[Daily Discussion] Sunday, June 16, 2019 Bitcoin Markets |
- [Daily Discussion] Sunday, June 16, 2019
- [Altcoin Discussion] Sunday, June 16, 2019
- How Bitmex is stealing from large customers.
- How much money is making BitMEX?
- Kimberley Process: helps or not?
| [Daily Discussion] Sunday, June 16, 2019 Posted: 15 Jun 2019 09:06 PM PDT Thread topics include, but are not limited to:
Thread guidelines:
Other ways to interact:
[link] [comments]  |
| [Altcoin Discussion] Sunday, June 16, 2019 Posted: 15 Jun 2019 09:07 PM PDT Thread topics include, but are not limited to:
Thread guidelines:
If you're not sure what kind of discussion belongs in this thread, here are some example posts. News, TA, and sentiment analysis are great, too. Other ways to interact:
[link] [comments]  |
| How Bitmex is stealing from large customers. Posted: 15 Jun 2019 08:55 PM PDT Wrote this in a comment reply but I feel like it warrants its own post and discussion: Here's the problem: The difference between the liquidation price and bankruptcy price gets bigger and bigger as the maintenance margin rises from the initial 0.5% up 0.5% every 100 BTC in additional position size on perps and every 50 BTC in additional position size on futures. If you are trading large positions on high leverage, your maintenance margin can go up to 8% (largest it ever was for me, but if I had done bigger size it would have been higher). This means your liquidation price is a solid 8% higher/lower (depending on whether you are long/short). So if you are on 10x leverage, normally price would need to move 9.5 percent to liquidate you, but now it only has to move 2%, 10x leverage effectively becomes 50x leverage because of the ridiculous increases in maintenance margin. Thus, the larger positions are getting liquidated easiest, quickly increasing the size of the insurance fund because 8% is taken. In order to feasibly trade larger positions of over 1000 BTC in total size, one is only able to use very low leverage - usually under 5x in order to get semi-reasonable liquidations prices, which won't get triggered by a single digit percentage swing. And when you get liquidated, you are always still getting massively scammed whatever your leverage is, because you are getting liquidted - EVEN THOUGH YOU HAVE ENOUGH MARGIN ALLOCATED TO THE POSITION TO SUPPORT ANOTHER 8% price movement against you (in my case). The margin requirement pre-supposes that my liquidation won't get filled within the bankruptcy price - this is not supported by the past 1 year of trading, in which volumes have increased and auto deleveraging has gone almost extinct. This structure made sense in the early days - when bitmex had low volume and auto deleveraging was consant (liquidations were not getting filled between the liquidation price and bankruptcy price, they were getting filled lower in case of longs and above in case of shorts) because of lack of volume. Today, their volume is huge and auto deleveraging almost never happens because liquidations are getting filled quickly, due to more users and more volume. The maintenance margin requirements have, however, remained the same for the past 3 years. IN FACT, in the case of futures, they have gotten worse, as they used to be the same as perps - 0.5% increase every 100 BTC, not every 50 BTC as is the case now. This is DESPITE massive increase in volume on futures!. Conclusion: Maintenance margins are EXCESSIVELY HIGH Excessively high, progressive maintenance margin means that large traders are getting massively FUCKED. Their positions get liquidated EXTREMELY PREMATURELY, because of the insane increases in required margin. Those liquidations get easily filled because the volume is high Required margins are put into insurance fund, which never gets used up because the volume is so high it unecessary. MY OPINION: This is PURE THEFT by Bitmex. PURE THEFT. EDIT: Also, the insurance fund doesn't protect you from losses - it prevents deleveraging which might cause you to realize less profit than you would have if you closed when you wanted. The purpose of deleveraging is to protect bitmex from losses - they dont cover out of pocket when a liquidation doesnt get filled within its bankruptcy price. Thus, the insurance fund is to alleviate pain to the user from possible deleveraging - which results from the LEGITIMATE AND NECESSARY need of Bitmex to protect themselves from liability. HOWEVER, the current environment of high volume on bitmex means that autodeleveraging is almost never necessary - yet the insurance fund is getting grossly full because the margin requirements are SET UP IN AN ENVIRONMENT OF LOW VOLUME AND FREQUENT DELEVERAGING when the exchange opened. EDIT 2: Don't get me wrong, I love Bitmex, I think its the best futures exchange and the most secure, best and most reliable payouts, its great, I use it, I love it. But this is a legitimate issue in their structure right now that needs to be addressed just as much as the overload issues. [link] [comments]  |
| How much money is making BitMEX? Posted: 15 Jun 2019 06:14 PM PDT BitMEX is trading more than $1B per day, and for every trade there is always one part paying a fee (0.075%) and another one receiving it (-0.025%) so BitMEX is making 0.05% of every trade. That means is making $500K per day only with the fees? I was trying to calculate this and the numbers blowed my mind so I'm wondering if it is correct. What do you think? [link] [comments]  |
| Kimberley Process: helps or not? Posted: 16 Jun 2019 06:59 AM PDT Blood diamonds appeared on the market more than 10 years ago what led to creation a system to liquidate their trading. But this system is not transparent, so it backwards creates an ideal cover story. To solve this problem, the Kimberley process was started. The Kimberley process is a certification system including a series of reports to clarify the relations between diamond trading and conflicts financing. But this process has many flaws. Firstly, it solves only the problem of mining and trading conflict diamonds, but forgets about unfair salary, child slavery, other problems with diamond mining jobs. Secondly, it can't prevent eviction of those people who live on diamond mines. Or this can lead to more serious problems - in 2008 Zimbabwean soldiers killed 200 people during such a conflict. Moreover, a Kimberley Process certificate applies to a batch of diamonds, not to an individual stone which then cut and shipped around the world without a tracking system. The Kimberley Process has failed on its own terms: corruption and smuggling are rife, and in the past few years, the system has begun to unravel further from the inside. Combine these withdraws and you have a system propped up by the very people that profit from the industry. I.e. the Kimberley Process provides a convenient smoke cloud. This situation and other problems on the global diamond market gave us a push to create Diamond Open Market with fair prices available to everyone. The reality is that the diamond business will only improve when it has no choice but to change or face falling profits. [link] [comments]  |
| You are subscribed to email updates from Sharing of ideas, tips, and strategies for increasing your Bitcoin trading profits. To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google, 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, United States | |
No comments:
Post a Comment