Member Info for fleccy

Clearly the 15th Jan PRN didn't do the trick so they released another PRN on the 17th Jan, each PRN accompanied by a video interview on Proactive. Are the video interviews paid for? I'm curious as to why Proactive give QBT so much coverage when they're such a small player.

Some are making money on QBT, the people who buy into the hype at 2p plus are the losers.

https://images.app.goo.gl/xTGfMvnA4ztZPNw59

Why was the Miliband thread deleted.

You couldn't make it up, release an optimistic PRN and then have a placing. The rampers on here were quick to put down the people who suggested a placing was on the cards, after the PRN, I would say the doubters were spot on and rampers showed themselves for the fools they are.

UBS have form on slating BT, it looks as though they pulled out all the stops to scaremonger on this occasion. Appears they're desperate to knock the price down.

Hey I've never tried to claim I understand how SB's and Future's work, so I ask questions. I'll never ever try and make money on something I don't understand, including SB's and Futures, so I'll just stick to investing in companies I believe in that pay dividends. Anyway I'm off to the gym, enjoy your day.

Ok I think I get it now, as I said I don't spread bet so I I didn't know you could SB on forward pricing. There's something wrong with you LTI, you can't reply to fair questions without throwing insults. You must be on your own, because I can't imagine anyone would put up with you're self absorbed and I'm better than everyone else attitude, I'm not sure if I should dislike you or feel sorry for you.

I still don't understand how you're closing your spread bets at a higher price than the market has hit. I don't spread bet myself, but I asked AI if it was possible to close an SB at a higher than market price and it said you can't, it said you'll only get the best available current market price. Can you explain the discrepancy between what you're getting and what AI says is possible?

"Under limb 1 of the test, the CAT considered the relevant notional competitive benchmark and the extent of any price excess over that benchmark. After analysing the parties’ submissions in depth, the CAT found that a reasonable margin for the competitive benchmark was 13.5%. It took the view that an excessive price was significant if it was 20% or more than the competitive benchmark. On the basis that the prices charged ranged from 25% to 49% above the benchmark, the CAT found that those prices were significantly and persistently excessive.

The CAT then went on to consider limb 2 of the test, namely whether BT’s pricing was unfair in and of itself and against comparators. The CAT examined the economic value of BT’s services and concluded that BT provided distinctive value to its SFV customers. That value was derived not only from particular services offered by BT but also from the value of BT’s brand (in particular, customers exhibited loyalty to BT despite having the ability to switch provider).

Overall, the CAT concluded that BT’s pricing was not unfair – therefore there was no abuse of dominance and the claim failed"

https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/uk-competition-class-actions-first-2363849/

He's got no chance, the decision was based on brand value rather than excessive pricing. The CAT panel took ages to reach their verdict and no doubt took advice from colleagues and experts in competition law. Even if they Patourel was granted an appeal, what's the chance of them winning, very low in my opinion.

"I’d worry more about your other w a n k investments."

I don't worry about our investments, pulling in £25,000 a year in tax free dividends. At least we get an income from our investments, QBT doesn't pay dividends and even single trades can move the price when there's no hype. I'll stick to stocks that generate income rather than stocks that you need to sell to see any return. There's more chance of QBT dropping below a penny again, rather than reaching the 20p you suggested in another thread, but you can dream.

It'll be interesting to see where the price goes when the current hype dies down and volume's drop to normal levels. No doubt there'll be further PRN's/Video's in a week or two, talking about their trip to America, but you can only milk a cow so much.

I like Trump, but it's hard to take him seriously when he says things like he'll take back the Panama canal and rename the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America. It does make me wonder how he intends to do these things? I didn't hear him mention Canada or Greenland in this speech; Then again they did take over the UK post the 2nd World War, with our politicians asking how high when the US says jump.

Haha, his speech was an eye opener. Taking back the Panama Canal, adding more territory and renaming the Gulf Of Mexico to the Gulf of America, you couldn't make it up, it's Team America.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LasrD6SZkZk

It has nothing to do with manipulation and all to do with the Bid/Offer spread, with the price of each trade affecting the price. There are obviously more sells than buys.

Mole I don't disagree that LEO's have their place in global telecommunications, but they're no threat to terrestrial mobile providers and terrestrial mobile providers are no threat to FTTP providers. The cream as you call it, are a small percentage of the total who are willing to pay the extra cost of accessing Starlink and likely don't have access to reasonable fixed line broadband, or good 5G. RF is inferior to fibre, and due to large distances/velocity LEO's will be inferior to 5G once the rollouts are completed.

OFCOM will soon be auctioning mm wave 25-27Ghz and 40-43Ghz bands, the extra bandwidth available at these frequencies are suitable for high user density areas like city centre high streets, stadiums, railway stations, etc. Generally mm wave higher bandwidth frequencies require line of sight and are short range, satellites could use some mm wave bands but they'd be for backhaul and not direct to user. As I've said many times, RF has limitations due to physics, there are trade off's between Frequency, Bandwidth/modulation, distance/atmospherics, power/gain and background noise levels; You can't ignore the physics.

"You'll never convince us Fleccy .... we're all moving with the future (de-fi, crypto & tokenisation) .... you're stuck in the past (ce-fi) , which has its origins in 1602 / Amsterdam ! Change is inevtiable my friend .... embrace it !"

I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything, I'm just expressing my opinion that Bitcoin is a waste of energy. It doesn't matter how high the Bitcoin price goes, nothing will change the fact that it has no utility and is therefore useless. I'd go as far as to say that Bitcoin has to eventually fail because its value isn't based on any fundamentals, just speculation that the price will keep going higher. Even it climbed to $1 million a Bitcoin, it still has no use to the holders apart from trying to sell it on at a higher price. How can something that has no utility have a future? It can't in my opinion.

Just because I don't see any use, or real value in Bitcoin, I do see many uses for Blockchain's. In my opinion proof of stake crypto is far more useful than proof of work crypto's like Bitcoin. I expect CBDC's will use proof of stake blockchain's and they'll be backed by Central Banks, or real world assets/commodities like oil and agricultural produce. I see a future for Blockchains that doesn't include Bitcoin.

"Fleccy. That made me laugh, best laugh I’ve had today Fairplay. 2076. How many of us will still be about in that year good one?"

You're easily amused, mining bitcoin will become unproductive for miners well before 2076.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vQocmfU9NxDx3N5rEGr9Fr8qosbeWX0LlJp6eDh_V8gwT6HFbTEbYyKqyzWr-JMHdfTUdNtZhxmXEpz/pubchart?oid=1743091258&format=interactive

Once you get to 2076 there are a further 160 total bitcoin left to be mined up to 2141. Once you get to 2108 you'll get under one bitcoin reward per halving, so less than 1 Bitcoin mined in 4 years.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vQocmfU9NxDx3N5rEGr9Fr8qosbeWX0LlJp6eDh_V8gwT6HFbTEbYyKqyzWr-JMHdfTUdNtZhxmXEpz/pubchart?oid=1512710695&format=interactive

Actually around 1.3 million left to mined

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vQocmfU9NxDx3N5rEGr9Fr8qosbeWX0LlJp6eDh_V8gwT6HFbTEbYyKqyzWr-JMHdfTUdNtZhxmXEpz/pubchart?oid=1512710695&format=interactive

Mole_man tries to argue that Starlink will somehow put terrestrial mobile providers out of business, his incorrect assumptions need to be put right.