Member Info for fleccy

Total voting rights:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vS0oSavIsBjHgD7k6NMyk7Z591Cm2IrevvLI-Jq95gOmESrOI0Vi_NhA8LIO9rMz90Y5zCOCoFuEItG/pubchart?oid=1812824850&format=interactive

Change:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vS0oSavIsBjHgD7k6NMyk7Z591Cm2IrevvLI-Jq95gOmESrOI0Vi_NhA8LIO9rMz90Y5zCOCoFuEItG/pubchart?oid=1451011517&format=interactive

I've noticed a few articles, released in the last couple of days, promoting negative sentiment toward BT. In my opinion some of the stated figures are incorrect, and conclusions based other figures are either incorrect or exaggerated.

https://simplywall.st/stocks/gb/telecom/lse-bt.a/bt-group-shares/news/bt-group-lonbta-takes-on-some-risk-with-its-use-of-debt

Clearly most of the liabilities aren't debt, things like Lease Liabilities, trade payables, etc, are covered by operating costs and deducted before EBITDA. In my opinion the Simply Wall St article is aimed at scaring prospective and current investors in BT.

https://finnoexpert.com/2023/12/29/bt-group-btgof-stock-fttp-rollout-will-be-burdensome/#

"The rule of thumb is 100 million EUR, or 86.7 million GBP per 100k households."

As soon as I read that bit, I just dismissed everything else the author had to say, since Openreach have clearly stated the average cost per premise passed is around £300, so £30 million per 100k households passed.

RR have 4 times more shares in issue and smidges more debt than FY2019 pre-pandemic. RR is a good company, but it's a smaller company than Vodafone and currently has a far higher P/E. Since they are fundamentally different businesses in different sectors you can't compare them directly, but there's nothing wrong with using RR's meteoric share price trajectory as an example of what could happen for Vodafone.

Basically the video has set up 2024 as the make or break year for QBT; They'll either attract customers and generate revenue from the products, or they wont, either way it's exciting times for investors and spectators alike.

Crystal ball's on the fritz, I'll let you know in 12 months.

"BT has nearly switched off Huawei core days ahead of ban"

https://www.lightreading.com/mobile-core/bt-has-nearly-switched-off-huawei-core-days-ahead-of-ban

Bob, in the absence of an ever increasing Bitcoin price, as the Bitcoin reward reduces the only other way for miners to generate income is through transaction charges. Transaction charges will never be able to cover the cost of mining unless the charges are huge, or the mining is centralised to just one miner who does the processing with relatively few rigs; The problem with this is that the miner will control the entire network making a mockery of the proof of work concept. Basically every halving would wash out more miners, and like the song 10 green bottles eventually there'd only be one or none.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPCzwqbFAn0&t=1s

My Opinion:

The Bitcoin Ecosystem could almost be designed to fail, with each halving being one step in a countdown to eventual failure. Now some will say Quantum would resolve the issue, but that presents its own problems in respect of security and the Bitcoin difficulty algorithm restricting Block processing to one Block every 10 minutes. Unless they fundamentally change the BTC protocols to match something like BSV, it can't possibly survive long term. I don't believe in BSV as a viable Crypto currency either, but it's obviously far superior to BTC.

"Tiny Scots island home to just 60 people gets superfast broadband two years early thanks to 'world first' innovation"

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/tiny-scots-island-home-to-just-60-people-gets-superfast-broadband-two-years-early-thanks-to-world-first-innovation/ar-AA1m7BOj?ocid=msedgntp&pc=LCTS&cvid=0e363af9523a4bb695c498be6ad687b5&ei=75

This is the location on the Subsea Cable Map

https://www.submarinecablemap.com/submarine-cable/r100-north

I'd have thought Islands like Fair Isle would have been perfect for a 5G solution with OneWeb backhaul trial, but this work has probably been in the planning for years before LEO based solutions were a possible option.

Why the SEC May Want Cash Creation of Spot Bitcoin ETFs

https://www.coindesk.com/tv/unchained/why-the-sec-may-want-cash-creation-of-spot-bitcoin-etfs/

Https://www.dlnews.com/articles/snapshot/sec-bitcoin-etf-cash-requirement-squeezes-out-trading-firms/

"Less efficient route

Most ETF issuers use this method as it allows for tax efficiency and to minimise capital gains distributions, according to VettaFi, a data and analytics provider for ETFs.

So why did the SEC choose the more expensive, and potentially less efficient route?

Bloomberg Intelligence ETF analyst Eric Balchunas has noted that cash creation and redemptions avoids unregistered broker dealers and market makers handling Bitcoin.

That means that for now, the SEC permitting only issuers to handle Bitcoin avoids awkward questions with unregistered market players keen to get into crypto.

Left out

Left out of Bitcoin ETF trading with the SEC’s new rule: market-makers and systematic trading firms, which usually are able to reap hefty returns by arbitraging, or seizing on price discrepancies. In the $15 trillion global market for ETFs, these opportunities can be massive.

The firms that typically play a role in the ETF life cycle include JPMorgan and Citigroup. Market-makers such as BNP Paribas, Susquehanna, Jane Street, and Nine Mile Financial also play a role, according to BlackRock’s website.

Retail investors that buy shares in an ETF are not the same as authorised participants — who are usually Financial Industry Regulatory Authority registered broker-dealers, as Grayscale pointed out last week."

It looks as though the SEC are going to push for ETF's using a cash redemption model rather than an In-Kind model.

"Because a cash redemption model would have a higher transaction cost, it could make the product more expensive for investors, according to Bryan Armour, an ETF analyst at Morningstar.

“My guess is that the SEC doesn't want broker-dealers to touch bitcoin, and then they also want to have a view into bitcoin from the exchange all the way to the fund,” Armour said. “So the only way to do that if broker-dealers can't touch it, is to just require cash and make the fund trade the cash buy and sell bitcoin themselves.”

BlackRock and Grayscale both had previously presented a version of an in-kind redemption model to the SEC. Hashdex, a Brazilian crypto investment firm, was the only firm to originally propose a cash redemption model."

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/sec-prefers-cash-redemption-models-011928806.html#:~:text=In%2Dkind%20vs.%20Cash%20Redemption%20For%20Spot%20Bitcoin%20ETFs&text=Because%20a%20cash%20redemption%20model,an%20ETF%20analyst%20at%20Morningstar.

https://bitcoinnews.com/bitcoin-etf-cash-redemption-vs-in-kind/#:~:text=Bitcoin%20ETF%3A%20Cash%20vs.&text=This%20cash%20is%20then%20used,avoiding%20immediate%20selling%20for%20cash.

Basically it means the ETF 's will have to trade using cash and wont be able to trade Bitcoin for ETF shares. In-Kind ETF models are more tax efficient.

"In-Kind Redemptions

In the ETF primary market, the ETF issuer has the

opportunity to satisfy redemptions and portfolio

rebalances in-kind (exchanging securities for ETF

shares) rather than selling securities for cash.

This in-kind activity does not trigger a taxable

event for the fund and can insulate shareholders of

the fund from capital gains arising from the buying

and selling actions of other shareholders."

https://www.gsam.com/content/dam/gsam/pdfs/us/en/tax-information/ETF_Tax_Efficiency_101.pdf?sa=n&rd=n#:~:text=capital%20gains.1-,In%2DKind%20Redemptions,than%20selling%20securities%20for%20cash.

It's ironic to think that the hyped buying case for Bitcoin is the approval of US Spot ETF's, it's probably because BTC has nothing else going for it. The US spot ETF's are probably aimed at bailing out the Billionaires who've dug themselves into deep Crypto holes with no way out, and with direct retail interest all but dried up it's probably just a way of pulling in retail cash by the back door, in my opinion. For all the hype about US Spot ETF's they already exist in Canada, Germany and possibly other countries, so why hasn't Bitcoin gone stratospheric on the back of them? Are US investors more gullible and willing to throw good money at something useless? I know I wouldn't want any of my pension money used to pump Bitcoin.

The limited capacity of the Bitcoin network to process transactions at speed, and the vast amounts of energy required to process relatively small Blocks makes Bitcoin an unbelievably inefficient way to transact. The only use for Bitcoin is fast international transfers, because it skirts around all the money laundering regulations, but Central Bank Stable Coins will eventually override that use case too. Bitcoin has no future because there's no getting around the issues and inefficiencies inherent in the protocol, without fundamentally changing it, which is what Tokens like BSV were created for. The Bitcoin cutlery draw has several forks in it, some work better than others, BTC might be the original but it's made of plastic and doesn't work very well.

Truth be told, any Proof of Work Token isn't really any good; Proof of Stake is likely to be the eventual winner.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bitcoin_forks

Pas I am in the digital world, I'm not making it up when I say I can't remember the last time I used hard cash. We have debit/credit cards and phone apps that allow me to pay for anything I need to. I also use online banking and pay for goods online without touching hard cash, on top of that there are services like Paypal and in third world countries, like Kenya, apps like M-Pesa are extremely popular and allow people to transact without having a bank account. Adding everything up in the TradFi World, why is something like Bitcoin needed?

Jamrock a Rolex is a watch, it's useful for telling the time and varies in price dependent on the materials and condition. Gold isn't just a store of value, it has many varied uses in industry and medicine, Silver and Diamonds also have other uses. I can't argue that supply and demand determines the price of Bitcoin, but I'm saying the token has no real world use, so it's basically useless. Personally I wouldn't buy any watch, so you might actually be right in comparing a Rolex to a phone.

Indeed, the exchange automatically adjusts the price down by the value of the dividend. Once the price is adjusted down, it is traded as normal and would require buying pressure to push it up. It'll open 2.31p down tomorrow before going into the opening auction.

Because it's busy and I respond to posts referencing Bitcoin. I avoid expressing an opinion about QBT so I'm not sure what your objection is?

Can anyone tell what use Bitcoin is? If someone can tell me what Bitcoin is actually useful for I might change my view on it; That said it'll be a tall order because I've tried really hard myself to determine a use for the token, but I can't find anything Bitcoin is touted to be useful for that can't can't be done better using other tech. The value in Bitcoin is based on belief and hype, nothing more. Like anything else that's useless, in a proper functioning market Bitcoin will eventually fail. Bernie Madoff's Ponzi scheme ran for at least 17 years before it eventually failed, bitcoin still has some way to go before it beats his record.

Jax you watch this since you're a fan of Wind-Ups, I'm sure you could have hours of fun.

https://www.presentermedia.com/powerpoint-animation/wind-up-figure-walking-pid-14028

Yep, we/our is me and my Wife.