Is there an undisclosed truth about the UK FCA binance ban on their derivative products? Recently, there were reports about certain products being banned from being traded in the UK on the world’s largest cryptocurrency exchange, binance. In response, a binance spokesman stated the following: “The FCA (Financial Conduct Authority) UK notice has no direct impact on the services provided on Binance.com. Our relationship with our users has not changed.” In response, mass financial media around picked up this comment and repeated it like obedient parrots as truth, spewing nonsense about how these new UK regulations changes absolutely nothing for all cryptocurrency HODLers and traders. From a common sense perspective, does this sound accurate? Why would the UK’s top finance regulator issue a statement about binance if it literally changes nothing as claimed by the binance spokesperson.
Of course, the issued statement surprised me not at all, as I told my skwealthacademy patrons in June that statements provided on the binance site about products directly affected by the UK binance ban were completely misleading to the point of being downright fraudulent in my opinion, and were designed to prey on green cryptocurrency traders that had no idea what they were doing. And my statement turned out to be prescient, as by the end of the month, these cryptocurrency products were not allowed to trade at all on the binance exchange in the UK. Understand that I need to qualify the leading statements to this article with the words “in my opinion” only to avoid the possibility of litigation with entities that have much deeper pockets than myself and that if this were not the case, I would be much more harsh in my condemnation of many of the completely unethical, misleading business practices engaged in by the world’s largest cryptocurrency exchanges.
But the bigger question, that seems to be unanswered by anyone on the major cryptocurrency news sites, is how does the UK binance ban of regulated cryptocurrency products affect future cryptocurrency price movements, if at all? Because not only did binance have to withdraw all offering of these products, for which it had captured the largest market share in the entire world, but it also had to immediately cease all advertising of these products in the UK.
Thus, the question of how the complete evaporation of this market in the UK will affect future prices of BTC and ETC in immediate term to short term markets would be completely open to debate but for the fact that this debate does not even exist among cryptocurrency enthusiasts. Don’t believe me? Simply Google, “How does the UK binance ban affect BTC and ETH prices?” and investigate the top results returned on the first page of this search.
Of course, the FCA has been disguising the ban of cryptocurrency derivative products in the UK under the guise of preventing money laundering activities, which is absurd, because if dirty money were to be laundered in the cryptocurrency markets, they would almost certainly be laundered through trading of the actual cryptocurrencies like tether, versus trading of any cryptocurrency derivative product. Other headlines in the top results are just lies and absurdly comical. For example, on the first page of results is a headline from Yahoo Finance that reported, “Bitcoin rises as UK financial watchdog bans Binance cryptocurrency exchange.” This headline is not even truthful. The UK FCA never banned the binance exchange from operating in the UK and to this date, the binance exchange is still not banned from operations within the UK.
Another article from coindesk on Google’s first page of results blared the headline: “Market Wrap: Cryptocurrencies Rise Despite Binance UK Warning”, another completely misleading headline as the FCA did not issue only a warning to binance, but the FCA outright banned some of binance’s cryptocurrency products from being advertised, sold, and traded within the UK. Secondly, the implication and suggestion of the headline that BTC and ETH prices defied the ban and that prices rose after the ban because of the resiliency of cryptocurrencies to all attempts to regulate them and make them illegal is comical. In this same article, Mati Greenspan, Quantum Economics CEO, was quoted as stating, “This [the FCA ban] in no way indicates a policy shift from the U.K. regulators regarding crypto assets,” another completely asinine and false statement, in my opinion, because a very significant and influential relationship between cryptocurrency derivative markets and cryptocurrency prices exists.
What do we know to be correct about the FCA ban on a very substantial portion of binance traded products with a very substantial market cap in the UK? We know that every single article posted on the top cryptocurrency news networks that stated this ban represented zero change in policy and will have zero effect on current users of the binance exchange and on cryptocurrency prices in the future are extremely likely to be completely misleading and false. If you understand this much and want to now more of what I have to say about this development, then join my skwealthacademy patron platform as I will release a podcast later today in which I discuss the very significant implications of this FCA ban on future cryptocurrency prices.
This means had Saylor simply followed my guidance instead of his own speculative sell and buy methodology, he could have sold his entire 2020 stake of btc at near $60,000 and repurchased more than twice as many bitcoins at a sub-$30,000 price. Furthermore, in addition to this behavior, had Saylor followed my patron platform guidance, he would have saved about $112M in his most recent purchase of bitcoin. Instead of paying $498M for his most recent purchase of btc, he would have spent about $386M, but to a billionaire, I suppose a savings of $112M on a purchase of 13,005 bitcoins is not that important.
In fact, even though many in the btc community turn to Saylor for btc buying guidance that he gladly doles out on numerous financial talk shows, in my opinion, Saylor’s consistent pumping of btc prices is the equivalent of Ja Rule ‘s promise of exclusivity and luxury treatment regarding the Fyre musical festival that turned out to be completely misleading and deceptive. The reason I go so hard in my criticisms against people like Saylor is because I believe, like Ja Rule, they prey on the naivete of people to exploit them into making bad decisions that serve to only enrich themselves. Of course this is only my opinion, and if you asked Michael Saylor about my opinion, he would deny it and state that I was 100% wrong. Only time will tell, if Saylor quietly dumps his entire btc stake while continuing to pump it on talk shows, if I was right or wrong about him. However, if you ever ask any of my patrons, none of them would ever honestly tell you that I deliver financial analysis about any asset, cryptocurrencies or otherwise, that I don’t 100% believe is in the best interests of everyone that holds, purchases or sells the assets that I analyze. In fact, Saylor continuously tells the bitcoin community only things that its members want to hear. This salacious behavior alone should be a massive red flag. Anyone that only tells people what they want to hear is never going to be a good analyst.
My patrons will tell you that no matter if the asset was gold, silver, bitcoin, platinum, specific stocks, there have been numerous times I issued warnings about future asset price behaiovr they did not want to hear. A good analyst has to be a rock solid voice of reason and be willing to push back against consensus views at times with unpopular views. For example, when silver reached $30 an ounce in futures markets in January, I issued a warning to my patrons to refrain from buying more additional silver at such a high prices because I foresaw a significant price crash on the horizon. Do you want to know when the silver price crash started? The very next day after I issued my warning. No one that holds an asset wants to hear that an asset price is going to crash, even if the crash is temporary, but this is the difficult part about honest analysis. We must be willing to tell those that look to us for guidance things that are difficult to hear, even extremely difficult to hear, to the point where we know some people will stop subscribing to us because we are unwilling to soothe their fears and tell them that “everything will be fine” when we don’t believe that it will be.
In fact, in future months, I will take a closer look at Michael Saylor’s braggadocious comments about bitcoin and will provide further analysis about why his comments make him the equivalent of being the Ja Rule of the bitcoin world. Who is Ja Rule you might ask? Ja Rule is an American rapper that promoted a luxury, high-end Fyre musical festival in the Bahama islands, for which people duped by Ja Rule’s empty promises paid £400 to in excess of £300,000 per ticket. However, despite slick promotional marketing commercials and the recruitment of models and celebrities to promote the Fyre festival, every single promise of delivered luxury during the music festival was broken. Attendees were served poor government-quality cheese sandwiches as their “luxury” meals and slept in UN-style refugee tents as their luxury accommodations.
And as much disdain as I hold for people like Saylor because I honestly believe that his commentary is carefully crafted to exploit the inexperience and vulnerability of investors seeking a quick score and a rags to riches story that will lead to the financial ruin of thousands of people, are people like him as bad as the social media influencers that push charity alt coins that are nothing but pump and dump schemes? Of course not. But that said, I always hate to observe situations in which I believe influential people deliberately exploit the naivete and inexperience of others for personal benefit. When I lived in Japan, I learned that the Japanese have a popular saying, ” Saru mo ki kara ochiru,” which means “Even monkeys can fall from trees”. But who are the monkeys most likely to fall from trees? Of course, the answer are the young monkeys that still have inexperience in climbing trees. I believe that the Michael Saylors of this world exploit the monkeys that still fall from trees, inexperienced investors that are still unable to sort through the hyperbole in Saylor’s claims to arrive at reality. Though the SEC seems not to yet be pursuing social media influencers that repeatedly lie to their millions of young inexperienced investors caught up the cryptocurrency craze and exploit them into pouring money into so-called charity coins in illegal pump and dump scams, these social media influencers are the lowest of the low, and I hope the SEC finally devotes resources to imprisoning such lowlifes.
Within one minute of searching the internet for charity coin scams, I found this article that described such a scam spearheaded by social media influencer Frazier Kay, who I honestly had never heard of before conducting this search. In any event the article stated that “tons of fans [of the social media influencers] pumped money into this scheme, believing their investment was protected by the high profile of those endorsing it, only to see their money disappear almost overnight.” And further investigation revealed that at least one of the many social media influencers recruited to pump charity coin scams, in this case a coin called “Save the Kids”, dumped their entire position bought at discount pre-sale prices within 24-hours of launch, even though he promised his followers he was going to be invested in the “Save the Kids” charity alt-coin for the “long run.” What’s next? Social media influencers peddling charity alt-coins named “Stop Child Sex Trafficking”, “Make Peace, Not War” and “Eliminate Global Poverty” that are nothing but deplorable pump and dump scams that cheats their followers out of hard-earned money that they cannot afford to lose? The cryptocurrency world has attracted the worst of the worst, but this particular topic is one that I’ll save for deeper analysis on another day, on my Rokfin platform here.
However, just because I believe Michael Saylor is the Ja Rule of the bitcoin community does not mean that btc prices can’t rise higher in the future, though I’m completely neutral about btc prices at this particular moment at its current price of $34,770. In order to really assess the future of btc prices, one has to completely separate underlying factors that actually influence btc prices from the shameless promises made by the most prominent btc advocates that have very little chance, in my opinion, of ever coming true. And this is true not just for bitcoin, but for ether, gold, oil and any other financial asset.
More information about the skwealthacademy patreon platform: If you become an skwealthacademy patron at the highest value benefactor level or above, you will immediately receive access to more than 160 exclusive posts not just about bitcoin and ether, but also about gold, silver, platinum, oil, and occasional other commodities like soybeans. That said, it is impossible to be an expert in trading all these commodities, and anyone that states that they are experts in eight different asset classes should not be trusted. My strongest financial analysis is in the asset classes of precious metals and mining stocks and in assessing cryptocurrency risks that in most instances have been completely ignored by the most prominent members of the cryptocurrency community. Though I do not consider myself a cryptocurrency expert nor an expert in some commodities about which I occasionally offer financial analysis, this does not mean that my offered financial analysis is not highly valuable.
Let me provide you with a concrete example. If you become a patron, of the 160 content postings to which you will gain access, you may reference the financial analysis podcast I issued on 27 April 2020. During that podcast, I mentioned that I believed soybeans would be a “strong speculation” should soybean prices drop to $7.80 to $8.00 a bushel in the futures markets moving forward, a price range that would then make soybeans a buy in my opinion. Even though soybeans never dropped into this price range, the next month they dropped as low as $8.28 a bushel before soaring to $15.84 a year later. Was my analysis therefore useless because soybeans never reached my buy mark? Of course not. An experienced commodities trader that regularly traded grains would have heard the top end of my buy mark for soybeans at $8.00 and would have likely known that a price just 3.5% above my buy range was adequately low enough to make taking a long soybean position a “strong speculation” worth taking.
In fact, when I used to publish a precious metals mining stock research newsletter, I provided specific buy prices for all mining stocks I believed were a buy, and the specific instructions I provided stated that if the stock prices descended to 3.5% of my buy price, then this price would be a good enough price at which to buy the stock for the long run. Why? Obviously, not all stock prices would descend to my “ideal” purchase price and by waiting for my “ideal” purchase price, some opportunities for huge profits would be missed.
Thus, an experienced commodity trader in grains would have listened to my buy guidance for soybeans that I issued on 27 April 2020 at $8.00 a bushel, and would have been more than willing to slightly tweak the price at which he or she was willing to go long in a strong speculative setup. And that would have been the right decision as soybeans soared from $8.28 a bushel to its highest price in many years at $15.84 a bushel just a year later, yielding enormous profits to all soybean commodity traders that acted on my guidance and just tweaked it a little. Furthermore, in that SAME patron podcast released on 27 April 2020, I issued a buy opinion for physical platinum at a spot price of $870 an ounce, after which spot platinum prices soared by more than 50% over the next ten months. Today, even with a significant selloff in platinum prices last month, platinum is still well over $870, at about $1100 an ounce. Thus, for value, I don’t believe that anyone offers more value for content on the entire patreon platform, and I stand by that comment. For similar analysis, many people pay hundreds of dollars every single month for analysis I provide at $5 to $10 a month.
