CL Wealth Warning - When there is perceived "easy money" to be made no one worries about the fact that these vehicles are unregulated - until it all goes wrong that is.
What makes you so sure it will all go wrong?
It certainly went wrong for the girl featured in the Panorama programme, to the tune of £50k.
No offense, but she was an idiot who got sucked in by a pyramid scheme... Do your research
I agree about the need to be wary but unfortunately many people aren't that savvy and need protecting from themselves. As cafcfan says above there have been countless 'get rich quick' schemes that blind potential investors with all kinds of bullshit and technical garbage. It's easy to say "don't put in more than you can afford to lose" but you are then adding to the stampede that sucks in more of the gullible. Then it all gets nasty with people throwing insults as those who suggest caution. I have seen lots of intelligent people who should know better get suckered by the promise of easy money.
Yes but regulation alone doesn't protect such people. It's down to education and a cultural societal shift. She really did not deserve much sympathy, much as Panorama tried to engender it. Anyone who has paid attention to this thread understands that if/when we buy in to this stuff, we are not protected by regulation. So then, caveat emptor.
Lets not forget that as a nation in the late 80's we led the way in Europe in encouraging everyone to buy into financial products we didn't understand. Endowment mortgages, anyone? And if you got your money back after being missold one, don't forget it wasn't the politicians that got it back, it was the Consumers Association, the product of a more sensible time. That's what i mean by "cultural shift"
I hear what you say but there is a load of shit out there being given the 'crypto' tag. The Panorama edition highlighted this and how lots of people are going to get suckered. And already on here we are seeing those suggesting caution getting shouted down and ridiculed.
i think absolutely everyone is saying do it with caution, but to say it’s a North Korean conspiracy or terrorist conspiracy deserve some to be ridiculed.
The thread is also 27 pages long. It’s mindblowing ignorance to go onto it and pedal crap that’s repeatedly been disproven and explained earlier in the thread. I haven’t even watched the panorama programme but from people’s responses in this it seems like their understanding of blockchain/iot technology is ridiculously lacking.
Or are you suggesting incompetence cannot be mocked?
With respect, I would suggest Spencer Kelly who presented the Panorama programme probably knows more about the subject than most. I would also think it worth you watching as part of your ongoing researches.
CL Wealth Warning - When there is perceived "easy money" to be made no one worries about the fact that these vehicles are unregulated - until it all goes wrong that is.
What makes you so sure it will all go wrong?
It certainly went wrong for the girl featured in the Panorama programme, to the tune of £50k.
No offense, but she was an idiot who got sucked in by a pyramid scheme... Do your research
I agree about the need to be wary but unfortunately many people aren't that savvy and need protecting from themselves. As cafcfan says above there have been countless 'get rich quick' schemes that blind potential investors with all kinds of bullshit and technical garbage. It's easy to say "don't put in more than you can afford to lose" but you are then adding to the stampede that sucks in more of the gullible. Then it all gets nasty with people throwing insults as those who suggest caution. I have seen lots of intelligent people who should know better get suckered by the promise of easy money.
Yes but regulation alone doesn't protect such people. It's down to education and a cultural societal shift. She really did not deserve much sympathy, much as Panorama tried to engender it. Anyone who has paid attention to this thread understands that if/when we buy in to this stuff, we are not protected by regulation. So then, caveat emptor.
Lets not forget that as a nation in the late 80's we led the way in Europe in encouraging everyone to buy into financial products we didn't understand. Endowment mortgages, anyone? And if you got your money back after being missold one, don't forget it wasn't the politicians that got it back, it was the Consumers Association, the product of a more sensible time. That's what i mean by "cultural shift"
I hear what you say but there is a load of shit out there being given the 'crypto' tag. The Panorama edition highlighted this and how lots of people are going to get suckered. And already on here we are seeing those suggesting caution getting shouted down and ridiculed.
i think absolutely everyone is saying do it with caution, but to say it’s a North Korean conspiracy or terrorist conspiracy deserve some to be ridiculed.
The thread is also 27 pages long. It’s mindblowing ignorance to go onto it and pedal crap that’s repeatedly been disproven and explained earlier in the thread. I haven’t even watched the panorama programme but from people’s responses in this it seems like their understanding of blockchain/iot technology is ridiculously lacking.
Or are you suggesting incompetence cannot be mocked?
With respect, I would suggest Spencer Kelly who presented the Panorama programme probably knows more about the subject than most. I would also think it worth you watching as part of your ongoing researches.
Downloading to my iPlayer for my journey home. From the description it seems to only be talking about bitcoin, which, again, if you read the thread you’ll see a clear difference in bitcoin and other cryptos. I’d go so far as to say bitcoin is seen as a bit of a dinosaur in the crypto world.
CL Wealth Warning - When there is perceived "easy money" to be made no one worries about the fact that these vehicles are unregulated - until it all goes wrong that is.
What makes you so sure it will all go wrong?
It certainly went wrong for the girl featured in the Panorama programme, to the tune of £50k.
No offense, but she was an idiot who got sucked in by a pyramid scheme... Do your research
I agree about the need to be wary but unfortunately many people aren't that savvy and need protecting from themselves. As cafcfan says above there have been countless 'get rich quick' schemes that blind potential investors with all kinds of bullshit and technical garbage. It's easy to say "don't put in more than you can afford to lose" but you are then adding to the stampede that sucks in more of the gullible. Then it all gets nasty with people throwing insults as those who suggest caution. I have seen lots of intelligent people who should know better get suckered by the promise of easy money.
Yes but regulation alone doesn't protect such people. It's down to education and a cultural societal shift. She really did not deserve much sympathy, much as Panorama tried to engender it. Anyone who has paid attention to this thread understands that if/when we buy in to this stuff, we are not protected by regulation. So then, caveat emptor.
Lets not forget that as a nation in the late 80's we led the way in Europe in encouraging everyone to buy into financial products we didn't understand. Endowment mortgages, anyone? And if you got your money back after being missold one, don't forget it wasn't the politicians that got it back, it was the Consumers Association, the product of a more sensible time. That's what i mean by "cultural shift"
I hear what you say but there is a load of shit out there being given the 'crypto' tag. The Panorama edition highlighted this and how lots of people are going to get suckered. And already on here we are seeing those suggesting caution getting shouted down and ridiculed.
i think absolutely everyone is saying do it with caution, but to say it’s a North Korean conspiracy or terrorist conspiracy deserve some to be ridiculed.
The thread is also 27 pages long. It’s mindblowing ignorance to go onto it and pedal crap that’s repeatedly been disproven and explained earlier in the thread. I haven’t even watched the panorama programme but from people’s responses in this it seems like their understanding of blockchain/iot technology is ridiculously lacking.
Or are you suggesting incompetence cannot be mocked?
With respect, I would suggest Spencer Kelly who presented the Panorama programme probably knows more about the subject than most. I would also think it worth you watching as part of your ongoing researches.
Downloading to my iPlayer for my journey home. From the description it seems to only be talking about bitcoin, which, again, if you read the thread you’ll see a clear difference in bitcoin and other cryptos. I’d go so far as to say bitcoin is seen as a bit of a dinosaur in the crypto world.
It did cover a lot more. Be interested in your views.
I just hope no one on CL loses a lot of money on cryptos. Warren Buffett said you should not invest in shares of companies that you do not fully understand & the same applies for any asset. Gamble with money you can happily lose, but please don't gamble more. It's an extremely high risk gamble end of.
I just hope no one on CL loses a lot of money on cryptos. Warren Buffett said you should not invest in shares of companies that you do not fully understand & the same applies for any asset. Gamble with money you can happily lose, but please don't gamble more. It's an extremely high risk gamble end of.
Oh jaysus, watched the first 20 mins of this panorama and you’re best replacing every time he says “cryptocurrency” with “bitcoin”. When he went to the miners in Iceland I thought “oh good, hopefully he’s gonna start talking about iota etc that don’t need miners and need huge amounts of electricity. Nope, “ermahgerd crypto takes so much energy”.
No mention so far of the uses of crypto currencies apart from “replacing the trusted and glorious banks”, which only a handful are even attempting to do.
That and the use of “faceless” people to make it all seem scary.
Agree with @CAFCsayer just seems a bit shite and researched surface deep.
I just hope no one on CL loses a lot of money on cryptos. Warren Buffett said you should not invest in shares of companies that you do not fully understand & the same applies for any asset. Gamble with money you can happily lose, but please don't gamble more. It's an extremely high risk gamble end of.
For sure. But if you do understand it?
Then carry on, but be aware the rug could be pulled out from under you at any time and you have no protection from any regulatory bodies.
Oh jaysus, watched the first 20 mins of this panorama and you’re best replacing every time he says “cryptocurrency” with “bitcoin”. When he went to the miners in Iceland I thought “oh good, hopefully he’s gonna start talking about iota etc that don’t need miners and need huge amounts of electricity. Nope, “ermahgerd crypto takes so much energy”.
No mention so far of the uses of crypto currencies apart from “replacing the trusted and glorious banks”, which only a handful are even attempting to do.
That and the use of “faceless” people to make it all seem scary.
Agree with @CAFCsayer just seems a bit shite and researched surface deep.
Truly we are blessed to have you and @CAFCsayer to advise us
Oh jaysus, watched the first 20 mins of this panorama and you’re best replacing every time he says “cryptocurrency” with “bitcoin”. When he went to the miners in Iceland I thought “oh good, hopefully he’s gonna start talking about iota etc that don’t need miners and need huge amounts of electricity. Nope, “ermahgerd crypto takes so much energy”.
No mention so far of the uses of crypto currencies apart from “replacing the trusted and glorious banks”, which only a handful are even attempting to do.
That and the use of “faceless” people to make it all seem scary.
Agree with @CAFCsayer just seems a bit shite and researched surface deep.
Truly we are blessed to have you and @CAFCsayer to advise us
To be fair to the bbc and to panorama, they’re not exactly going to list all the numerous positives and then get sued by some one like that idiot they had on that handed her life savings to some one she had just met that day (I mean seriously).
For every bad thing they name in the programme, there are cryptos that address these issues and more.
I’d catch the feature length documentary on Netflix called “banking on bitcoin”.
Oh jaysus, watched the first 20 mins of this panorama and you’re best replacing every time he says “cryptocurrency” with “bitcoin”. When he went to the miners in Iceland I thought “oh good, hopefully he’s gonna start talking about iota etc that don’t need miners and need huge amounts of electricity. Nope, “ermahgerd crypto takes so much energy”.
No mention so far of the uses of crypto currencies apart from “replacing the trusted and glorious banks”, which only a handful are even attempting to do.
That and the use of “faceless” people to make it all seem scary.
Agree with @CAFCsayer just seems a bit shite and researched surface deep.
Truly we are blessed to have you and @CAFCsayer to advise us
Assuming this was meant as a smarmy comment, I'm just under 340% in profit since Dec 22nd, having already taken out what I originally invested. How are you left?
CL Wealth Warning - When there is perceived "easy money" to be made no one worries about the fact that these vehicles are unregulated - until it all goes wrong that is.
Well, indeed. But while it's true that the whole shebang is seemingly unregulated, should it be, even under existing legislation? Or are the Government, PRA and FCA all asleep at the wheel - should they be handing down more specific warnings?
It's a bit technical but here's what I mean. First, as we all know, in the UK you need authorisation to undertake certain regulated functions. The existing legislation says both accepting deposits and arranging for the safeguarding and administration of assets belonging to another, or offering or agreeing to do so are both regulated activities for which you need authorisation.
Second, the definition of a deposit (we're not talking a security deposit you hand over to DFS for a sofa, that's a pre-payment) is Rights under any contract under which a sum of money (whether or not denominated in a currency) [my emphasis] is paid on terms under which it will be repaid, with or without interest or a premium, and either on demand or at a time or in circumstances agreed by or on behalf of the person making the payment and the person receiving it.
The legislation in part has even been updated to cope with e-money, which is defined aselectronically (including magnetically) stored monetary value. And in the UK you need to be an authorised electronic money institution to play around with other people's e-money.
(It's a bit more complex than that but that will do for these purposes.) So, how is what is happening not caught by the relevant UK legislation: all these people "looking after your virtual dosh in virtual wallets?
So, just on that basis alone, how is all this stuff not illegal? Well, in short, I suspect (but don't know) that it is. And that is why most (all?) of the businesses that facilitate the acquisition of crypto currencies do so from outside the EU.
So, if it does all go pear-shaped (as it will) there will be no redress. In the same way that there would be no redress if you decided to hand over your personal pension to some person in Russia you didn't know and didn't have any means of contacting and your hard-earned subsequently vanished. Or if you paid out for on off-plan apartment in Kabul.
In short, it would be unreasonable to expect the UK taxpayer to bail you out for being so foolish and it is pleasingly reassuring to know that they won't.
Some of us have seen it all before, whether it's a Ponzi scheme like KF Concept, run by Kevin Foster; pyramid schemes; ostrich farming; or land banks, there's a never-ending stream of people out there quite happy to take money from the gullible.
Coinbase has a registered company in the U.K. theyre the most popular fiat to crypto portal.
But hey, don’t let me impede in your uneducated, unsourced daily mail style ramblings this fine Thursday morning.
Yes, I know, they've set up a UK company. One which qualifies for the "small company exemption" and continues to make a loss. (Which is interesting.) As I've previously stated, I read their latest accounts lodged with Companies House a few weeks back. It only went to underscore that they don't know what they are doing. Read note 6 to the accounts.
You seem convinced that just because the technology seems like a whizzy thing, the currency side must be too. To me, in my uneducated, un-sourced world, that seems like a huge leap of faith.
While you are an evangelist for this stuff, I have seen nothing at all, ever, that convinces me that it is anything other than another car crash waiting to happen.
The overriding trait of the gullible that invest in such schemes is blind faith but there is invariably another trait and that is greed.
You can do what you like, I don't care but I want to put up a contrary view so that anyone else reading your pseudo-knowledgeable, reasonable-sounding testament might think more than twice before placing their hard-earned into a scheme they don't understand and with people they don't know.
CL Wealth Warning - When there is perceived "easy money" to be made no one worries about the fact that these vehicles are unregulated - until it all goes wrong that is.
Well, indeed. But while it's true that the whole shebang is seemingly unregulated, should it be, even under existing legislation? Or are the Government, PRA and FCA all asleep at the wheel - should they be handing down more specific warnings?
It's a bit technical but here's what I mean. First, as we all know, in the UK you need authorisation to undertake certain regulated functions. The existing legislation says both accepting deposits and arranging for the safeguarding and administration of assets belonging to another, or offering or agreeing to do so are both regulated activities for which you need authorisation.
Second, the definition of a deposit (we're not talking a security deposit you hand over to DFS for a sofa, that's a pre-payment) is Rights under any contract under which a sum of money (whether or not denominated in a currency) [my emphasis] is paid on terms under which it will be repaid, with or without interest or a premium, and either on demand or at a time or in circumstances agreed by or on behalf of the person making the payment and the person receiving it.
The legislation in part has even been updated to cope with e-money, which is defined aselectronically (including magnetically) stored monetary value. And in the UK you need to be an authorised electronic money institution to play around with other people's e-money.
(It's a bit more complex than that but that will do for these purposes.) So, how is what is happening not caught by the relevant UK legislation: all these people "looking after your virtual dosh in virtual wallets?
So, just on that basis alone, how is all this stuff not illegal? Well, in short, I suspect (but don't know) that it is. And that is why most (all?) of the businesses that facilitate the acquisition of crypto currencies do so from outside the EU.
So, if it does all go pear-shaped (as it will) there will be no redress. In the same way that there would be no redress if you decided to hand over your personal pension to some person in Russia you didn't know and didn't have any means of contacting and your hard-earned subsequently vanished. Or if you paid out for on off-plan apartment in Kabul.
In short, it would be unreasonable to expect the UK taxpayer to bail you out for being so foolish and it is pleasingly reassuring to know that they won't.
Some of us have seen it all before, whether it's a Ponzi scheme like KF Concept, run by Kevin Foster; pyramid schemes; ostrich farming; or land banks, there's a never-ending stream of people out there quite happy to take money from the gullible.
Coinbase has a registered company in the U.K. theyre the most popular fiat to crypto portal.
But hey, don’t let me impede in your uneducated, unsourced daily mail style ramblings this fine Thursday morning.
Yes, I know, they've set up a UK company. One which qualifies for the "small company exemption" and continues to make a loss. (Which is interesting.) As I've previously stated, I read their latest accounts lodged with Companies House a few weeks back. It only went to underscore that they don't know what they are doing. Read note 6 to the accounts.
You seem convinced that just because the technology seems like a whizzy thing, the currency side must be too. To me, in my uneducated, un-sourced world, that seems like a huge leap of faith.
While you are an evangelist for this stuff, I have seen nothing at all, ever, that convinces me that it is anything other than another car crash waiting to happen.
The overriding trait of the gullible that invest in such schemes is blind faith but there is invariably another trait and that is greed.
You can do what you like, I don't care but I want to put up a contrary view so that anyone else reading your pseudo-knowledgeable, reasonable-sounding testament might think more than twice before placing their hard-earned into a scheme they don't understand and with people they don't know.
Ignore the word “currency” in cryptocurrency and you might be able to get your head round it.
Cryptotokens are probably a better word for it. You buy tokens to be able to use blockchain (a decentralised network, think of a server but spread over thousands of computers). What those tokens are worth are decided by the market (ie how many people want to use the network).
The reason they are called currency is cos bitcoin and bitcoin founder was the guy who came up with blockchain as an idea.
CL Wealth Warning - When there is perceived "easy money" to be made no one worries about the fact that these vehicles are unregulated - until it all goes wrong that is.
Well, indeed. But while it's true that the whole shebang is seemingly unregulated, should it be, even under existing legislation? Or are the Government, PRA and FCA all asleep at the wheel - should they be handing down more specific warnings?
It's a bit technical but here's what I mean. First, as we all know, in the UK you need authorisation to undertake certain regulated functions. The existing legislation says both accepting deposits and arranging for the safeguarding and administration of assets belonging to another, or offering or agreeing to do so are both regulated activities for which you need authorisation.
Second, the definition of a deposit (we're not talking a security deposit you hand over to DFS for a sofa, that's a pre-payment) is Rights under any contract under which a sum of money (whether or not denominated in a currency) [my emphasis] is paid on terms under which it will be repaid, with or without interest or a premium, and either on demand or at a time or in circumstances agreed by or on behalf of the person making the payment and the person receiving it.
The legislation in part has even been updated to cope with e-money, which is defined aselectronically (including magnetically) stored monetary value. And in the UK you need to be an authorised electronic money institution to play around with other people's e-money.
(It's a bit more complex than that but that will do for these purposes.) So, how is what is happening not caught by the relevant UK legislation: all these people "looking after your virtual dosh in virtual wallets?
So, just on that basis alone, how is all this stuff not illegal? Well, in short, I suspect (but don't know) that it is. And that is why most (all?) of the businesses that facilitate the acquisition of crypto currencies do so from outside the EU.
So, if it does all go pear-shaped (as it will) there will be no redress. In the same way that there would be no redress if you decided to hand over your personal pension to some person in Russia you didn't know and didn't have any means of contacting and your hard-earned subsequently vanished. Or if you paid out for on off-plan apartment in Kabul.
In short, it would be unreasonable to expect the UK taxpayer to bail you out for being so foolish and it is pleasingly reassuring to know that they won't.
Some of us have seen it all before, whether it's a Ponzi scheme like KF Concept, run by Kevin Foster; pyramid schemes; ostrich farming; or land banks, there's a never-ending stream of people out there quite happy to take money from the gullible.
Coinbase has a registered company in the U.K. theyre the most popular fiat to crypto portal.
But hey, don’t let me impede in your uneducated, unsourced daily mail style ramblings this fine Thursday morning.
Yes, I know, they've set up a UK company. One which qualifies for the "small company exemption" and continues to make a loss. (Which is interesting.) As I've previously stated, I read their latest accounts lodged with Companies House a few weeks back. It only went to underscore that they don't know what they are doing. Read note 6 to the accounts.
You seem convinced that just because the technology seems like a whizzy thing, the currency side must be too. To me, in my uneducated, un-sourced world, that seems like a huge leap of faith.
While you are an evangelist for this stuff, I have seen nothing at all, ever, that convinces me that it is anything other than another car crash waiting to happen.
The overriding trait of the gullible that invest in such schemes is blind faith but there is invariably another trait and that is greed. You can do what you like, I don't care but I want to put up a contrary view so that anyone else reading your pseudo-knowledgeable, reasonable-sounding testament might think more than twice before placing their hard-earned into a scheme they don't understand and with people they don't know.
So I’m essentially a con man for warning people not to invest more than they can afford to lose? LOL OK
Oh jaysus, watched the first 20 mins of this panorama and you’re best replacing every time he says “cryptocurrency” with “bitcoin”. When he went to the miners in Iceland I thought “oh good, hopefully he’s gonna start talking about iota etc that don’t need miners and need huge amounts of electricity. Nope, “ermahgerd crypto takes so much energy”.
No mention so far of the uses of crypto currencies apart from “replacing the trusted and glorious banks”, which only a handful are even attempting to do.
That and the use of “faceless” people to make it all seem scary.
Agree with @CAFCsayer just seems a bit shite and researched surface deep.
Truly we are blessed to have you and @CAFCsayer to advise us
To be fair to the bbc and to panorama, they’re not exactly going to list all the numerous positives and then get sued by some one like that idiot they had on that handed her life savings to some one she had just met that day (I mean seriously).
For every bad thing they name in the programme, there are cryptos that address these issues and more.
I’d catch the feature length documentary on Netflix called “banking on bitcoin”.
I'll give it a watch. I am genuinely interested in how all of this develops. Not enough to risk any cash though
Oh jaysus, watched the first 20 mins of this panorama and you’re best replacing every time he says “cryptocurrency” with “bitcoin”. When he went to the miners in Iceland I thought “oh good, hopefully he’s gonna start talking about iota etc that don’t need miners and need huge amounts of electricity. Nope, “ermahgerd crypto takes so much energy”.
No mention so far of the uses of crypto currencies apart from “replacing the trusted and glorious banks”, which only a handful are even attempting to do.
That and the use of “faceless” people to make it all seem scary.
Agree with @CAFCsayer just seems a bit shite and researched surface deep.
Truly we are blessed to have you and @CAFCsayer to advise us
Assuming this was meant as a smarmy comment, I'm just under 340% in profit since Dec 22nd, having already taken out what I originally invested. How are you left?
Good for you and it will be interesting to see where things go from here. I'm quite happy with my conventional investments at present. Fortunately, I don't need to take on anything risky.
CL Wealth Warning - When there is perceived "easy money" to be made no one worries about the fact that these vehicles are unregulated - until it all goes wrong that is.
Well, indeed. But while it's true that the whole shebang is seemingly unregulated, should it be, even under existing legislation? Or are the Government, PRA and FCA all asleep at the wheel - should they be handing down more specific warnings?
It's a bit technical but here's what I mean. First, as we all know, in the UK you need authorisation to undertake certain regulated functions. The existing legislation says both accepting deposits and arranging for the safeguarding and administration of assets belonging to another, or offering or agreeing to do so are both regulated activities for which you need authorisation.
Second, the definition of a deposit (we're not talking a security deposit you hand over to DFS for a sofa, that's a pre-payment) is Rights under any contract under which a sum of money (whether or not denominated in a currency) [my emphasis] is paid on terms under which it will be repaid, with or without interest or a premium, and either on demand or at a time or in circumstances agreed by or on behalf of the person making the payment and the person receiving it.
The legislation in part has even been updated to cope with e-money, which is defined aselectronically (including magnetically) stored monetary value. And in the UK you need to be an authorised electronic money institution to play around with other people's e-money.
(It's a bit more complex than that but that will do for these purposes.) So, how is what is happening not caught by the relevant UK legislation: all these people "looking after your virtual dosh in virtual wallets?
So, just on that basis alone, how is all this stuff not illegal? Well, in short, I suspect (but don't know) that it is. And that is why most (all?) of the businesses that facilitate the acquisition of crypto currencies do so from outside the EU.
So, if it does all go pear-shaped (as it will) there will be no redress. In the same way that there would be no redress if you decided to hand over your personal pension to some person in Russia you didn't know and didn't have any means of contacting and your hard-earned subsequently vanished. Or if you paid out for on off-plan apartment in Kabul.
In short, it would be unreasonable to expect the UK taxpayer to bail you out for being so foolish and it is pleasingly reassuring to know that they won't.
Some of us have seen it all before, whether it's a Ponzi scheme like KF Concept, run by Kevin Foster; pyramid schemes; ostrich farming; or land banks, there's a never-ending stream of people out there quite happy to take money from the gullible.
Coinbase has a registered company in the U.K. theyre the most popular fiat to crypto portal.
But hey, don’t let me impede in your uneducated, unsourced daily mail style ramblings this fine Thursday morning.
Yes, I know, they've set up a UK company. One which qualifies for the "small company exemption" and continues to make a loss. (Which is interesting.) As I've previously stated, I read their latest accounts lodged with Companies House a few weeks back. It only went to underscore that they don't know what they are doing. Read note 6 to the accounts.
You seem convinced that just because the technology seems like a whizzy thing, the currency side must be too. To me, in my uneducated, un-sourced world, that seems like a huge leap of faith.
While you are an evangelist for this stuff, I have seen nothing at all, ever, that convinces me that it is anything other than another car crash waiting to happen.
The overriding trait of the gullible that invest in such schemes is blind faith but there is invariably another trait and that is greed.
You can do what you like, I don't care but I want to put up a contrary view so that anyone else reading your pseudo-knowledgeable, reasonable-sounding testament might think more than twice before placing their hard-earned into a scheme they don't understand and with people they don't know.
Ignore the word “currency” in cryptocurrency and you might be able to get your head round it.
Cryptotokens are probably a better word for it. You buy tokens to be able to use blockchain (a decentralised network, think of a server but spread over thousands of computers). What those tokens are worth are decided by the market (ie how many people want to use the network).
The reason they are called currency is cos bitcoin and bitcoin founder was the guy who came up with blockchain as an idea.
And that's why it's all bogus. Currency, coin, token, milk bottle top, you can call it what you like but if it walks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, its more than likely a duck.
The only reason that there are all these ICOs is that the outfits hoping to fund their "product" would find it very difficult to raise money through a traditional share placement because they'd have to provide a full-blown prospectus and what are the chances that that would pass close scrutiny?
The reasons blockchain, however clever, will fail (or at least, reduce to a few options) are many. First, and primarily, it's (deliberately?) too complicated for the man in the street to understand or even begin to understand. Second why would I want to pay to buy a token to use blockchain? What are the ACTUAL benefits? From what you and others have said there are fees to get at your tokens (unless you set up some convoluted scheme to avoid that), there are delays in payouts being received at times, wallets have been hacked, tokens stolen, and once a "payment has been made it's final. If you lose or forget you passkey you are stuffed. None of that sounds like a sensible plan to me.
All of that is very different from my world, there is nothing I want to buy that I can't use regular money for; I pay nothing to my bank to make a SEPA payment which gets to, for example, my supplier in Germany immediately; if I'm buying something and it turns out to be not fit for purpose or the supplier goes bust, I can use the Consumer Credit Act to claim my money back from my credit card company; even if my bank account gets hacked I'll get my money back; and if I forget my PIN, I'll get a new one sent to me. Until blockchain gets to this stage of being able to give reassurances about monetary safety and to be open about who you are dealing with it is a product for the margins and the criminal and will not break through to the mainstream.You (or someone else) have extolled the merits of blockchain for b2b contracts but how do you replace stuff like export credit guarantees?
CL Wealth Warning - When there is perceived "easy money" to be made no one worries about the fact that these vehicles are unregulated - until it all goes wrong that is.
iThe legislation in part has even been updated to cope with e-money, which is defined aselectronically (including magnetically) stored monetary value. And in the UK you need to be an authorised electronic money institution to play around with other people's e-money.
(It's a bit more complex than that but that will do for these purposes.) So, how is what is happening not caught by the relevant UK legislation: all these people "looking after your virtual dosh in virtual wallets?
So, just on that basis alone, how is all this stuff not illegal? Well, in short, I suspect (but don't know) that it is. And that is why most (all?) of the businesses that facilitate the acquisition of crypto currencies do so from outside the EU.
So, if it does all go pear-shaped (as it will) there will be no redress. In the same way that there would be no redress if you decided to hand over your personal pension to some person in Russia you didn't know and didn't have any means of contacting and your hard-earned subsequently vanished. Or if you paid out for on off-plan apartment in Kabul.
In short, it would be unreasonable to expect the UK taxpayer to bail you out for being so foolish and it is pleasingly reassuring to know that they won't.
Some of us have seen it all before, whether it's a Ponzi scheme like KF Concept, run by Kevin Foster; pyramid schemes; ostrich farming; or land
Yes, I know, they've set up a UK company. One which qualifies for the "small company exemption" and continues to make a loss. (Which is interesting.) As I've previously stated, I read their latest accounts lodged with Companies House a few weeks back. It only went to underscore that they don't know what they are doing. Read note 6 to the accounts.
You seem convinced that just because the technology seems like a whizzy thing, the currency side must be too. To me, in my uneducated, un-sourced world, that seems like a huge leap of faith.
While you are an evangelist for this stuff, I have seen nothing at all, ever, that convinces me that it is anything other than another car crash waiting to happen.
The overriding trait of the gullible that invest in such schemes is blind faith but there is invariably another trait and that is greed.
You can do what you like, I don't care but I want to put up a contrary view so that anyone else reading your pseudo-knowledgeable, reasonable-sounding testament might think more than twice before placing their hard-earned into a scheme they don't understand and with people they don't know.
Ignore the word “currency” in cryptocurrency and you might be able to get your head round it.
Cryptotokens are probably a better word for it. You buy tokens to be able to use blockchain (a decentralised network, think of a server but spread over thousands of computers). What those tokens are worth are decided by the market (ie how many people want to use the network).
The reason they are called currency is cos bitcoin and bitcoin founder was the guy who came up with blockchain as an idea.
And that's why it's all bogus. Currency, coin, token, milk bottle top, you can call it what you like but if it walks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, its more than likely a duck.
The only reason that there are all these ICOs is that the outfits hoping to fund their "product" would find it very difficult to raise money through a traditional share placement because they'd have to provide a full-blown prospectus and what are the chances that that would pass close scrutiny?
The reasons blockchain, however clever, will fail (or at least, reduce to a few options) are many. First, and primarily, it's (deliberately?) too complicated for the man in the street to understand or even begin to understand. Second why would I want to pay to buy a token to use blockchain? What are the ACTUAL benefits? From what you and others have said there are fees to get at your tokens (unless you set up some convoluted scheme to avoid that), there are delays in payouts being received at times, wallets have been hacked, tokens stolen, and once a "payment has been made it's final. If you lose or forget you passkey you are stuffed. None of that sounds like a sensible plan to me.
All of that is very different from my world, there is nothing I want to buy that I can't use regular money for; I pay nothing to my bank to make a SEPA payment which gets to, for example, my supplier in Germany immediately; if I'm buying something and it turns out to be not fit for purpose or the supplier goes bust, I can use the Consumer Credit Act to claim my money back from my credit card company; even if my bank account gets hacked I'll get my money back; and if I forget my PIN, I'll get a new one sent to me. Until blockchain gets to this stage of being able to give reassurances about monetary safety and to be open about who you are dealing with it is a product for the margins and the criminal and will not break through to the mainstream.You (or someone else) have extolled the merits of blockchain for b2b contracts but how do you replace stuff like export credit guarantees?
I suppose the internet is too complicated for the man on the street to work out how to create themselves a modem so it’s doomed to fail(!)
Wallets very very rarely get hacked. The only wallets that do get hacked are the exchanges wallets. That’s because they have a big X on them because they’re a big exchange and is worth much more of the hacker’s time (it would literally take months for some one to do it).
The entire point and reason cryptocurrency was created because it is far cheaper to use that system than any system the banking sector uses at the moment (and is the reason banks are beginning to use crypto currencies). It’s also a lot lot quicker if you were to use nano or iota. It’s instant and no fees whatsoever for anyone.
But AGAIN, let’s move away from banking, despite you getting drawn back into it.
Why would you want to use blockchain? Because it’s incredibly secure, if one part of it goes down, the rest of the network is there, it’s unhackable. If you have a server in a warehouse in China doing things (and for every bank transfer there is a server somewhere doing the work) which can burn down, power off suddenly etc or get hacked far more easily.
There are for sure teething problems (that would be helped by legislation), but these problems could be easily fixed. It’s code at the end of the day.
I honestly don’t know why you don’t think, in particular digital contracts will not be incredibly useful for everybody.
Again, banking on bitcoin is a great documentary to watch about this, including what a massive difference crypto could make to those in developing countries and without any means of creating a bank account.
Ps just because you Don’t understand it doesn’t mean “the Everyman” on the street doesn’t understand it. Pretty sure in the panorama programme there was some diddy middle aged woman getting along just fine?
CL Wealth Warning - When there is perceived "easy money" to be made no one worries about the fact that these vehicles are unregulated - until it all goes wrong that is.
Well, indeed. But while it's true that the whole shebang is seemingly unregulated, should it be, even under existing legislation? Or are the Government, PRA and FCA all asleep at the wheel - should they be handing down more specific warnings?
It's a bit technical but here's what I mean. First, as we all know, in the UK you need authorisation to undertake certain regulated functions. The existing legislation says both accepting deposits and arranging for the safeguarding and administration of assets belonging to another, or offering or agreeing to do so are both regulated activities for which you need authorisation.
Second, the definition of a deposit (we're not talking a security deposit you hand over to DFS for a sofa, that's a pre-payment) is Rights under any contract under which a sum of money (whether or not denominated in a currency) [my emphasis] is paid on terms under which it will be repaid, with or without interest or a premium, and either on demand or at a time or in circumstances agreed by or on behalf of the person making the payment and the person receiving it.
The legislation in part has even been updated to cope with e-money, which is defined aselectronically (including magnetically) stored monetary value. And in the UK you need to be an authorised electronic money institution to play around with other people's e-money.
(It's a bit more complex than that but that will do for these purposes.) So, how is what is happening not caught by the relevant UK legislation: all these people "looking after your virtual dosh in virtual wallets?
So, just on that basis alone, how is all this stuff not illegal? Well, in short, I suspect (but don't know) that it is. And that is why most (all?) of the businesses that facilitate the acquisition of crypto currencies do so from outside the EU.
So, if it does all go pear-shaped (as it will) there will be no redress. In the same way that there would be no redress if you decided to hand over your personal pension to some person in Russia you didn't know and didn't have any means of contacting and your hard-earned subsequently vanished. Or if you paid out for on off-plan apartment in Kabul.
In short, it would be unreasonable to expect the UK taxpayer to bail you out for being so foolish and it is pleasingly reassuring to know that they won't.
Some of us have seen it all before, whether it's a Ponzi scheme like KF Concept, run by Kevin Foster; pyramid schemes; ostrich farming; or land banks, there's a never-ending stream of people out there quite happy to take money from the gullible.
Coinbase has a registered company in the U.K. theyre the most popular fiat to crypto portal.
But hey, don’t let me impede in your uneducated, unsourced daily mail style ramblings this fine Thursday morning.
Yes, I know, they've set up a UK company. One which qualifies for the "small company exemption" and continues to make a loss. (Which is interesting.) As I've previously stated, I read their latest accounts lodged with Companies House a few weeks back. It only went to underscore that they don't know what they are doing. Read note 6 to the accounts.
You seem convinced that just because the technology seems like a whizzy thing, the currency side must be too. To me, in my uneducated, un-sourced world, that seems like a huge leap of faith.
While you are an evangelist for this stuff, I have seen nothing at all, ever, that convinces me that it is anything other than another car crash waiting to happen.
The overriding trait of the gullible that invest in such schemes is blind faith but there is invariably another trait and that is greed. You can do what you like, I don't care but I want to put up a contrary view so that anyone else reading your pseudo-knowledgeable, reasonable-sounding testament might think more than twice before placing their hard-earned into a scheme they don't understand and with people they don't know.
So I’m essentially a con man for warning people not to invest more than they can afford to lose? LOL OK
You have used this technique throughout: throwing out phraseology and LOLs to imply ridicule to anyone who disagrees with you. Thereby indicating you are the expert and everyone else is a motley fool. It is not an attractive look but is a trait commonly used by conmen and fraudsters.....
Let's take the seemingly fine "don't invest more than you can afford to lose" phrase rolled out on a regular basis. It's misleading: I could "afford to lose" maybe £0.9-£1.2mn. But I'd sure as hell miss it if it was gone. And as sure as hell I'm not putting any of it into cryptos.
Surely a better phrase would be don't invest anything in anything you don't understand?
In my working life, I got to interview, on tape, large numbers of people varying in ability from CEOs of large insurance companies down to sellers of non-existent car and mobile phone insurance and out-and-out snake oil salesmen. They all had one thing in common; they were bullies who attempted to shout down any opposition in the hope they'd just find the whole experience too unpleasant and give up (think Robert Maxwell) . Experience had told them this technique worked. But, of course at the endgame, it didn't.
One of the abiding pleasures I got from doing this work was merely requiring interviewees to explain their jargon. (Most people don't do that, they just try to avoid embarrassment, nod sagely and pretend to be entirely familiar with the gobbledegook.) It was a never-ending amusement to listen to them try to explain in plain English exactly what the jargon meant.
Ps just because you Don’t understand it doesn’t mean “the Everyman” on the street doesn’t understand it. Pretty sure in the panorama programme there was some diddy middle aged woman getting along just fine?
Passengers on the Titanic were having a whale of a time til it sank.
Ps just because you Don’t understand it doesn’t mean “the Everyman” on the street doesn’t understand it. Pretty sure in the panorama programme there was some diddy middle aged woman getting along just fine?
Ps just because you Don’t understand it doesn’t mean “the Everyman” on the street doesn’t understand it. Pretty sure in the panorama programme there was some diddy middle aged woman getting along just fine?
He clearly doesn't understand how google works, Crypto's are way out of reach, I feel.
Ps just because you Don’t understand it doesn’t mean “the Everyman” on the street doesn’t understand it. Pretty sure in the panorama programme there was some diddy middle aged woman getting along just fine?
She was running a loss to be fair
Cos she got in at the peak of the market, seems the requirement for making an appearance was being an idiot on that programme. Where was the interviews with the bitcoin miners?
CL Wealth Warning - When there is perceived "easy money" to be made no one worries about the fact that these vehicles are unregulated - until it all goes wrong that is.
Well, indeed. But while it's true that the whole shebang is seemingly unregulated, should it be, even under existing legislation? Or are the Government, PRA and FCA all asleep at the wheel - should they be handing down more specific warnings?
It's a bit technical but here's what I mean. First, as we all know, in the UK you need authorisation to undertake certain regulated functions. The existing legislation says both accepting deposits and arranging for the safeguarding and administration of assets belonging to another, or offering or agreeing to do so are both regulated activities for which you need authorisation.
Second, the definition of a deposit (we're not talking a security deposit you hand over to DFS for a sofa, that's a pre-payment) is Rights under any contract under which a sum of money (whether or not denominated in a currency) [my emphasis] is paid on terms under which it will be repaid, with or without interest or a premium, and either on demand or at a time or in circumstances agreed by or on behalf of the person making the payment and the person receiving it.
The legislation in part has even been updated to cope with e-money, which is defined aselectronically (including magnetically) stored monetary value. And in the UK you need to be an authorised electronic money institution to play around with other people's e-money.
(It's a bit more complex than that but that will do for these purposes.) So, how is what is happening not caught by the relevant UK legislation: all these people "looking after your virtual dosh in virtual wallets?
So, just on that basis alone, how is all this stuff not illegal? Well, in short, I suspect (but don't know) that it is. And that is why most (all?) of the businesses that facilitate the acquisition of crypto currencies do so from outside the EU.
So, if it does all go pear-shaped (as it will) there will be no redress. In the same way that there would be no redress if you decided to hand over your personal pension to some person in Russia you didn't know and didn't have any means of contacting and your hard-earned subsequently vanished. Or if you paid out for on off-plan apartment in Kabul.
In short, it would be unreasonable to expect the UK taxpayer to bail you out for being so foolish and it is pleasingly reassuring to know that they won't.
Some of us have seen it all before, whether it's a Ponzi scheme like KF Concept, run by Kevin Foster; pyramid schemes; ostrich farming; or land banks, there's a never-ending stream of people out there quite happy to take money from the gullible.
Coinbase has a registered company in the U.K. theyre the most popular fiat to crypto portal.
But hey, don’t let me impede in your uneducated, unsourced daily mail style ramblings this fine Thursday morning.
Yes, I know, they've set up a UK company. One which qualifies for the "small company exemption" and continues to make a loss. (Which is interesting.) As I've previously stated, I read their latest accounts lodged with Companies House a few weeks back. It only went to underscore that they don't know what they are doing. Read note 6 to the accounts.
You seem convinced that just because the technology seems like a whizzy thing, the currency side must be too. To me, in my uneducated, un-sourced world, that seems like a huge leap of faith.
While you are an evangelist for this stuff, I have seen nothing at all, ever, that convinces me that it is anything other than another car crash waiting to happen.
The overriding trait of the gullible that invest in such schemes is blind faith but there is invariably another trait and that is greed. You can do what you like, I don't care but I want to put up a contrary view so that anyone else reading your pseudo-knowledgeable, reasonable-sounding testament might think more than twice before placing their hard-earned into a scheme they don't understand and with people they don't know.
So I’m essentially a con man for warning people not to invest more than they can afford to lose? LOL OK
You have used this technique throughout: throwing out phraseology and LOLs to imply ridicule to anyone who disagrees with you. Thereby indicating you are the expert and everyone else is a motley fool. It is not an attractive look but is a trait commonly used by conmen and fraudsters.....
Let's take the seemingly fine "don't invest more than you can afford to lose" phrase rolled out on a regular basis. It's misleading: I could "afford to lose" maybe £0.9-£1.2mn. But I'd sure as hell miss it if it was gone. And as sure as hell I'm not putting any of it into cryptos.
Surely a better phrase would be don't invest anything in anything you don't understand?
In my working life, I got to interview, on tape, large numbers of people varying in ability from CEOs of large insurance companies down to sellers of non-existent car and mobile phone insurance and out-and-out snake oil salesmen. They all had one thing in common; they were bullies who attempted to shout down any opposition in the hope they'd just find the whole experience too unpleasant and give up (think Robert Maxwell) . Experience had told them this technique worked. But, of course at the endgame, it didn't.
One of the abiding pleasures I got from doing this work was merely requiring interviewees to explain their jargon. (Most people don't do that, they just try to avoid embarrassment, nod sagely and pretend to be entirely familiar with the gobbledegook.) It was a never-ending amusement to listen to them try to explain in plain English exactly what the jargon meant.
Read back through the thread. I got a bit ticked off at having to repeat myself about 10 times. You have to laugh or you go insane (I mean just look at the red bull banter on the takeover thread!)
Ps just because you Don’t understand it doesn’t mean “the Everyman” on the street doesn’t understand it. Pretty sure in the panorama programme there was some diddy middle aged woman getting along just fine?
Passengers on the Titanic were having a whale of a time til it sank.
The titanic passengers were funding terrorism too?! Wow.
Once again. This is a potentially great thread. @kentaddick has been the main driver, and in my view he has done it in a mature way which reflects well on him as a Lifer. As a result, and heeding his oft-written warning, "only put in what you can afford to lose" I have done exactly that, mainly in Vechain because I understand its very useful real world use.
Even if I lose it all, it will be a lot less than when around the time of the financial crisis, I was persuaded against my better judgement to invest a unit trust focused on gold. It quickly halved in value. It is a regular unit trust, still today pushed by Hargreaves-Lansdowne and the like. No one protected me, and why should they have done? I should have reminded myself that most of the strongest proponents of gold I know are barking mad conspiracy theorists. (Similarly I now have a rule in life that anything proposed by Boris Johnson is a very bad idea for all whom it affects)
I equally appreciate some of the criticisms here of the phenomenon, because they come from people for whom I have enormous respect for their professional knowledge. They know who they are. I know of no other place on the net where both sides can present their views, and we can watch how the real world puts these views to the test on a daily basis.
So to the critics I just want to say, shoot the message by all means, but not the messenger. @kentaddick isn't a snake-oil salesman. There is a technology development here, which we all need to understand. If you can afford it, there are few better ways to learn about it than to dabble in it and learn about what happens to your money. I bet some of the critics did the same thing in the time of the first Internet boom.
Finally, my nephew bought me a book on the subject. I am finding it pretty educational.
Comments
No mention so far of the uses of crypto currencies apart from “replacing the trusted and glorious banks”, which only a handful are even attempting to do.
That and the use of “faceless” people to make it all seem scary.
Agree with @CAFCsayer just seems a bit shite and researched surface deep.
For every bad thing they name in the programme, there are cryptos that address these issues and more.
I’d catch the feature length documentary on Netflix called “banking on bitcoin”.
You seem convinced that just because the technology seems like a whizzy thing, the currency side must be too. To me, in my uneducated, un-sourced world, that seems like a huge leap of faith.
While you are an evangelist for this stuff, I have seen nothing at all, ever, that convinces me that it is anything other than another car crash waiting to happen.
The overriding trait of the gullible that invest in such schemes is blind faith but there is invariably another trait and that is greed.
You can do what you like, I don't care but I want to put up a contrary view so that anyone else reading your pseudo-knowledgeable, reasonable-sounding testament might think more than twice before placing their hard-earned into a scheme they don't understand and with people they don't know.
Cryptotokens are probably a better word for it. You buy tokens to be able to use blockchain (a decentralised network, think of a server but spread over thousands of computers). What those tokens are worth are decided by the market (ie how many people want to use the network).
The reason they are called currency is cos bitcoin and bitcoin founder was the guy who came up with blockchain as an idea.
The only reason that there are all these ICOs is that the outfits hoping to fund their "product" would find it very difficult to raise money through a traditional share placement because they'd have to provide a full-blown prospectus and what are the chances that that would pass close scrutiny?
The reasons blockchain, however clever, will fail (or at least, reduce to a few options) are many. First, and primarily, it's (deliberately?) too complicated for the man in the street to understand or even begin to understand. Second why would I want to pay to buy a token to use blockchain? What are the ACTUAL benefits? From what you and others have said there are fees to get at your tokens (unless you set up some convoluted scheme to avoid that), there are delays in payouts being received at times, wallets have been hacked, tokens stolen, and once a "payment has been made it's final. If you lose or forget you passkey you are stuffed. None of that sounds like a sensible plan to me.
All of that is very different from my world, there is nothing I want to buy that I can't use regular money for; I pay nothing to my bank to make a SEPA payment which gets to, for example, my supplier in Germany immediately; if I'm buying something and it turns out to be not fit for purpose or the supplier goes bust, I can use the Consumer Credit Act to claim my money back from my credit card company; even if my bank account gets hacked I'll get my money back; and if I forget my PIN, I'll get a new one sent to me. Until blockchain gets to this stage of being able to give reassurances about monetary safety and to be open about who you are dealing with it is a product for the margins and the criminal and will not break through to the mainstream.You (or someone else) have extolled the merits of blockchain for b2b contracts but how do you replace stuff like export credit guarantees?
Let's take the seemingly fine "don't invest more than you can afford to lose" phrase rolled out on a regular basis. It's misleading: I could "afford to lose" maybe £0.9-£1.2mn. But I'd sure as hell miss it if it was gone. And as sure as hell I'm not putting any of it into cryptos.
Surely a better phrase would be don't invest anything in anything you don't understand?
In my working life, I got to interview, on tape, large numbers of people varying in ability from CEOs of large insurance companies down to sellers of non-existent car and mobile phone insurance and out-and-out snake oil salesmen. They all had one thing in common; they were bullies who attempted to shout down any opposition in the hope they'd just find the whole experience too unpleasant and give up (think Robert Maxwell) . Experience had told them this technique worked. But, of course at the endgame, it didn't.
One of the abiding pleasures I got from doing this work was merely requiring interviewees to explain their jargon. (Most people don't do that, they just try to avoid embarrassment, nod sagely and pretend to be entirely familiar with the gobbledegook.) It was a never-ending amusement to listen to them try to explain in plain English exactly what the jargon meant.
Even if I lose it all, it will be a lot less than when around the time of the financial crisis, I was persuaded against my better judgement to invest a unit trust focused on gold. It quickly halved in value. It is a regular unit trust, still today pushed by Hargreaves-Lansdowne and the like. No one protected me, and why should they have done? I should have reminded myself that most of the strongest proponents of gold I know are barking mad conspiracy theorists. (Similarly I now have a rule in life that anything proposed by Boris Johnson is a very bad idea for all whom it affects)
I equally appreciate some of the criticisms here of the phenomenon, because they come from people for whom I have enormous respect for their professional knowledge. They know who they are. I know of no other place on the net where both sides can present their views, and we can watch how the real world puts these views to the test on a daily basis.
So to the critics I just want to say, shoot the message by all means, but not the messenger. @kentaddick isn't a snake-oil salesman. There is a technology development here, which we all need to understand. If you can afford it, there are few better ways to learn about it than to dabble in it and learn about what happens to your money. I bet some of the critics did the same thing in the time of the first Internet boom.
Finally, my nephew bought me a book on the subject. I am finding it pretty educational.