is called scalping or scare walls. Again this is done in every market around the globe.
Here is a professional FOREX trader talking about scalping, how it works, who/why they do it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYMIPmgRb_M&list=WL&index=94
TL;DW - they do this to get the price where they want it because they know people are watching the order book (the video is quite enlightening), and the key point that keeps this from being an illegal activity (on regulated exchanges) is THAT THEY DO MAKE TRADES FOR THOSE SIZES eventually. This doesn’t always work and they get stuck in these positions. Risk/reward.
The ironic part about this spoofing idea is Finex is one of the few, if not only exchanges, that offer hidden orders. So people trying to scalp always have to worry if there is a monster hidden order lurking.
Go to the UPDATE: AUGUST 7TH of this story and watch the video he claims proves spoofing and Phil Potter admitting it in the voice over. https://hackernoon.com/meet-spoofy-how-a-single-entity-dominates-the-price-of-bitcoin-39c711d28eb4
I see nothing wrong with what Phil says and no proof of anything in the video. Again this is true on every exchange trading anything of volume in the world. People with large amounts of money move markets, oh the horror. I “technically” do this when I place an order and pull it for whatever reason (scared, mistake, etc.) just not in large sums, but I would if I had large sums.
“And who the hell is going to go margin long so dramatically after a huge crash?” The crash they are referring to is from the early June ATH to the mid-July correction. A 45-day crash? Well, I am one of those people that went margin long. And many many others who read charts, resistance, support, retracement info. Again, this smacks of someone who doesn’t know what they are talking about.
REASON FOR PRICE RISE/BTC GOES UP WHEN TETHERS ARE CREATED
This is absurd. This completely negates everything else, the Japanese currency ruling and them entering the market, Koreans coming into the market in a huge way (they now have the largest exchange by far with close to a Billion traded DAILY, oh and they don’t use Tether at all), the successful hard fork, or the more (positive!) interest from the media and people than ever before in BTC history.
Instead, we are supposed to think that $395 million dollars of tethers are the reason for this rise in a $160+ Billion market cap. 
C’mon people! Look at that volume for the last 30 days. https://imgur.com/a/vKJ5g Also, the overwhelming majority of trade does not exist in Tether but KRW, CNY, USD, JPY.
Tethers are usually created when extra liquidity is needed, be it a crash or a spike. Because more people are trading.
They try to prove Tether boosts the market with this picture in their article. https://imgur.com/a/274SE
The problem is 2 of the last 3 tether dumps coincide with a downturn. In fact, there is nothing in this graph that proves this theory. Also, the last tether dump/price rise coincides perfectly with the news of the majority of miners signaling segwit2x for the first time (search bitcoin or btc around that date).
So do you think the market traded billions of $ at that time because of a $50 million Tether dump or because for the first time in YEARS a solution and path forward became visible??
THEY DON’T HAVE BANKING//NO INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS/FAKE TETHERS-TERMS OF SERVICE
In regards to banking, clearly they have some kind of banking and a way for large amounts of fiat to get in and out. The banking is not for you and me but for regional bitcoin exchanges and other large customers.
You know how I know this? If they didn’t the internet would be flooded with Finex withdrawal issues, there would be a price premium on Bitfinex compared to other exchanges, just like Mt. Gox had for so long and also Bitfinex earlier in the year when the banking issues started.
This article explains it very clearly (seriously read this article), it has nothing to do with this controversy, just the banking issue in April.
https://medium.com/@Austerity_Sucks/why-bitfinex-went-from-a-premium-in-its-crypto-usd-pairs-to-now-a-significant-discount-e7be193d7cb0
TL;DR - All of the imbalances discussed (Finex premium) have been a result of USD frictions into Bitfinex. It has been a chain reaction resulting from the initial freeze to the various gradual withdrawal options. As soon as Bitfinex conclusively addresses the USD flow issues, the crypto pair prices will normalize (which they did) with other exchanges that don’t have banking frictions and USDT price will return to par (which it did).
The premiums on Finex and Tether are what would prove something is wrong, yet they are not here. Surprisingly Finex has been at a discount to GDAX and GEMINI recently. Meaning people are willing to take a loss on prices to be able to lend on Finex. This too will normalize as people/bots arb.
Aug 9th… From “arguably” bank fraud https://twitter.com/Bitfinexed/status/895339675120013313
Aug 22nd…. To “admitting” bank fraud https://twitter.com/Bitfinexed/status/900230917196836864
Listen to that audio in the second link, listen carefully. His explanation is perfectly reasonable. Banks don’t work well, consistently, or at all with crypto related companies (marijuana companies too for that matter) especially in jurisdictions that are outside US/Europe. Surprise surprise, this is nothing new. When they find out customers, deposits/wire are cryptos related they pull the plug (a reason why Trex/Polo don’t mess with USD).
Also, they gave their customers a haircut, probably a lot of complaints about the hack to Wells Fargo and other banks. These are the correspondent's banks, not Finex’s, they have banking. This is how they can receive large institutional deposits and withdrawals. Which I bet make up the majority of the fiat deposits and withdrawals.
Classic 80/20 business rule, 20% of your clients are providing 80% of the liquidity plus you are having banking issues (which is expected in crypto-land), so you cut this service to the 80% saving time/resources/headaches for the 20% loss in a single service to them (no fiat withdrawal/deposits- but crypto flows in and out with ease).
Again if they weren’t able to get money in and out there would be a premium, there would be a long line of complaints online. I have no reason (or proof) to believe that money is NOT coming into/out of the exchange.
It makes total sense too, they are the best lending platform, have one of the most liquid exchanges, and have by far the most reliable and best software/servers/UI/order options. You cannot deny this fact, they are constantly a top 3 exchange in volume, even after a hack.
I use Finex (as well as others) because of all those things. Also, they have already been hacked, a second hack seems less likely (IMO, they have more to lose with another hack). They have many big events on the horizon (Ethfinex). Would a company be putting resources into these things if this is all fraud or an exit scam? I find that unlikely. Is this 100% full proof? Of course not, nothing is, especially in crypto, just my reasons for trading there.
Institutional Investors - https://medium.com/@bitfinexed/are-legitimate-institutional-investors-really-coming-onto-bitfinex-s-platform-i-don-t-think-so-cb4ed5175092 Here is what this person doesn’t comprehend, what if these institutional investors are… you ready… here it comes… other exchanges that use Tether, as well as other crypto related businesses. It is only $395 million Tethers. These exchanges (Trex, Finex, Polo) are printing money.
This isn’t “someone” with 100’s of millions of dollars as the article suggests, it’s many people with millions/thousands of dollars. Again this all ignores the fact that many more people have entered the ecosystem this year. This is proven by Coinbase growth, transaction growth, and exchange growth (both in volume and # of exchanges), and growth in crypto-related sub-Reddits.
Yet Bitfinexed is shocked that lending hits ATH’s, but it is perfectly explainable and reasonable based on the evidence and data of gthe ecosystem. Let us not forget BTC is a finite amount, more people are going to increase demand/price, if you think this is a bubble... you haven’t seen anything yet.
The TOS are sketchy and a point of concern but there are two things to keep in mind- It was necessary to word it that way, and the market clearly doesn’t care.
If they had worded it that they will redeem no matter what, they would have money launderers flocking to the service (bogging down resources), plus law enforcement knocking.
Tethers weren’t created to get $ in/out of crypto but to provide a safe haven and liquidity on exchanges that don’t use USD. And I would say they are working perfectly. Very few are withdrawing USDT for USD.
I think it is precisely because of what the co-founder of tether refers to here (and below)… “If you want to convert USD₮ into fiat currency (or vice-versa) at tether.to, you must go through the whole “aggressive” KYC/AML process and get verified. I’ve heard from many who tried and were unable to provide sufficient documentation. Tether’s KYC/AML policies were written by experienced compliance officers and it’s critical that it be done properly and with diligence. It really is about “knowing your customer” and making sure that their uses are legitimate.” This is a perfectly reasonable explanation why people are not lining up to cash out of Tether, and also why large/reputable institutions can (exchanges, investors, etc.).
TETHERS REPLY TO ALL THIS, PLUS UPCOMING AUDIT https://tether.to/tether-update/
Now ask yourself this, would a company that is operating fraudulently have a roadmap of all these new features that no one will ever use if they don’t provide these promised audits as they say they will by the end of the year?
So as of now they have enough runway until the end of the year. I say we give TetheFinex the benefit of the doubt.
While Tether could be operating fractionally (so to could any exchange in crypto btw), there is no proof or evidence of it today. It trades at normalized rates. You can’t just create 100’s of million of dollars without the marketing realizing somewhere.
Sure, you can say this is a confidence game, but so is crypto, so is the USD, so is the concept of money. I see no reason to be more concerned with this risk than the already risky environment we trade in with exchanges.
WHAT IF I”M WRONG? CRYPTO WILL IMPLODE!
No it won’t. Sure there will be a dip maybe even a correction, but there are only 395 million Tethers. People will get out of Tether even at massive discounts (until $0) into crypto because they can’t get USD, but not more than the 395 million tethers circulating (at this time).
At a certain discount people will understand what is going on and stop trading for Tether. BTC + ETH is worth over $100 billion, how many time does the entire amount of USDT have to turn over to cause a massive crash?
What will get hit the hardest are the people left holding tether (if/when they implode) and Trex/Polo/Finex.
To think Polo/Trex would rely so much on USDT that they didn’t fully vet it is absurd as well. Whats more likely, Polo/Trex’s due diligence or this @Bitfinexed person based on conjecture?
I’ve already seen a Forbes contributor try and get ahold of Bitfinexed on twitter. https://twitter.com/laurashin/status/894437272241569792
Could I be wrong about all of this??? Of course, but, I feel I have provided more evidence than the other side. You are the Judge :)
USEFUL INFO
Some from u/udecker - Tether co-founder
Tether.to is who has the backing for the token, not Bitfinex. Bitfinex is a customer of Tether. If Bitfinex wants more Tether, they make a request to Tether, just like all other Tether customers. Tether waits for USD to show up, and when it does, creates the necessary tethers and credits Bitfinex. They both have Tawainese banking so money can flow back and forth easily. (The banking industry in the country of Taiwan are under scrutiny lately because of larger legal issues not involving crypto, but clearly affecting crypto companies)
https://wallet.tether.to/transparency
Tether wasn’t designed to be a profit machine. It was designed to be a utility for the crypto community to provide a stable token (with all the benefits of this). Tether’s business model is this: 1. Generate fees from wire deposits and withdrawals and conversions. 2. Interest income on the reserve.
Bitfinex’s parent company owns a 20% stake in Tether.
People say Tether isn’t being burned. But they are being recycled which is/was always an option.
I hope we can have a productive conversation around this without the usual Gox 2.0, sell it all, Bitfinex is the anti-christ comments with no substance. Give us your opinion and perspective because maybe I am missing something… but, maybe you are too.
This was quite time consuming (just ask my kids and boss, lol) So if you found this info helpful you can donate if you’d like here, if not, no biggie smalls :)
ETH - 0x0181D1C82229BAD741BB6c302ae523aE6DC9a1EE
BTC - 14Wz4SCuKwa81UBh1U7mcaCTxMsYLLuGZK
BCH- 16uby9gW79tjn5guQG8v5mTsdu6V6cYyKF
submitted by bhdgsetyf to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

The truth about Bitfinex and Tether...

EDIT: I realize this is long, but I feel it's important to have this info out there. Maybe save it for later when you see this narrative being pushed around so you can come back and get the other side.
EDIT 2: TL:DR - Most negative analysis on this sub lately of Tether are likely from a single biased source that stretches a lot to make his points, and there is simply not enough Tether in the market nor is it concentrated enough to create a catastrophic problem or significant inflation for any USDT currency pair.
Like many of you, I have heard the stories and posts about the fraudulent tether, I trade in this space on many exchanges and the growing concern is worrying, so I did my due diligence, and I would like to share it with the community.
First and most importantly IMO, all this controversy stems from just one account/person. A person on twitter going by the handle @Bitfinexed - https://twitter.com/Bitfinexed
Here you can see this person's writings - https://medium.com/@bitfinexed/latest
Spoofy, Tethers and institutional investors are what they contend to be the lies and fraud, AND that this entire rally in 2017 is based on fraudulent Tethers and spoofing, and that this will implode the markets.
I feel this is also important… Turns out this person sold at $1000, maybe the real reason he is on this mission??… https://twitter.com/whalepool/status/896460700461277185
Now for some troubling info, the majority of this narrative (FUD??) here on Reddit in the last month come from just three accounts.
https://www.reddit.com/useAtlasRand1/submitted/
https://www.reddit.com/usecetusfund/submitted/
https://www.reddit.com/useAnythingForSuccess
As you can see these accounts entire mission is to post constantly about this. They all show up on the other’s post to comment regularly.
Btw, some people on the pro-finex side think this is a smear campaign from other exchanges. I don’t believe this to be the case. This person(s) only talk about TetheFinex, yet Tether is used and traded by the $millions daily on 3 of the top 5 exchanges, Finex, Bittrex, Polo, yet never a word about those other exchanges. (Check the USDT volume on other exchanges) https://coinmarketcap.com/assets/tethe#markets
Therefore, if it is an exchange, it isn’t Trex/Polo because this would affect them as well. If it was an exchange other than Trex/Polo they would have plenty of fire power against 3 of the top 5 exchanges with Tether fraud.
This leads me to believe it is most likely a sad person(s) with an ax to grind. They might have lost their $ on Finex to what they believe are spoofers/fraud and or they were part of the finex hack and sold there BFX too early.
Btw I see contention that Bitfinex did NOT pay back the $ from the hack. They did, but some people are mad because they sold BFX early and didn’t recoup full $ amount from haircuts, but that was their decision.
~ POINTS OF CONTENTION
SPOOFING This is what set my alarm bells off about these articles I read from Bitfinexed. Specifically spoofing… https://hackernoon.com/meet-spoofy-how-a-single-entity-dominates-the-price-of-bitcoin-39c711d28eb4
and this nugget…“And who the hell is going to go margin long so dramatically after a huge crash?” from this article… https://medium.com/@bitfinexed/are-fraudulent-tethers-being-used-for-margin-lending-on-bitfinex-5de9dd80f330
Claiming spoofing shows this person has limited markets/trading knowledge. Clearly they haven’t watched an order book of any exchange in crypto, equities, or Forex.
This is called scalping or scare walls. Again this is done in every market around the globe.
Here is a professional FOREX trader talking about scalping, how it works, who/why they do it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYMIPmgRb_M&list=WL&index=94
TL;DW - they do this to get the price where they want it because they know people are watching the order book (the video is quite enlightening), and the key point that keeps this from being an illegal activity (on regulated exchanges) is THAT THEY DO MAKE TRADES FOR THOSE SIZES eventually. This doesn’t always work and they get stuck in these positions. Risk/reward.
The ironic part about this spoofing idea is Finex is one of the few, if not only exchanges, that offer hidden orders. So people trying to scalp always have to worry if there is a monster hidden order lurking.
Go to the UPDATE: AUGUST 7TH of this story and watch the video he claims proves spoofing and Phil Potter admitting it in the voice over. https://hackernoon.com/meet-spoofy-how-a-single-entity-dominates-the-price-of-bitcoin-39c711d28eb4
I see nothing wrong with what Phil says and no proof of anything in the video. Again this is true on every exchange trading anything of volume in the world. People with large amounts of money move markets, oh the horror. I “technically” do this when I place an order and pull it for whatever reason (scared, mistake, etc.) just not in large sums, but I would if I had large sums.
“And who the hell is going to go margin long so dramatically after a huge crash?” The crash they are referring to is from the early June ATH to the mid-July correction. A 45-day crash? Well, I am one of those people that went margin long. And many many others who read charts, resistance, support, retracement info. Again, this smacks of someone who doesn’t know what they are talking about.
REASON FOR PRICE RISE/BTC GOES UP WHEN TETHERS ARE CREATED
This is absurd. This completely negates everything else, the Japanese currency ruling and them entering the market, Koreans coming into the market in a huge way (they now have the largest exchange by far with close to a Billion traded DAILY, oh and they don’t use Tether at all), the successful hard fork, or the more (positive!) interest from the media and people than ever before in BTC history.
Instead, we are supposed to think that $395 million dollars of tethers are the reason for this rise in a $160+ Billion market cap. 
C’mon people! Look at that volume for the last 30 days. https://imgur.com/a/vKJ5g Also, the overwhelming majority of trade does not exist in Tether but KRW, CNY, USD, JPY.
Tethers are usually created when extra liquidity is needed, be it a crash or a spike. Because more people are trading.
They try to prove Tether boosts the market with this picture in their article. https://imgur.com/a/274SE
The problem is 2 of the last 3 tether dumps coincide with a downturn. In fact, there is nothing in this graph that proves this theory. Also, the last tether dump/price rise coincides perfectly with the news of the majority of miners signaling segwit2x for the first time (search bitcoin or btc around that date).
So do you think the market traded billions of $ at that time because of a $50 million Tether dump or because for the first time in YEARS a solution and path forward became visible??
THEY DON’T HAVE BANKING//NO INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS/FAKE TETHERS-TERMS OF SERVICE
In regards to banking, clearly they have some kind of banking and a way for large amounts of fiat to get in and out. The banking is not for you and me but for regional bitcoin exchanges and other large customers.
You know how I know this? If they didn’t the internet would be flooded with Finex withdrawal issues, there would be a price premium on Bitfinex compared to other exchanges, just like Mt. Gox had for so long and also Bitfinex earlier in the year when the banking issues started.
This article explains it very clearly (seriously read this article), it has nothing to do with this controversy, just the banking issue in April.
https://medium.com/@Austerity_Sucks/why-bitfinex-went-from-a-premium-in-its-crypto-usd-pairs-to-now-a-significant-discount-e7be193d7cb0
TL;DR - All of the imbalances discussed (Finex premium) have been a result of USD frictions into Bitfinex. It has been a chain reaction resulting from the initial freeze to the various gradual withdrawal options. As soon as Bitfinex conclusively addresses the USD flow issues, the crypto pair prices will normalize (which they did) with other exchanges that don’t have banking frictions and USDT price will return to par (which it did).
The premiums on Finex and Tether are what would prove something is wrong, yet they are not here. Surprisingly Finex has been at a discount to GDAX and GEMINI recently. Meaning people are willing to take a loss on prices to be able to lend on Finex. This too will normalize as people/bots arb.
Aug 9th… From “arguably” bank fraud https://twitter.com/Bitfinexed/status/895339675120013313
Aug 22nd…. To “admitting” bank fraud https://twitter.com/Bitfinexed/status/900230917196836864
Listen to that audio in the second link, listen carefully. His explanation is perfectly reasonable. Banks don’t work well, consistently, or at all with crypto related companies (marijuana companies too for that matter) especially in jurisdictions that are outside US/Europe. Surprise surprise, this is nothing new. When they find out customers, deposits/wire are cryptos related they pull the plug (a reason why Trex/Polo don’t mess with USD).
Also, they gave their customers a haircut, probably a lot of complaints about the hack to Wells Fargo and other banks. These are the correspondent's banks, not Finex’s, they have banking. This is how they can receive large institutional deposits and withdrawals. Which I bet make up the majority of the fiat deposits and withdrawals.
Classic 80/20 business rule, 20% of your clients are providing 80% of the liquidity plus you are having banking issues (which is expected in crypto-land), so you cut this service to the 80% saving time/resources/headaches for the 20% loss in a single service to them (no fiat withdrawal/deposits- but crypto flows in and out with ease).
Again if they weren’t able to get money in and out there would be a premium, there would be a long line of complaints online. I have no reason (or proof) to believe that money is NOT coming into/out of the exchange.
It makes total sense too, they are the best lending platform, have one of the most liquid exchanges, and have by far the most reliable and best software/servers/UI/order options. You cannot deny this fact, they are constantly a top 3 exchange in volume, even after a hack.
I use Finex (as well as others) because of all those things. Also, they have already been hacked, a second hack seems less likely (IMO, they have more to lose with another hack). They have many big events on the horizon (Ethfinex). Would a company be putting resources into these things if this is all fraud or an exit scam? I find that unlikely. Is this 100% full proof? Of course not, nothing is, especially in crypto, just my reasons for trading there.
Institutional Investors - https://medium.com/@bitfinexed/are-legitimate-institutional-investors-really-coming-onto-bitfinex-s-platform-i-don-t-think-so-cb4ed5175092 Here is what this person doesn’t comprehend, what if these institutional investors are… you ready… here it comes… other exchanges that use Tether, as well as other crypto related businesses. It is only $395 million Tethers. These exchanges (Trex, Finex, Polo) are printing money.
This isn’t “someone” with 100’s of millions of dollars as the article suggests, it’s many people with millions/thousands of dollars. Again this all ignores the fact that many more people have entered the ecosystem this year. This is proven by Coinbase growth, transaction growth, and exchange growth (both in volume and # of exchanges), and growth in crypto-related sub-Reddits.
Yet Bitfinexed is shocked that lending hits ATH’s, but it is perfectly explainable and reasonable based on the evidence and data of gthe ecosystem. Let us not forget BTC is a finite amount, more people are going to increase demand/price, if you think this is a bubble... you haven’t seen anything yet.
The TOS are sketchy and a point of concern but there are two things to keep in mind- It was necessary to word it that way, and the market clearly doesn’t care.
If they had worded it that they will redeem no matter what, they would have money launderers flocking to the service (bogging down resources), plus law enforcement knocking.
Tethers weren’t created to get $ in/out of crypto but to provide a safe haven and liquidity on exchanges that don’t use USD. And I would say they are working perfectly. Very few are withdrawing USDT for USD.
I think it is precisely because of what the co-founder of tether refers to here (and below)… “If you want to convert USD₮ into fiat currency (or vice-versa) at tether.to, you must go through the whole “aggressive” KYC/AML process and get verified. I’ve heard from many who tried and were unable to provide sufficient documentation. Tether’s KYC/AML policies were written by experienced compliance officers and it’s critical that it be done properly and with diligence. It really is about “knowing your customer” and making sure that their uses are legitimate.” This is a perfectly reasonable explanation why people are not lining up to cash out of Tether, and also why large/reputable institutions can (exchanges, investors, etc.).
TETHERS REPLY TO ALL THIS, PLUS UPCOMING AUDIT https://tether.to/tether-update/
Now ask yourself this, would a company that is operating fraudulently have a roadmap of all these new features that no one will ever use if they don’t provide these promised audits as they say they will by the end of the year?
So as of now they have enough runway until the end of the year. I say we give TetheFinex the benefit of the doubt.
While Tether could be operating fractionally (so to could any exchange in crypto btw), there is no proof or evidence of it today. It trades at normalized rates. You can’t just create 100’s of million of dollars without the marketing realizing somewhere.
Sure, you can say this is a confidence game, but so is crypto, so is the USD, so is the concept of money. I see no reason to be more concerned with this risk than the already risky environment we trade in with exchanges.
WHAT IF I”M WRONG? CRYPTO WILL IMPLODE!
No it won’t. Sure there will be a dip maybe even a correction, but there are only 395 million Tethers. People will get out of Tether even at massive discounts (until $0) into crypto because they can’t get USD, but not more than the 395 million tethers circulating (at this time).
At a certain discount people will understand what is going on and stop trading for Tether. BTC + ETH is worth over $100 billion, how many time does the entire amount of USDT have to turn over to cause a massive crash?
What will get hit the hardest are the people left holding tether (if/when they implode) and Trex/Polo/Finex.
To think Polo/Trex would rely so much on USDT that they didn’t fully vet it is absurd as well. Whats more likely, Polo/Trex’s due diligence or this @Bitfinexed person based on conjecture?
I’ve already seen a Forbes contributor try and get ahold of Bitfinexed on twitter. https://twitter.com/laurashin/status/894437272241569792
Could I be wrong about all of this??? Of course, but, I feel I have provided more evidence than the other side. You are the Judge :)
USEFUL INFO
Some from u/udecker - Tether co-founder
Tether.to is who has the backing for the token, not Bitfinex. Bitfinex is a customer of Tether. If Bitfinex wants more Tether, they make a request to Tether, just like all other Tether customers. Tether waits for USD to show up, and when it does, creates the necessary tethers and credits Bitfinex. They both have Tawainese banking so money can flow back and forth easily. (The banking industry in the country of Taiwan are under scrutiny lately because of larger legal issues not involving crypto, but clearly affecting crypto companies)
https://wallet.tether.to/transparency
Tether wasn’t designed to be a profit machine. It was designed to be a utility for the crypto community to provide a stable token (with all the benefits of this). Tether’s business model is this: 1. Generate fees from wire deposits and withdrawals and conversions. 2. Interest income on the reserve.
Bitfinex’s parent company owns a 20% stake in Tether.
People say Tether isn’t being burned. But they are being recycled which is/was always an option.
I hope we can have a productive conversation around this without the usual Gox 2.0, sell it all, Bitfinex is the anti-christ comments with no substance. Give us your opinion and perspective because maybe I am missing something… but, maybe you are too.
This was quite time consuming (just ask my kids and boss, lol) So if you found this info helpful you can donate if you’d like here, if not, no biggie smalls :)
BCH- 16uby9gW79tjn5guQG8v5mTsdu6V6cYyKF
submitted by bhdgsetyf to btc [link] [comments]

The truth about Bitfinex and Tether...

EDIT: I realize this is long, but I feel it's important to have this info out there. Maybe save it for later when you see this narrative being pushed around so you can come back and get the other side.
EDIT 2: TL:DR - Most negative analysis on this sub lately of Tether are likely from a single biased source that stretches a lot to make his points, and there is simply not enough Tether in the market nor is it concentrated enough to create a catastrophic problem or significant inflation for any USDT currency pair.
Like many of you, I have heard the stories and posts about the fraudulent tether, I trade in this space on many exchanges and the growing concern is worrying, so I did my due diligence, and I would like to share it with the community.
First and most importantly IMO, all this controversy stems from just one account/person. A person on twitter going by the handle @Bitfinexed - https://twitter.com/Bitfinexed
Here you can see this person's writings - https://medium.com/@bitfinexed/latest
Spoofy, Tethers and institutional investors are what they contend to be the lies and fraud, AND that this entire rally in 2017 is based on fraudulent Tethers and spoofing, and that this will implode the markets.
I feel this is also important… Turns out this person sold at $1000, maybe the real reason he is on this mission??… https://twitter.com/whalepool/status/896460700461277185
Now for some troubling info, the majority of this narrative (FUD??) here on Reddit in the last month come from just three accounts.
https://www.reddit.com/useAtlasRand1/submitted/
https://www.reddit.com/usecetusfund/submitted/
https://www.reddit.com/useAnythingForSuccess
As you can see these accounts entire mission is to post constantly about this. They all show up on the other’s post to comment regularly.
Btw, some people on the pro-finex side think this is a smear campaign from other exchanges. I don’t believe this to be the case. This person(s) only talk about TetheFinex, yet Tether is used and traded by the $millions daily on 3 of the top 5 exchanges, Finex, Bittrex, Polo, yet never a word about those other exchanges. (Check the USDT volume on other exchanges) https://coinmarketcap.com/assets/tethe#markets
Therefore, if it is an exchange, it isn’t Trex/Polo because this would affect them as well. If it was an exchange other than Trex/Polo they would have plenty of fire power against 3 of the top 5 exchanges with Tether fraud.
This leads me to believe it is most likely a sad person(s) with an ax to grind. They might have lost their $ on Finex to what they believe are spoofers/fraud and or they were part of the finex hack and sold there BFX too early.
Btw I see contention that Bitfinex did NOT pay back the $ from the hack. They did, but some people are mad because they sold BFX early and didn’t recoup full $ amount from haircuts, but that was their decision.
~ POINTS OF CONTENTION
SPOOFING This is what set my alarm bells off about these articles I read from Bitfinexed. Specifically spoofing… https://hackernoon.com/meet-spoofy-how-a-single-entity-dominates-the-price-of-bitcoin-39c711d28eb4
and this nugget…“And who the hell is going to go margin long so dramatically after a huge crash?” from this article… https://medium.com/@bitfinexed/are-fraudulent-tethers-being-used-for-margin-lending-on-bitfinex-5de9dd80f330
Claiming spoofing shows this person has limited markets/trading knowledge. Clearly they haven’t watched an order book of any exchange in crypto, equities, or Forex.
This is called scalping or scare walls. Again this is done in every market around the globe.
Here is a professional FOREX trader talking about scalping, how it works, who/why they do it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYMIPmgRb_M&list=WL&index=94
TL;DW - they do this to get the price where they want it because they know people are watching the order book (the video is quite enlightening), and the key point that keeps this from being an illegal activity (on regulated exchanges) is THAT THEY DO MAKE TRADES FOR THOSE SIZES eventually. This doesn’t always work and they get stuck in these positions. Risk/reward.
The ironic part about this spoofing idea is Finex is one of the few, if not only exchanges, that offer hidden orders. So people trying to scalp always have to worry if there is a monster hidden order lurking.
Go to the UPDATE: AUGUST 7TH of this story and watch the video he claims proves spoofing and Phil Potter admitting it in the voice over. https://hackernoon.com/meet-spoofy-how-a-single-entity-dominates-the-price-of-bitcoin-39c711d28eb4
I see nothing wrong with what Phil says and no proof of anything in the video. Again this is true on every exchange trading anything of volume in the world. People with large amounts of money move markets, oh the horror. I “technically” do this when I place an order and pull it for whatever reason (scared, mistake, etc.) just not in large sums, but I would if I had large sums.
“And who the hell is going to go margin long so dramatically after a huge crash?” The crash they are referring to is from the early June ATH to the mid-July correction. A 45-day crash? Well, I am one of those people that went margin long. And many many others who read charts, resistance, support, retracement info. Again, this smacks of someone who doesn’t know what they are talking about.
REASON FOR PRICE RISE/BTC GOES UP WHEN TETHERS ARE CREATED
This is absurd. This completely negates everything else, the Japanese currency ruling and them entering the market, Koreans coming into the market in a huge way (they now have the largest exchange by far with close to a Billion traded DAILY, oh and they don’t use Tether at all), the successful hard fork, or the more (positive!) interest from the media and people than ever before in BTC history.
Instead, we are supposed to think that $395 million dollars of tethers are the reason for this rise in a $160+ Billion market cap. 
C’mon people! Look at that volume for the last 30 days. https://imgur.com/a/vKJ5g Also, the overwhelming majority of trade does not exist in Tether but KRW, CNY, USD, JPY.
Tethers are usually created when extra liquidity is needed, be it a crash or a spike. Because more people are trading.
They try to prove Tether boosts the market with this picture in their article. https://imgur.com/a/274SE
The problem is 2 of the last 3 tether dumps coincide with a downturn. In fact, there is nothing in this graph that proves this theory. Also, the last tether dump/price rise coincides perfectly with the news of the majority of miners signaling segwit2x for the first time (search bitcoin or btc around that date).
So do you think the market traded billions of $ at that time because of a $50 million Tether dump or because for the first time in YEARS a solution and path forward became visible??
THEY DON’T HAVE BANKING//NO INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS/FAKE TETHERS-TERMS OF SERVICE
In regards to banking, clearly they have some kind of banking and a way for large amounts of fiat to get in and out. The banking is not for you and me but for regional bitcoin exchanges and other large customers.
You know how I know this? If they didn’t the internet would be flooded with Finex withdrawal issues, there would be a price premium on Bitfinex compared to other exchanges, just like Mt. Gox had for so long and also Bitfinex earlier in the year when the banking issues started.
This article explains it very clearly (seriously read this article), it has nothing to do with this controversy, just the banking issue in April.
https://medium.com/@Austerity_Sucks/why-bitfinex-went-from-a-premium-in-its-crypto-usd-pairs-to-now-a-significant-discount-e7be193d7cb0
TL;DR - All of the imbalances discussed (Finex premium) have been a result of USD frictions into Bitfinex. It has been a chain reaction resulting from the initial freeze to the various gradual withdrawal options. As soon as Bitfinex conclusively addresses the USD flow issues, the crypto pair prices will normalize (which they did) with other exchanges that don’t have banking frictions and USDT price will return to par (which it did).
The premiums on Finex and Tether are what would prove something is wrong, yet they are not here. Surprisingly Finex has been at a discount to GDAX and GEMINI recently. Meaning people are willing to take a loss on prices to be able to lend on Finex. This too will normalize as people/bots arb.
Aug 9th… From “arguably” bank fraud https://twitter.com/Bitfinexed/status/895339675120013313
Aug 22nd…. To “admitting” bank fraud https://twitter.com/Bitfinexed/status/900230917196836864
Listen to that audio in the second link, listen carefully. His explanation is perfectly reasonable. Banks don’t work well, consistently, or at all with crypto related companies (marijuana companies too for that matter) especially in jurisdictions that are outside US/Europe. Surprise surprise, this is nothing new. When they find out customers, deposits/wire are cryptos related they pull the plug (a reason why Trex/Polo don’t mess with USD).
Also, they gave their customers a haircut, probably a lot of complaints about the hack to Wells Fargo and other banks. These are the correspondent's banks, not Finex’s, they have banking. This is how they can receive large institutional deposits and withdrawals. Which I bet make up the majority of the fiat deposits and withdrawals.
Classic 80/20 business rule, 20% of your clients are providing 80% of the liquidity plus you are having banking issues (which is expected in crypto-land), so you cut this service to the 80% saving time/resources/headaches for the 20% loss in a single service to them (no fiat withdrawal/deposits- but crypto flows in and out with ease).
Again if they weren’t able to get money in and out there would be a premium, there would be a long line of complaints online. I have no reason (or proof) to believe that money is NOT coming into/out of the exchange.
It makes total sense too, they are the best lending platform, have one of the most liquid exchanges, and have by far the most reliable and best software/servers/UI/order options. You cannot deny this fact, they are constantly a top 3 exchange in volume, even after a hack.
I use Finex (as well as others) because of all those things. Also, they have already been hacked, a second hack seems less likely (IMO, they have more to lose with another hack). They have many big events on the horizon (Ethfinex). Would a company be putting resources into these things if this is all fraud or an exit scam? I find that unlikely. Is this 100% full proof? Of course not, nothing is, especially in crypto, just my reasons for trading there.
Institutional Investors - https://medium.com/@bitfinexed/are-legitimate-institutional-investors-really-coming-onto-bitfinex-s-platform-i-don-t-think-so-cb4ed5175092 Here is what this person doesn’t comprehend, what if these institutional investors are… you ready… here it comes… other exchanges that use Tether, as well as other crypto related businesses. It is only $395 million Tethers. These exchanges (Trex, Finex, Polo) are printing money.
This isn’t “someone” with 100’s of millions of dollars as the article suggests, it’s many people with millions/thousands of dollars. Again this all ignores the fact that many more people have entered the ecosystem this year. This is proven by Coinbase growth, transaction growth, and exchange growth (both in volume and # of exchanges), and growth in crypto-related sub-Reddits.
Yet Bitfinexed is shocked that lending hits ATH’s, but it is perfectly explainable and reasonable based on the evidence and data of gthe ecosystem. Let us not forget BTC is a finite amount, more people are going to increase demand/price, if you think this is a bubble... you haven’t seen anything yet.
The TOS are sketchy and a point of concern but there are two things to keep in mind- It was necessary to word it that way, and the market clearly doesn’t care.
If they had worded it that they will redeem no matter what, they would have money launderers flocking to the service (bogging down resources), plus law enforcement knocking.
Tethers weren’t created to get $ in/out of crypto but to provide a safe haven and liquidity on exchanges that don’t use USD. And I would say they are working perfectly. Very few are withdrawing USDT for USD.
I think it is precisely because of what the co-founder of tether refers to here (and below)… “If you want to convert USD₮ into fiat currency (or vice-versa) at tether.to, you must go through the whole “aggressive” KYC/AML process and get verified. I’ve heard from many who tried and were unable to provide sufficient documentation. Tether’s KYC/AML policies were written by experienced compliance officers and it’s critical that it be done properly and with diligence. It really is about “knowing your customer” and making sure that their uses are legitimate.” This is a perfectly reasonable explanation why people are not lining up to cash out of Tether, and also why large/reputable institutions can (exchanges, investors, etc.).
TETHERS REPLY TO ALL THIS, PLUS UPCOMING AUDIT https://tether.to/tether-update/
Now ask yourself this, would a company that is operating fraudulently have a roadmap of all these new features that no one will ever use if they don’t provide these promised audits as they say they will by the end of the year?
So as of now they have enough runway until the end of the year. I say we give TetheFinex the benefit of the doubt.
While Tether could be operating fractionally (so to could any exchange in crypto btw), there is no proof or evidence of it today. It trades at normalized rates. You can’t just create 100’s of million of dollars without the marketing realizing somewhere.
Sure, you can say this is a confidence game, but so is crypto, so is the USD, so is the concept of money. I see no reason to be more concerned with this risk than the already risky environment we trade in with exchanges.
WHAT IF I”M WRONG? CRYPTO WILL IMPLODE!
No it won’t. Sure there will be a dip maybe even a correction, but there are only 395 million Tethers. People will get out of Tether even at massive discounts (until $0) into crypto because they can’t get USD, but not more than the 395 million tethers circulating (at this time).
At a certain discount people will understand what is going on and stop trading for Tether. BTC + ETH is worth over $100 billion, how many time does the entire amount of USDT have to turn over to cause a massive crash?
What will get hit the hardest are the people left holding tether (if/when they implode) and Trex/Polo/Finex.
To think Polo/Trex would rely so much on USDT that they didn’t fully vet it is absurd as well. Whats more likely, Polo/Trex’s due diligence or this @Bitfinexed person based on conjecture?
I’ve already seen a Forbes contributor try and get ahold of Bitfinexed on twitter. https://twitter.com/laurashin/status/894437272241569792
Could I be wrong about all of this??? Of course, but, I feel I have provided more evidence than the other side. You are the Judge :)
USEFUL INFO
Some from u/udecker - Tether co-founder
Tether.to is who has the backing for the token, not Bitfinex. Bitfinex is a customer of Tether. If Bitfinex wants more Tether, they make a request to Tether, just like all other Tether customers. Tether waits for USD to show up, and when it does, creates the necessary tethers and credits Bitfinex. They both have Tawainese banking so money can flow back and forth easily. (The banking industry in the country of Taiwan are under scrutiny lately because of larger legal issues not involving crypto, but clearly affecting crypto companies)
https://wallet.tether.to/transparency
Tether wasn’t designed to be a profit machine. It was designed to be a utility for the crypto community to provide a stable token (with all the benefits of this). Tether’s business model is this: 1. Generate fees from wire deposits and withdrawals and conversions. 2. Interest income on the reserve.
Bitfinex’s parent company owns a 20% stake in Tether.
People say Tether isn’t being burned. But they are being recycled which is/was always an option.
I hope we can have a productive conversation around this without the usual Gox 2.0, sell it all, Bitfinex is the anti-christ comments with no substance. Give us your opinion and perspective because maybe I am missing something… but, maybe you are too.
This was quite time consuming (just ask my kids and boss, lol) So if you found this info helpful you can donate if you’d like here, if not, no biggie smalls :)
ETH - 0x0181D1C82229BAD741BB6c302ae523aE6DC9a1EE
submitted by bhdgsetyf to ethtrader [link] [comments]

[EVENT] Market shock mitigation & stimulus

Ministry of Finance of the People's Republic of China, Sanlihe, Xicheng District, Beijing
 
Shock Mitigation: Market and Sector Responses
 
Amidst a dip in the normally resilient Chinese economy, analysts and officials have already begun to announce a revised, minor economic stimulus, aiming to to cushion the impact of market turmoil on already sluggish consumption and cushion ongoing trade tensions with the West; a byproduct of a decades long trade war. At the same time, China’s economic growth has slowed to its lowest rate for three decades and private companies, which account for 60 percent of the country’s GDP, have begun to struggle to access the funds they need to survive - as a result of Beijing’s deleveraging campaign, aimed at reducing debt and risky lending since 2020.
Officials cautioned a modest impact from the initial measures on several critical sectors, including export demand which has been damaged by offloading of American contracts, property sales in smaller cities, and passenger car sales, which continue to face strong headwinds.
 
Internal Economic Measures
 
Officials have begun to turn and pull various economic levers and knobs, aiming to boost market confidence, banking on the successful and level course the administration has charted since the beginning of the trade conflict, including having successfully prevented and even boosted capital reserves over the past five years far across the USD $3 trillion mark.
 
 
Yuan Adjustment
 
The Yuan is currently pegged in a "managed floating rate" against the USD at ¥6.2/$1. To ease the pressure on Chinese exporters driven by US tariffs, and to ensure that exports remain competitive especially in critical developing markets - which Beijing is now seeking to dominate, as has been for years - the PBOC has instituted a small change to the managed reference rate. This is not referred to as a devaluation in any way.
 
 
Beijing is looking to quietly engineer a 2pc reduction in the CNY in a single sweep, with a maximum trading rate falling against to ¥7/$1. However, Yang Gi, Deputy Minister of the PBOC, has put out a statement noting:
 
"The assumption that the People's Bank is attempting to engineer a ten percent devaluation is groundless. The volatility in the market is currently under careful control, and is largely in relation to American financial pressures. However, the PBOC stands ready to step in with capital control measures - including forex buybacks of the Yuan - if the market turns sour."
 
Specific Industry Stimulus - Moving Away from America
 
Party officials and Financial deputies have examined at the situation in each of the general tariffed areas excepting automobiles; steel/iron, aluminum, textiles, industrial machinery, and heavy manufacturing. In several cases, demand is incredibly saturated domestically; in others, the addition of SCO/RCEP FTAs and the progress of the Silk Road to Western Asia and Europe have insulated the sectors. However, officials also view this as a chance to rebalance growth in several over-capacitated sectors, a long standing goal, and shift dependence away from the U.S. for good.
 
 
Automotive parts and finished exports have not been given specific attention due to the second part of the package, where reciprocal measures will soon be imposed; leading to the belief that American car parts manufacturers will soon lobby the government to remove the shortsighted 30% duty.
submitted by S01780 to GlobalPowers [link] [comments]

The truth about Bitfinex and Tether...

EDIT: I realize this is long, but I feel it's important to have this info out there. Maybe save it for later when you see this narrative being pushed around so you can come back and get the other side.
EDIT 2: TL:DR - Most negative analysis on this sub lately of Tether are likely from a single biased source that stretches a lot to make his points, and there is simply not enough Tether in the market nor is it concentrated enough to create a catastrophic problem or significant inflation for any USDT currency pair.
Like many of you, I have heard the stories and posts about the fraudulent tether, I trade in this space on many exchanges and the growing concern is worrying, so I did my due diligence, and I would like to share it with the community.
First and most importantly IMO, all this controversy stems from just one account/person. A person on twitter going by the handle @Bitfinexed - https://twitter.com/Bitfinexed
Here you can see this person's writings - https://medium.com/@bitfinexed/latest
Spoofy, Tethers and institutional investors are what they contend to be the lies and fraud, AND that this entire rally in 2017 is based on fraudulent Tethers and spoofing, and that this will implode the markets.
I feel this is also important… Turns out this person sold at $1000, maybe the real reason he is on this mission??… https://twitter.com/whalepool/status/896460700461277185
Now for some troubling info, the majority of this narrative (FUD??) here on Reddit in the last month come from just three accounts.
https://www.reddit.com/useAtlasRand1/submitted/
https://www.reddit.com/usecetusfund/submitted/
https://www.reddit.com/useAnythingForSuccess
As you can see these accounts entire mission is to post constantly about this. They all show up on the other’s post to comment regularly.
Btw, some people on the pro-finex side think this is a smear campaign from other exchanges. I don’t believe this to be the case. This person(s) only talk about TetheFinex, yet Tether is used and traded by the $millions daily on 3 of the top 5 exchanges, Finex, Bittrex, Polo, yet never a word about those other exchanges. (Check the USDT volume on other exchanges) https://coinmarketcap.com/assets/tethe#markets
Therefore, if it is an exchange, it isn’t Trex/Polo because this would affect them as well. If it was an exchange other than Trex/Polo they would have plenty of fire power against 3 of the top 5 exchanges with Tether fraud.
This leads me to believe it is most likely a sad person(s) with an ax to grind. They might have lost their $ on Finex to what they believe are spoofers/fraud and or they were part of the finex hack and sold there BFX too early.
Btw I see contention that Bitfinex did NOT pay back the $ from the hack. They did, but some people are mad because they sold BFX early and didn’t recoup full $ amount from haircuts, but that was their decision.
~ POINTS OF CONTENTION
SPOOFING This is what set my alarm bells off about these articles I read from Bitfinexed. Specifically spoofing… https://hackernoon.com/meet-spoofy-how-a-single-entity-dominates-the-price-of-bitcoin-39c711d28eb4
and this nugget…“And who the hell is going to go margin long so dramatically after a huge crash?” from this article… https://medium.com/@bitfinexed/are-fraudulent-tethers-being-used-for-margin-lending-on-bitfinex-5de9dd80f330
Claiming spoofing shows this person has limited markets/trading knowledge. Clearly they haven’t watched an order book of any exchange in crypto, equities, or Forex.
This is called scalping or scare walls. Again this is done in every market around the globe.
Here is a professional FOREX trader talking about scalping, how it works, who/why they do it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYMIPmgRb_M&list=WL&index=94
TL;DW - they do this to get the price where they want it because they know people are watching the order book (the video is quite enlightening), and the key point that keeps this from being an illegal activity (on regulated exchanges) is THAT THEY DO MAKE TRADES FOR THOSE SIZES eventually. This doesn’t always work and they get stuck in these positions. Risk/reward.
The ironic part about this spoofing idea is Finex is one of the few, if not only exchanges, that offer hidden orders. So people trying to scalp always have to worry if there is a monster hidden order lurking.
Go to the UPDATE: AUGUST 7TH of this story and watch the video he claims proves spoofing and Phil Potter admitting it in the voice over. https://hackernoon.com/meet-spoofy-how-a-single-entity-dominates-the-price-of-bitcoin-39c711d28eb4
I see nothing wrong with what Phil says and no proof of anything in the video. Again this is true on every exchange trading anything of volume in the world. People with large amounts of money move markets, oh the horror. I “technically” do this when I place an order and pull it for whatever reason (scared, mistake, etc.) just not in large sums, but I would if I had large sums.
“And who the hell is going to go margin long so dramatically after a huge crash?” The crash they are referring to is from the early June ATH to the mid-July correction. A 45-day crash? Well, I am one of those people that went margin long. And many many others who read charts, resistance, support, retracement info. Again, this smacks of someone who doesn’t know what they are talking about.
REASON FOR PRICE RISE/BTC GOES UP WHEN TETHERS ARE CREATED
This is absurd. This completely negates everything else, the Japanese currency ruling and them entering the market, Koreans coming into the market in a huge way (they now have the largest exchange by far with close to a Billion traded DAILY, oh and they don’t use Tether at all), the successful hard fork, or the more (positive!) interest from the media and people than ever before in BTC history.
Instead, we are supposed to think that $395 million dollars of tethers are the reason for this rise in a $160+ Billion market cap. 
C’mon people! Look at that volume for the last 30 days. https://imgur.com/a/vKJ5g Also, the overwhelming majority of trade does not exist in Tether but KRW, CNY, USD, JPY.
Tethers are usually created when extra liquidity is needed, be it a crash or a spike. Because more people are trading.
They try to prove Tether boosts the market with this picture in their article. https://imgur.com/a/274SE
The problem is 2 of the last 3 tether dumps coincide with a downturn. In fact, there is nothing in this graph that proves this theory. Also, the last tether dump/price rise coincides perfectly with the news of the majority of miners signaling segwit2x for the first time (search bitcoin or btc around that date).
So do you think the market traded billions of $ at that time because of a $50 million Tether dump or because for the first time in YEARS a solution and path forward became visible??
THEY DON’T HAVE BANKING//NO INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS/FAKE TETHERS-TERMS OF SERVICE
In regards to banking, clearly they have some kind of banking and a way for large amounts of fiat to get in and out. The banking is not for you and me but for regional bitcoin exchanges and other large customers.
You know how I know this? If they didn’t the internet would be flooded with Finex withdrawal issues, there would be a price premium on Bitfinex compared to other exchanges, just like Mt. Gox had for so long and also Bitfinex earlier in the year when the banking issues started.
This article explains it very clearly (seriously read this article), it has nothing to do with this controversy, just the banking issue in April.
https://medium.com/@Austerity_Sucks/why-bitfinex-went-from-a-premium-in-its-crypto-usd-pairs-to-now-a-significant-discount-e7be193d7cb0
TL;DR - All of the imbalances discussed (Finex premium) have been a result of USD frictions into Bitfinex. It has been a chain reaction resulting from the initial freeze to the various gradual withdrawal options. As soon as Bitfinex conclusively addresses the USD flow issues, the crypto pair prices will normalize (which they did) with other exchanges that don’t have banking frictions and USDT price will return to par (which it did).
The premiums on Finex and Tether are what would prove something is wrong, yet they are not here. Surprisingly Finex has been at a discount to GDAX and GEMINI recently. Meaning people are willing to take a loss on prices to be able to lend on Finex. This too will normalize as people/bots arb.
Aug 9th… From “arguably” bank fraud https://twitter.com/Bitfinexed/status/895339675120013313
Aug 22nd…. To “admitting” bank fraud https://twitter.com/Bitfinexed/status/900230917196836864
Listen to that audio in the second link, listen carefully. His explanation is perfectly reasonable. Banks don’t work well, consistently, or at all with crypto related companies (marijuana companies too for that matter) especially in jurisdictions that are outside US/Europe. Surprise surprise, this is nothing new. When they find out customers, deposits/wire are cryptos related they pull the plug (a reason why Trex/Polo don’t mess with USD).
Also, they gave their customers a haircut, probably a lot of complaints about the hack to Wells Fargo and other banks. These are the correspondent's banks, not Finex’s, they have banking. This is how they can receive large institutional deposits and withdrawals. Which I bet make up the majority of the fiat deposits and withdrawals.
Classic 80/20 business rule, 20% of your clients are providing 80% of the liquidity plus you are having banking issues (which is expected in crypto-land), so you cut this service to the 80% saving time/resources/headaches for the 20% loss in a single service to them (no fiat withdrawal/deposits- but crypto flows in and out with ease).
Again if they weren’t able to get money in and out there would be a premium, there would be a long line of complaints online. I have no reason (or proof) to believe that money is NOT coming into/out of the exchange.
It makes total sense too, they are the best lending platform, have one of the most liquid exchanges, and have by far the most reliable and best software/servers/UI/order options. You cannot deny this fact, they are constantly a top 3 exchange in volume, even after a hack.
I use Finex (as well as others) because of all those things. Also, they have already been hacked, a second hack seems less likely (IMO, they have more to lose with another hack). They have many big events on the horizon (Ethfinex). Would a company be putting resources into these things if this is all fraud or an exit scam? I find that unlikely. Is this 100% full proof? Of course not, nothing is, especially in crypto, just my reasons for trading there.
Institutional Investors - https://medium.com/@bitfinexed/are-legitimate-institutional-investors-really-coming-onto-bitfinex-s-platform-i-don-t-think-so-cb4ed5175092 Here is what this person doesn’t comprehend, what if these institutional investors are… you ready… here it comes… other exchanges that use Tether, as well as other crypto related businesses. It is only $395 million Tethers. These exchanges (Trex, Finex, Polo) are printing money.
This isn’t “someone” with 100’s of millions of dollars as the article suggests, it’s many people with millions/thousands of dollars. Again this all ignores the fact that many more people have entered the ecosystem this year. This is proven by Coinbase growth, transaction growth, and exchange growth (both in volume and # of exchanges), and growth in crypto-related sub-Reddits.
Yet Bitfinexed is shocked that lending hits ATH’s, but it is perfectly explainable and reasonable based on the evidence and data of gthe ecosystem. Let us not forget BTC is a finite amount, more people are going to increase demand/price, if you think this is a bubble... you haven’t seen anything yet.
The TOS are sketchy and a point of concern but there are two things to keep in mind- It was necessary to word it that way, and the market clearly doesn’t care.
If they had worded it that they will redeem no matter what, they would have money launderers flocking to the service (bogging down resources), plus law enforcement knocking.
Tethers weren’t created to get $ in/out of crypto but to provide a safe haven and liquidity on exchanges that don’t use USD. And I would say they are working perfectly. Very few are withdrawing USDT for USD.
I think it is precisely because of what the co-founder of tether refers to here (and below)… “If you want to convert USD₮ into fiat currency (or vice-versa) at tether.to, you must go through the whole “aggressive” KYC/AML process and get verified. I’ve heard from many who tried and were unable to provide sufficient documentation. Tether’s KYC/AML policies were written by experienced compliance officers and it’s critical that it be done properly and with diligence. It really is about “knowing your customer” and making sure that their uses are legitimate.” This is a perfectly reasonable explanation why people are not lining up to cash out of Tether, and also why large/reputable institutions can (exchanges, investors, etc.).
TETHERS REPLY TO ALL THIS, PLUS UPCOMING AUDIT https://tether.to/tether-update/
Now ask yourself this, would a company that is operating fraudulently have a roadmap of all these new features that no one will ever use if they don’t provide these promised audits as they say they will by the end of the year?
So as of now they have enough runway until the end of the year. I say we give TetheFinex the benefit of the doubt.
While Tether could be operating fractionally (so to could any exchange in crypto btw), there is no proof or evidence of it today. It trades at normalized rates. You can’t just create 100’s of million of dollars without the marketing realizing somewhere.
Sure, you can say this is a confidence game, but so is crypto, so is the USD, so is the concept of money. I see no reason to be more concerned with this risk than the already risky environment we trade in with exchanges.
WHAT IF I”M WRONG? CRYPTO WILL IMPLODE!
No it won’t. Sure there will be a dip maybe even a correction, but there are only 395 million Tethers. People will get out of Tether even at massive discounts (until $0) into crypto because they can’t get USD, but not more than the 395 million tethers circulating (at this time).
At a certain discount people will understand what is going on and stop trading for Tether. BTC + ETH is worth over $100 billion, how many time does the entire amount of USDT have to turn over to cause a massive crash?
What will get hit the hardest are the people left holding tether (if/when they implode) and Trex/Polo/Finex.
To think Polo/Trex would rely so much on USDT that they didn’t fully vet it is absurd as well. Whats more likely, Polo/Trex’s due diligence or this @Bitfinexed person based on conjecture?
I’ve already seen a Forbes contributor try and get ahold of Bitfinexed on twitter. https://twitter.com/laurashin/status/894437272241569792
Could I be wrong about all of this??? Of course, but, I feel I have provided more evidence than the other side. You are the Judge :)
USEFUL INFO
Some from u/udecker - Tether co-founder
Tether.to is who has the backing for the token, not Bitfinex. Bitfinex is a customer of Tether. If Bitfinex wants more Tether, they make a request to Tether, just like all other Tether customers. Tether waits for USD to show up, and when it does, creates the necessary tethers and credits Bitfinex. They both have Tawainese banking so money can flow back and forth easily. (The banking industry in the country of Taiwan are under scrutiny lately because of larger legal issues not involving crypto, but clearly affecting crypto companies)
https://wallet.tether.to/transparency
Tether wasn’t designed to be a profit machine. It was designed to be a utility for the crypto community to provide a stable token (with all the benefits of this). Tether’s business model is this: 1. Generate fees from wire deposits and withdrawals and conversions. 2. Interest income on the reserve.
Bitfinex’s parent company owns a 20% stake in Tether.
People say Tether isn’t being burned. But they are being recycled which is/was always an option.
I hope we can have a productive conversation around this without the usual Gox 2.0, sell it all, Bitfinex is the anti-christ comments with no substance. Give us your opinion and perspective because maybe I am missing something… but, maybe you are too.
This was quite time consuming (just ask my kids and boss, lol) So if you found this info helpful you can donate if you’d like here, if not, no biggie smalls :)
BTC - 14Wz4SCuKwa81UBh1U7mcaCTxMsYLLuGZK
submitted by cryptomoonlambo to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Forex Strategy that Works Every Time 🔥 - YouTube 10 Most Complained Stock Brokers in India File Complaint Against BSNL with Government of India (Department of Telecommunications) How to Complaint Against Child Marriage & Punishment - YouTube Forex Options Scam File Complaint against STOCK BROKERS, Sub-Brokers & Portfolio Managers with SEBI Not known Facts About Forex Trading Is illegal For ...

by A scammed customer, 1/18/2019 . Pros: One of Only a few Forex Brokers left in the US Cons: Don't expect to make any money. They steal and make it difficult to withdraw your money. I have a Forex Trading business account with Forex.com from which I am trying to make a cash withdrawal. GET HELP TODAY. If you have a grievance against your forex broker, then you could use our help. Contact us today to discuss your case with one of experts and get some quick insight on the validity of your claim and how we would best approach it to acheive the outcome that you would like. Most of us are well aware how to file a complaint against an unregulated Forex broker. Today, we will learn how to file complaints against CySEC regulated Forex broker. Here the catch is a regulated broker. Unfortunately, sometimes even regulated brokers are not exempted from doing frauds and tend to go against the regulations. There are some things that you need to know even before you file ... Best US Forex brokers Best UK Forex Brokers Online Forex Charts Live Quotes FCA regulated Forex Brokers No-Deposit Bonuses; Risk Warning: Your capital is at risk. Statistically, only 11-25% of traders gain profit when trading Forex and CFDs. The remaining 74-89% of customers lose their investment. Invest in capital that is willing to expose such risks. Forex Brokers > Submit a ... Filing a Complaint Against a Forex Broker in the UK: How-To Jun 20 2013 By Forexbrokerz.com If you have been following us regularly, you have probably noticed that we actively promote broker regulation, and there's a simple reason for that: regulators ensure a much, much higher level of investor protection and fair operations on behalf of brokers. Forex Broker Complaints. There are many complaints about Forex, Crypto and Binary Option Brokers and the complaints are for a variety of reasons. Investors using a licensed and regulated broker, rarely have withdrawal problems. When you have a problem with an unlicensed broker, no government agency can help you get your money back. If you invested with an unlicensed broker, your complaints may ... The US has a reputation for going after trading fraud aggressively. In recent news, there have been a string of arrests in the trading fraud category. Reporting your case to them can make a real difference. To report a trading scam to the FTC, click here: https://www.ftccomplaintassistant.gov. You can also submit complaints to the following agencies. We recommend you file a report with all of ...

[index] [8370] [10113] [24744] [9819] [11382] [23060] [6484] [12134] [9820] [4634]

Forex Strategy that Works Every Time 🔥 - YouTube

* Follow us on Twitter: https: ... File Complaint Against HDFC Life Insurance Company with Insurance Regulatory & Development Authority - Duration: 5:36. DailyTechTuts 40 views. 5:36. LEARN & EARN ... A long-standing case dating back six years has finally been granted justice by the US legal system. With an initial complaint filed in 2009 against the two fraudsters and their companies, Atwood ... CLICK HERE FOR MORE INFO: https://rebrand.ly/forex33 And start earning in the Forex Market Now! In our growing multinational business setting, there are busi... Check out this video with details on stock brokers that have had the highest complaint percentage against their active client base. The video explains in length the names of those stock brokers ... Join & Copy My Trades Everyday For Life with LIFETIME ACCESS 💰Income-Mentor-Box Academy (Signup) https://www.incomementorbox.com/welcome-page/ 👉Income M... The Prohibition Of Child Marriage Act,2006 ----- Facebook- https://www.facebook.com/LawTuber/ Instagram- https://instagram.com/lawtub... In this video we will learn how you can File a Complaint against STOCK BROKERS, Sub-Brokers & Portfolio Managers with Securities and Exchange Board of India aka SEBI using https://scores.gov.in/

http://binomo-review.betiforex.com