Member Info for fleccy

Says it all, they don't seem to mind damaging private sector pensions; Gordon Brown's legacy.

I haven't got a clue if QBT have, or haven't, succeeded in producing products capable of increasing the efficiency of Bitcoin mining. Mathematicians and Engineers have been trying to find alternatives to Brute Force mining since the early days of Bitcoin, but the main direction of travel has always been faster and more power efficient ASIC's. For all we know, various miners may already be secretly using their own front end software to increase their operational efficiency/performance, they probably wouldn't broadcast that because of the competitive advantage they perceive themselves to have.

Even if QBT have achieved 2x plus increase in mining efficiency, they still have the issues around compatibility/commercialisation and persuading miners to use the product. As I suggested previously, it isn't inconceivable that miners are already using proprietary in-house front end software to increase efficiency over pure Brute Force.

Any investor would have to weigh up the odds that QBT can achieve their stated efficiency gains on the Live Network, and that they'll be able to commercialise their products and persuade miners to use them. In my opinion QBT have a mammoth task on their hands and should they succeed, against the odds in my opinion, then any investor who's gambled the odds deserve to win big.

A spread bet isn't a trade, since it doesn't involve purchasing any shares. I doubt there's much spread bet or trading interest in QBT without further news, the risks outweigh the potential gains imo.

In your example your betting £500,000 per point to come up with your £600.00 profit before charges. To help me understand it better, can you give me your full calculation with your start price of 0.0047 and closing price of 0.0059 over 30 days, with your brokers dealing charge, margin requirement and overnight fees included? I assume you might have access to your brokers spread betting calculators/demo tools?

But why would anyone use a spread betting strategy, in conjunction with trading, with such a low volume stock as QBT?

When I used the expression betting big I was referring to trading in and out of the stock, not betting against the price action as is the case with spread betting.

I'm not a professional trader and I've never spread bet, or shorted stocks, but leveraged spread betting a low volume stock like QBT must be extremely risky, where very small trades can move the price either way. As far as T10 I'm not sure what you mean, unless you're referring to the settlement period, you'll have to clarify the particular product and advise if it's specialised and aimed at professional investors? Either way you'd have to risk a lot of cash to make significant returns on a low priced stock like QBT, do you really believe the professionals would be interested? When I posted I was referring to QBT, not other AIM stocks, why would the professionals spread bet, or trade QBT, with a trading volume of 84.81 Million shares last month, when there are shares like UK Oil & Gas trading 6.8 Billion shares during the same period?

The only reason I could imagine professional traders might spread bet QBT is because they think they can manipulate the price with low value trades, but that works both ways with the spread bet provider being able to do the same.

LtdAxis as much as I agree that you can see good percentage swings on the price, it only translates into good profits if you can trade significant volume without moving the price down on individual trades. When you look at the trading history, £1 trades are moving the price and holding, I don't see how a retail day trader could make a profit unless they put in a significant amount of cash to make it worthwhile, but then they could have a significant number of shares that they can't move without pushing the price down. There have been occasions when the volumes have rocketed, but to profit from those you'd have to build a very large holding and await a price pumping event, similar to October/November 2023.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vTzEFi1PoMev9Mwbnd2LkayNkkNxSnnqhUUXEWgqnsq9PRoUSedNxWYlE-6zAEoeCTQLk5WXdCmi_4x/pubchart?oid=1937898192&format=interactive

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vTzEFi1PoMev9Mwbnd2LkayNkkNxSnnqhUUXEWgqnsq9PRoUSedNxWYlE-6zAEoeCTQLk5WXdCmi_4x/pubchart?oid=2085752711&format=interactive

The risk with betting big, is you could get locked in with no escape unless you're willing to take a loss, but unless you're willing to bet big your possible profits will likely be miniscule.

Just common sense reasoning Zesty. Instead of accusing my post as being mad ramblings, why don't you produce counter arguments disputing my opinion?

Are you saying that day trading QBT is profitable, given the low daily volumes and values?

Just fills in a bit of time before I go out for a walk. If you think QBT is suitable as a trading share, I'd be interested to read your reasoning backing that up?

I avoid salad it gives me wind and if I'm being really honest, leaves me slightly constipated too.

"unless they're on a platform that doesn't charge a trading fee."

Ignore that bit it doesn't make sense, I thought I'd edited it out after I made some changes.

This isn't directed at RKB as he's apparently filtered me, but I'm not sure QBT is suitable as a trading stock. Due to the low volumes and low share price, the daily traded values are pitifully low, so anyone selling a significant number of shares would likely struggle to sell without dropping the price, unless they're on a platform that doesn't charge a trading fee.

Here's what I'm talking about:

QBT

Date . Volume . . Value

1 Oct 214,620 £1,140

2 Oct 1,000,000 £5,800

3 Oct 3,060,000 £17,260

If you use the 3rd Oct as an example, 3.06 Million shares were traded spread across 23 trades. Say you were trading through the Halifax with a trading fee of £9.50 per trade, the fee's to buy and sell a Block of shares comes to a minimum of £19, or the equivalent of 3,454 shares assuming a buy price around 0.55p.

Going back to the 3rd Oct, Volume 3,060,000/23 trades = 133,043 and 133,043x0.0055 = an average value per trade of £731.73

Assuming someone bought 133,043 shares at 0.55p, it would have cost them £731.73+£9.50 trading fee = £741.23.

They now hold 133,043 and paid £741.23 for them.

Lets say they sold them on the 4th Oct and managed to unload them for 0.575p. 133,043x0.00575 = £765 - £9.50 trading fee = £755.50

Their profit for betting on the price going up is £755.50 - £741.23 = £14.26

Because of the low volumes, the more stock they sell the more chance their trade will push down the price, so they may have to sit on their holding and await a high volume trading day.

If you were trading a stock like Lloyds, again using the 3rd October as the example date, the On Exchange traded volume was around 90.02 Million shares with an On Exchange traded value of £51.72 Million, but there was also 60.64 Million shares traded Off Book; So the total traded volume for Lloyds on the 3rd Oct was more than 150 Million shares.

Because of Lloyds daily trading volumes and values, you could easily unload £100,000 worth of shares without significantly moving the price, if you tried to unload £100,000 of QBT stock (17,391,304 shares at 0.575p) you'd most likely hammer the share price, assuming you could even do it as a single trade.

Clearly, in my opinion, QBT isn't suitable as a trading stock.

🤢

Not that good, the rear shockers on my car need replacing 🚘😲

Before anyone suggests this is off topic, there's a good argument that discussing Lloyds Bank is now off topic on this forum 🙄

As I said Pas, Blockchain has it's uses and Crypto tokens are useful if backed by real world assets. Bitcoin isn't even an efficient Proof of Work protocol, it relies on massive amounts of electricity to process a miniscule number of transactions. Bitcoin is simply the digital equivalent of Fools Gold, eventually it'll be recognised for the junk it is.

"On the soap box YET AGAIN - how many more times are you going to slip in the anti buyback narrative nonsense - must be at least 30 by now"

At least once a month.

The fact that Lloyds share price has performed abysmally compared to other UK Bank's, suggests Nunn is doing something wrong. Nunn could have continued with the original progressive dividend policy and only covered Block Listings with buybacks, instead of debasing the dividend following covid.

If Lloyds had continued with the same policy following covid, the 2020 final dividend would have come in at 2.24p, not the 0.57p they actually paid out. Lloyds isn't a growth stock, most investors view it as a dividend income stock. The Lloyds decision to debase the dividend wouldn't have just affected retail investors, it would likely have hit funds aimed at dividend stocks too. Lloyds share price performance has been cr@p since covid, compared to Barclays and Natwest, LTI I'd be interested to read your explanation as to why that is?

What financial interest is that? Because I can't think of anything connecting my finances, or investments, with the success or failure of QBT.

Why don't you use Microsoft Edge as your browser for LSE, I assume you're using Chrome?

My personal view is that Nunn's dividend cut after Covid has a lot to do with it. It appears that the retail investment case for UK stocks is primarily dividend returns, share buybacks appear to make little difference. I'm not against smaller buybacks to cover block listings for their employee freebies, but in my opinion dividend increases will do more to drive the price.

I'm not against buybacks in every case, for example Vodafone are buying back shares, but in Vodafone's case they have a lot of Hybrid bonds approaching next call date's over the coming years.

If Lloyds had matched the share price performances of Natwest and Barclays, since Covid, then Lloyds would now be around 80p a share.

https://www.google.com/finance/quote/LLOY:LON?comparison=LON%3ABARC%2CLON%3ANWG&window=5Y

The Altcoins are all useless too. Bitcoin is now around 15 years old and has failed time and again to be an efficient alternative to TradFi, that says it all. There could be a role for Crypto Tokens if they're valued and backed against real world assets like commodities, or Fiat currencies in the case of CBDC's, but a free floating token valued purely on the belief of the participants makes little sense.

Pas you started this thread to highlight the fact that Bitcoin Miners are struggling to cover their costs, with Bitcoin currently over $60,000, it stands to reason that the miners will fail if Bitcoin doesn't at least double in price with every halving, which I've pointed out on many occasions. The miners have two sources of income, which is selling their newly mined Bitcoin and transaction charges, if the profits from mined Bitcoin declines then transaction charges need to go up to cover their operating costs. You could get a couple of Billionaires who sell Bitcoin between each other and push the price up, but if the rest of the World loses interest they're stuck.

Imagine the problems they'll have when the next halving comes along in 2028. The likely surviving miners will be the ones who generate their own power, through whatever means, since energy is expensive. If Bitcoin hasn't climbed significantly into 2028, the surviving miners will also struggle and will need to charge high transaction fee's to cover their operating costs. Bitcoin is inefficient with no good use apart from the store of value narrative, which I consider to be false and based purely on vested interest belief.