Skip to main content
The Time Is Now For Bitcoin To Attract Capital Flight
Skip to main content
One of 2021’s biggest stories was the China ban on Bitcoin mining. On one hand, the news affected Bitcoin’s price and gave ammunition to the nay-sayers that think that governments will outlaw Bitcoin. On the other, the network kept working without a hiccup, recovered its hashrate in record time, and gained in decentralization. However, a question remained. Why did China exclude itself from this very lucrative activity in which they were dominating?
As Bitcoin entrepreneur John Carvalho not-so-eloquently put it, “I refuse to believe that China is stupid.” There has to be a reason, even if it’s a simple one. To help our audience solve the puzzle, NewsBTC decided to gather all of our theories in a single post.
This one is as straightforward as it gets. When China started cracking down on miners, NewsBTC reported: “As for the possible reasons, Bitcoin Magazine’s Lucas Nuzzi cites the upcoming Digital Yuan CBDC.” And Nuzzi said, “They’re literally rolling out their own coin (a CBDC) that will enable the mass surveillance and unbanking of dissidents.”
1/ The CCP officially banning #Bitcoin should come as no surprise.
They’re literally rolling out their own coin (a CBDC) that will enable the mass surveillance and unbanking of dissidents.#Bitcoin is at complete odds with that. Dictatorships don’t like freedom money.
— Lucas Nuzzi (@LucasNuzzi) June 21, 2021
So, did China kill a potential billion-dollar industry just to squash their CBDC’s competition? Is that it?
Is China having energy issues? In that same article, we posed another theory:
“In retrospect, we should’ve seen it coming. Only two months ago, following a suspicious blackout, NewsBTC reported:
According to the Beijing Economic and Information Bureau, there were concerns about the energy consumption related to these activities. PengPai quotes Yu Jianing, rotating Chairman of the Blockchain Special Committee of China, to claim that the country’s environmental requirements could lead to crypto mining being more “strictly regulated”. Jianing said this will be “inevitable.”
However, would they be decommissioning small hydropower stations if this was the case?
Our report on small hydropower stations’ source was government-regulated media, so take it with a grain of salt. It starts with a claim that clashes heavily with theory #2:
“According to the article, the heyday of private power plants in China was the beginning of the century. Investors built thousands of hydropower stations because they saw them as a constant cash cow. For their part, the regions nearby saw them as a sign of progress and a solution to their energy problems.
However, with the gradual surplus of electricity in China in recent years, the electricity generated by hydropower stations is often destined to being abandoned (commonly known as “abandonment of electricity”)”
However, the main reason for the decommissioning seemed to be repairing the original flow of the rivers. “Hydropower stations have always been one of the important factors restricting the ecology of Sichuan’s rivers,” said Wang Hua, deputy director of the Sichuan Provincial Water Resources Department. We went a step further:
“It’s possible that the government is trying to get rid of those plants. That would explain the article’s tone, it seems like it was trying to get investors to stay away from those hydropower stations. In light of this, China’s ban on Bitcoin mining could just be part of an even bigger play. They’re serious and methodically shaking things up over there.
What could be their end-game? Is China just trying to go carbon neutral and repair the original flow of the rivers? Or is there something else at play here?”
However, something doesn’t add up. In another article about the ban, we highlighted that hydropower energy is clean energy.
“Did China make the mistake of a lifetime by banning Bitcoin mining or do they have a secret plan?
The fact that the electricity for crypto mining in Sichuan came from clean hydropower meant that many thought the province would be a safe haven for Bitcoin miners.”
We explored Bloomberg’s theory about a “less founder-driven and more China-centric” model that China was supposedly exploring.
“If China is abandoning the Silicon Valley model, what will it replace it with? Insiders suggest it will be less founder-driven and more China-centric.
Why is China dwarfing its biggest industries and players? Is the “China Model” just concerned with scale? Or is control their focus? Are they cracking down on people and companies with too much power that work on a global scale?”
And even though it wasn’t quite believable, it introduced the concept that China was also cracking down on their biggest tech executives. Maybe this isn’t only about Bitcoin?
BTC price chart on Bitbay | Source: BTC/USD on TradingView.com
This one doesn’t explain the overarching theme of the China ban. It does add color to whatever theory you prefer. In an event, Yin Youping, Deputy Director of the Financial Consumer Rights Protection Bureau of the People’s Bank of China, said, “We remind the people once again that virtual currencies such as Bitcoin are not legal tender and have no actual value support.” And proceeded to list everything the PBOC was doing to combat cryptocurrency trading.
In the NewsBTC report about it, we said:
“Maybe their plan is simpler than we thought. It’s possible that The People’s Bank of China is just going to make it really really hard for the common citizen to access Bitcoin. And, China’ll use propaganda and repetition to keep people in check and scared of the unknown. One of Bitcoin’s prototipical adversarial scenarios. A battle that Bitcoin expected sooner or later.”
Was the Chinese government just closing the exits? They knew that the Evergrande situation was inevitable and didn’t want people to have the Bitcoin lifeboat available. In our report, we said:
“To recap: the government saw this coming from a distance. They knew the crisis was going to repeatedly hit the country and banned Bitcoin mining to scare the population into not buying the hardest asset ever created. Bitcoin, the true hedge against the collapse of every economy.”
According to John Carvalho’s wild and full of assumptions theory, China bans something related to Bitcoin every cycle to manipulate the price and get more BTC. The country has no incentive to ban the industry. They make too much money mining, plus they control the ASICs manufacturers, plus mining machines inflate the value of chips, and they control that business too. So, Carvalho’s theory is:
“The main ASIC manufacturer, the Chinese company Bitmain, had a new generation of miners ready. So, the CCP “decided to create a demand for the aftermaket and combine it with the FUD.” As they usually do, they sold their Bitcoin and made their shorts. Then, China banned Bitcoin mining and the whole country turned off the ASICs. The world perceived the ban as real, just “look at the hashrate.” This is the first time this happens. Then, China sold a small portion of its ASICs to the USA.”
According to him, Bitcoin mining in China didn’t stop, they’re just not signing the blocks. Of course, he doesn’t have any proof, and neither do we. This is just a theory, like all the others.
What’s really going on in China? What’s the reason behind the great China ban of 2021? We wouldn’t know for sure, but we have many suspicions. Let’s hope 2022 gives us solid evidence, new insights, or, at least, a plausible explanation.
Featured Image by PublicDomainPictures on Pixabay | Charts by TradingView
Looking at the Bitcoin chart from a weekly or daily perspective presents a bearish outlook and it’s clear that (BTC) price has been consistently making lower lows since hitting an all-time high at $69,000.
Curiously, the Nov. 10 price peak happened right as the United States announced that inflation has hit a 30-year high, but, the mood quickly reversed after fears related to China-based real estate developer Evergrande defaulting on its loans. This appears to have impacted the broader market structure.
This initial corrective phase was quickly followed by relentless pressure from regulators and policy makers on stablecoin issuers. First came VanEck’s spot Bitcoin ETF rejection by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 12. The denial was directly related to the view that Tether’s (USDT) stablecoin was not solvent and concerns over Bitcoin’s price manipulation.
On Dec. 14, the U.S. Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee held a hearing on stablecoins focused on consumer protection and their risks and on Dec. 17, the U.S. Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) voiced its concern over stablecoin adoption and other digital assets. “The Council recommends that state and federal regulators review available regulations and tools that could be applied to digital assets,” said the report.
The worsening mood from investors was reflected in the CME’s Bitcoin futures contracts premium. The metric measures the difference between longer-term futures contracts to the current spot price in regular markets.
Whenever this indicator fades or turns negative, this is an alarming red flag. This situation is also known as backwardation and indicates that bearish sentiment is present.
These fixed-month contracts usually trade at a slight premium, indicating that sellers are requesting more money to withhold settlement for longer. Futures should trade at a 0.5% to 2% annualized premium in healthy markets, a situation known as contango.
Notice how the indicator moved below the “neutral” range after Dec. 9 as Bitcoin traded below $49,000. This shows that institutional traders are displaying a lack of confidence, although it is not yet a bearish structure.
Exchange-provided data highlights traders’ long-to-short net positioning. By analyzing every client’s position on the spot, perpetual and futures contracts, one can better understand whether professional traders are leaning bullish or bearish.
There are occasional discrepancies in the methodologies between different exchanges, so viewers should monitor changes instead of absolute figures.
Despite Bitcoin’s 19% correction since Dec. 3, top traders at Binance, Huobi, and OKEx have increased their leverage longs. To be more precise, Binance was the only exchange facing a modest reduction in the top traders’ long-to-short ratio. The figure moved from 1.09 to 1.03. However, this impact was more than compensated by OKEx traders increasing their bullish bets from 1.51 to 2.91 in two weeks.
Related: SEC commissioner Elad Roisman will leave by end of January
The lack of a premium in CME 2-month future contracts should not be considered a ‘red alert’ because Bitcoin is currently testing the $46,000 resistance, its lowest daily close since Oct. 1. Furthermore, top traders at derivatives exchanges have increased their longs despite the price drop.
Regulatory pressure probably won’t lift up in the short term, but at the same time, there’s not much that the U.S. government can do to suppress stablecoin issuance and transactions. These companies can move outside of the U.S. and operate using dollar-denominated bonds and assets instead of cash. For this reason, currently, there is hardly a sense of panic present in the market and from data shows, pro traders are buying the dip.
The views and opinions expressed here are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Cointelegraph. Every investment and trading move involves risk. You should conduct your own research when making a decision.
Bitcoin price has yet to reclaim the $50,000 level, but the actions of options market makers and margin traders at Bitfinex suggest the most recent correction is over.
Chinese real estate giant Evergrande Group has defaulted on its dollar debt for the first time.
Evergrande has defaulted.
The Chinese real estate developer missed an $82.5 million debt repayment on U.S. dollar bonds worth due Monday, according to several reports.
The default has led to widespread speculation that the firm is now bankrupt. Moreover, new worries have emerged about the potential spillover into China’s real estate sector and impact on the global economy.
The Shenzhen-based firm owes more than $300 billion to various parties, including investors, banks, and suppliers. Notably, Evergrande is not the only major Chinese real estate firm currently facing a crisis. This week, the Hong Kong Stock Exchange suspended Kaisa Group Holdings’ shares after the company missed a Tuesday deadline to pay off a $400 million debt.
Due to these developments, many experts have predicted an economic downturn in 2022. It’s possible that such an event could have a big impact on crypto markets, too. Bitcoin and other assets have behaved as “risk on” in other similar circumstances such as “Black Thursday” in March 2020, when global markets crashed amid panic over Coronavirus. Bitcoin also reacted negatively to the news of the new Omicron variant and has mostly been trading sideways since.
However, some leading crypto figures remain skeptical of the potential impact of the event. Emin Gün Sirer, the founder and CEO of Ava Labs, suggested that it’s unlikely that the latest default will crash crypto. “How many times can the same dumb company, whose near-insolvency was an open secret for almost a decade, crash the crypto markets?” he wrote in a Dec. 6 tweet.
Another important part of the Evergrande crisis is its alleged link with Tether’s USDT, the world’s most liquid stablecoin. A recent Bloomberg BW investigation claimed that Tether is using commercial paper issued by large Chinese real estate companies to back a significant portion of its stablecoin reserves. Tether published a blog post alleging that Bloomberg BW was spreading “misinformation” and denied holding any Evergrande debt at the time.
Evergrande’s shares hit a record low of HK$1.72 Wednesday, while gold and stock indexes like the Dow Jones Industrial Average slid today. Bitcoin, meanwhile, is currently trading at $48,650, down 3.4% in the last 24 hours. The leading crypto asset has tumbled 30% from its all-time high price of roughly $69,000 recorded in November.
Disclosure: At the time of writing, the author of this piece owned ETH and other cryptocurrencies.
Bitcoin and Ethereum appear to have reached a crucial support level after posting considerable losses on the news of a new Covid variant in South Africa. The significant demand wall could…
A Bloomberg report has claimed to have found that Tether holds billions of dollars worth of Chinese commercial paper. Investigation Raises New Concerns Today, Bloomberg BusinessWeek reported that stablecoin issuer…
According to the latest U.S Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filings, Morgan Stanley has added to its Bitcoin exposure through the Grayscale Bitcoin Trust, raising hopes for potential Grayscale Bitcoin…
We’re doing this because we want to be better at picking advertisers for Cryptobriefing.com and explaining to them, “Who are our visitors? What do they care about?” Answer our questions…
Conflicting news about whether Chinese property giant Evergrande had defaulted on its overdue loan payments emerged just before Bitcoin’s recent price crash.
Evergrande Group is China’s second-largest property developer and is in debt for roughly $300 billion. There are fears that its collapse could spark a wider financial crisis.
Two minutes after Evergrande’s payment was due, the Deutsche Markt Screening Agentur (DMSA) issued an announcement on Nov. 10 at 4 p.m. UTC stating that it was preparing bankruptcy proceedings against Evergrande.
Two hours later at about 6 .p.m. UTC, Bitcoin began it’s hours-long pullback to $62,800.
Media outlet Morning Brew reported about 45 minutes later that Evergrande had missed a payment on its outstanding debt which was due on Wednesday at 4 p.m. UTC and defaulted. Another 45 minutes passed before Bloomberg issued a story saying that it hadn’t.
Prices stabilized around $64,500 several hours after the initial drop. This was around the same time Bloomberg reporter Allison McNeely’s tweeted “contrary to what you may have heard ~on the internet~ Evergrande did not default today.”
William Fong, senior trader at Australian crypto-asset investment platform Zerocap, told Cointelegraph:
“Evergrande has not officially defaulted on any of its offshore debt obligations in the international USD bond market.”
“Bottom-line, $148 million is nothing compared to the $300 billion outstanding debt of Evergrande, but it does create a concern for the $100 billion outstanding ‘keep-well’ structured offshore bonds by Chinese SoEs and corporates,” he stated.
Fong believes that a bailout for Evergrande will not come any time soon because “Chinese regulators were the initiators of a cap aimed at over-expansion in developer’s leverage,” adding:
“This has created potential contagion risk across the entire property developer space and has expanded towards financial institutions and industries dependent on the sector as well.”
Some believe the Bitcoin price could also be at risk from a stock market meltdown and due to fears that nearly half of Tether’s reserves are made up of commercial paper, amounting to nearly $30 billion. This is enough for Financial Times to place Tether among “global giants” in that category.
Related: Record-high inflation prompts investors to take a closer look at Bitcoin
However, Tether has denied that it holds any commercial paper from Evergrande, though it may be exposed to Chinese companies. Commercial paper is a corporate debt note with a short expiration date, usually under a year.
Publish date:
Greg Foss discusses, Evergrande, China’s high-yield market and his valuation model for bitcoin.
Watch This Episode On YouTube
Listen To This Episode:
In this episode of Bitcoin Magazine’s “Fed Watch” podcast, Christian Keroles and I welcomed back Greg Foss to the show to discuss the new articles he’s written on Bitcoin Magazine about Evergrande from a professional in the high-yield credit space. We get to know Foss a little better in this one and discuss, not only the facts of the matter on Evergrande and high yield, but also his beloved Canada and some predictions of the future.
Evergrande is an evolving situation, we probably shouldn’t even call it Evergrande anymore because it has spread throughout the Chinese high-yield financial sector and has caused the entire Chinese real estate market to teeter on the brink of collapse. We could call it the Chinese financial crisis.
Our interview follows the outline of his article “The Macroeconomic Implications Of Evergrande For Risk Assets And Bitcoin.” Foss started by comparing the size of Evergrande’s default to that of Lehman Brothers’. Strictly speaking of on-balance sheet size, Evergrande is approximately one-fourth to one-third as large as Lehman’s default. That is sizable, but should not destabilize the entire financial system. Foss pointed out what is more likely is a focused contagion within China and the emerging markets.
Foss pointed out that this Chinese financial crisis has already affected credit spreads in China to the point that they are priced like BBB-rated debt. If spreads continue to widen, debt from the second-largest economy in the world could trade like junk bonds. Investors will have to start asking themselves, if China is junk, what about all of the other emerging markets? The credit contagion will likely spread rapidly.
Being a credit expert, Foss has a very interesting valuation model for bitcoin, which he has written about in depth on Bitcoin Magazine. The basis of his model is, “BTC is insurance on the decaying credit quality of fiat-issuing sovereign nations.” We discussed bitcoin as a long-volatility position since bitcoin has no counterparty or debasement risk.
His calculations are fascinating. I suggest you checkout his piece on Bitcoin Magazine linked above where he goes into detail, but suffice it for this podcast write up, he calculates bitcoin’s intrinsic value as the “current credit default swap (CDS) rates and total liabilities of the G-20 nations.” As the quality of sovereign credit fades in coming years, CDS spreads will widen and the value of bitcoin as counterparty-free insurance will increase.
I have spent my career in financial markets, focusing on risk analysis and trading with a viewpoint that is honed through the prism of credit. I believe credit markets to be the most important, most informed, and unfortunately the most misunderstood of the various risk asset silos.
Credit analysts are pessimists by nature. They always ask, “How much can I lose?” as opposed to equity analysts, who seem to believe trees grow to the moon and growth can accelerate forever. Credit analysts prefer math, downside sensitivity analysis, priority of claims certainty, and can calculate bond price moves — on the fly — from changes in credit spreads.
I too prefer statistics to subjective analysis. Math is the base layer of language, yet many investors are illiterate in this capacity. While this leads to tremendous capital structure arbitrage opportunities for credit-focused hedge funds (my previous life) who trade credit against the equity and equity derivatives of a given company, it is often the retail stockholder who gets used as the cannon fodder.
That is life. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. If the ill-informed investor does not understand credit and bonds/pricing yet invests in the (subordinate claim) equity of a levered company, he/she is exposing themselves to a potential world of hurt.
With that disclaimer out of the way, I would like to focus on the current Evergrande situation in China and what it means for global risk assets. I will examine the potential effects of contagion in the domestic credit markets in China, contagion in risk assets globally, as well as some potential macroeconomic concerns. I also conclude that the credit contagion implications for sovereign credits is increasing, and that BTC is the perfect insurance against declining fiat credit quality.
Don’t overthink this. BTC is sovereign credit insurance (long volatility) with no counterparty risk.
In the context of recent meaningful global defaults, the Evergrande debt is not overly concerning. Total liabilities at Evergrande are $300 billion, of which $200 billion is pre-payments for housing from Chinese citizens. The balance of the exposure is debt, both onshore bank and public debt, as well as offshore debt to international investors. Compare this to Lehman Brothers’ default $600 billion of on-balance-sheet exposure, as well as multiples of that in off-balance-sheet derivatives and credit default swaps (CDS). Goldman has recently calculated potential off-balance sheet liabilities for Evergrande at $155 billion (one trillion yuan) in “shadow-banking” exposure. This is worrisome because this is more like a Lehman moment but again, it is not catastrophic in the global context.
The contagion risk at Lehman was easy to understand, as the whole system was on the brink due to counterparties whose insurance contracts (CDS contracts) were not able to be claimed. Remember, the rumor was that if AIG was allowed to fail, Goldman would fail too since it had purchased so much insurance from AIG in order to lay off its exposures (both client exposures as well as principle exposure).
Another global default which had macro implications was the Greece restructuring in 2012. That was on about $200 billion in debt, and while there were trade claims and other non-debt obligations to consider, the overall restructuring was small compared to Lehman, but still two times as large as Evergrande (prior to adjusting for economic growth).
Therefore, as the size of a default goes, I feel this should largely be contained to the Chinese high-yield (HY) market and other related credit markets. Total global debt is $400 trillion. I know that I am old enough to remember when a $100 billion default in public debt was meaningful (as with the “LDC debt crisis” in 1988, for example) but with all of the growth in debt, the truth of the inescapable global debt spiral, and the liquidity that the global central banks are flooding into the market, I believe the contagion risks are low. Not zero, but certainly nothing like a Lehman moment. The shadow banking concerns should be contained in China and in banks with Asian credit exposure, so watch bank certificates of deposit for names like Standard Chartered and HSBC for indications it is spreading.
Looking only at the Chinese HY market, one can feel the pain experienced in the price action of the bonds. It would more accurately be defined as the Chinese “distressed debt index,” since the market is largely made up of property developers and, of those developers, Evergrande accounts for about 15% weight in the index. The index yields over 14% (compared to the U.S. HY index at about 4%).
However, there are some meaningful considerations, including some bond math. Firstly, the U.S. HY market is far more diversified by industry, has far more diversified and experienced players, and has a true distressed debt buyer group that lives under the HY market. In the event that a credit becomes stressed or distressed, U.S. distressed debt buyers swoop in to fill the buyer gap from traditional “going concern” HY buyers. The Chinese HY market is younger, is far less diverse, and far less experienced in terms of a learning history.
The bond math consideration is important, too. When debt trades at less than 50 cents on the dollar (Evergrande debt is at 25 cents on dollar), a calculation of yield-to-maturity (YTM) makes little sense and provides a garbage comparison. The debt is no longer trading to maturity value (100 cents to the dollar) but rather to a recovery value. In other words, in the case of Evergrande debt trading at 25% of claim, the buyers are calculating a return on recovery value, rather than the internal rate of return (IRR) or YTM on the cash flows, including a 100% principal repayment. So, looking at the 14% YTM of the Chinese HY market is sending out a flawed comparison.
In contrast, the investment-grade (IG) corporate debt market in China has held up rather well. Credit spreads have actually narrowed, reflecting no contagion concerns. One could argue that the IG market views the systemic risks as being reduced. I would not draw that immediate conclusion, but suffice to say that the IG market would be widening meaningfully if there were true systemic concerns.
The true contagion risks in China may be more psychological. Confidence in land as a store of value may be impacted. Real estate has always been an important investment in a portfolio in China and over one million Chinese consumers may lose a large portion of their prepayments. The trickle-down impacts include a slowing domestic economy (land sales accounted for 8% of GDP) together with reduced consumer confidence. Lower consumer consumption would be a natural impact.
There was also a noticeable widening of default insurance on five-year China CDS. In the eyes of the default insurance markets, China default risk is now more reflective of a BBB-rated credit rather than the single-A S&P rating. This is important, since the world’s second-largest economy is trending toward a junk-rated credit. One more rating downgrade (in the eyes of the market, to BB) and it is now a HY borrower. Wow!
Finally, it will be very interesting how China deals with the domestic claims versus the international lenders. I know how a capitalist court would deal with this situation. There is precedent in the West and that gives the distressed debt investors a well-worn roadmap. The CCP is a different animal and its “messing” with the priority-of-claims model that is law in the West may substantially increase its borrowing costs when international investors decide to avoid the Chinese exposure.
Also, think of China banning Bitcoin mining and how that is actually a gift for the West and the true flow of global capital. These two events may lay the groundwork for the further centralization (and control/abuse of capital) by the CCP versus the decentralized model that used to be embraced by freedom-loving Western countries. Markets are generally smart over the long term. In my opinion, there will certainly be long-term consequences.
I have long argued that Bitcoin should be considered default protection on a basket of fiat currencies. If the second-largest economy is trading as a junk borrower in the eyes of the market, then the value of the insurance provided by bitcoin should increase as other, less important countries and credits are also dragged into the vortex of declining sovereign credit quality.
This is the far bigger issue in my mind. As noted in my paper (published by Bitcoin Magazine in April and linked here), the intrinsic value of BTC based on CDS of a basket of sovereign credits was over $150,000 per coin prior to the recent widening of CDS spreads. Since the intrinsic value of BTC increases when the spreads widen, that intrinsic value has now increased.
Some readers will say, “Well Foss, your thesis doesn’t hold any water then. BTC is acting like a risk-off asset.”
To which I respond, “The market for BTC still has its training wheels on. The market doesn’t understand that BTC is a long volatility position. When you are short credit, you are long volatility. And BTC is a short credit position on a basket of sovereigns.”
Proceed accordingly. BTC is the best asymmetric investment opportunity (and hedge) I have seen in my 32 years of managing risk. Fiat is the ponzi.
“But Foss, they can print money to pay down the debt!”
This is true, but in a debt spiral, debt never matures, it needs to roll over. And when an auction fails and the debt does not roll, the receding tide will show who has been swimming naked.
All fixed income investors need to own BTC as insurance against inevitable fiat debasement (bonds are just a fiat contract), as well as declining sovereign credit quality.
This is a guest post by Greg Foss. Opinions expressed are entirely their own and do not necessarily reflect those of BTC Inc or Bitcoin Magazine.
Evergrande cannot be viewed correctly except in the context of the overarching economic situation in China.
Watch This Episode On YouTube
Listen To This Episode:
In this episode of Bitcoin Magazine’s “Fed Watch” podcast, I discussed the emerging story of the week, Evergrande and the Chinese recession.
We first brought up Evergrande on episode 60, back on August 11, and at the same time I made the call that China would enter a recession within three months. Our position on “Fed Watch” has been bearish on China for over a year, and my personal position has been bearish since well before the 2020 coronavirus crisis began.
I started the podcast by describing what exactly is happening. Evergrande is in massive financial trouble, and likely to default on upwards of $300 billion in debt. But it isn’t alone. To meet its obligations, Evergrande has been trying to liquidate its assets, including land, apartment units, commercial real estate like its headquarters building, and more. All of this liquidation pushes prices down, which negatively affects the price of assets on other giant real estate developers in China. The contagion is spreading.
Seventy percent of household savings is in the form of real estate. The average person in China does not invest in the stock market or other financial assets, they strictly invest in real estate, gold and bitcoin, to a degree. More auxiliary homes are bought in China than first homes, as you can see consistently rising property values are very important.
Evergrande cannot be viewed correctly except in the context of the overarching situation in China. The backdrop for this Evergrande blow up is what I call the “Second Communist Revolution” in China. Marxism is a process which the CCP fully embraced back in the late 1970s. First comes capitalism to build up capital and wealth, to build the means of production. When the income inequality gets to a critical degree, the workers revolt and seize the means of production from the capitalists. In other words, a capitalist phase is necessary for Marxist communism. China is displaying a return to more strict communist principles. We’ve seen this shift toward more authoritarianism, starting with Hong Kong, but now reaching tech companies, fintech, IPOs, the education industry and entertainment.
There is no way that the CCP didn’t see Evergrande coming, or that it doesn’t know how to bail it out. What the CCP is wanting is a redistribution of resources away from giant housing projects and into industry. This is a very difficult task, one that requires the collapse of the property bubble in China.
The rest of the world is not immune from the Chinese credit collapse, however, it will affect different economies to a greater or lesser extent. The U.S. should be fairly insulated, while countries more dependent on the current international liberal trade order, like Germany, might be hit harder. I draw the parallel to the European debt crisis after the first Great Financial Crisis. At that time, the trouble was focused in Europe and the rest of the world simply slowed. This could be similar, China has a crisis and the rest of the world slows down.
We are already in a period of shortening supply chains, on-shoring, and realignment of trade partners. This Chinese crisis might quicken that process, cutting China off more from the world.
Bitcoin has no counterparty risk, and in a deflationary credit crunch, you don’t want to hold assets that are someone else’s liability. Of course, in the credit-based money system we have now, that is nearly impossible, but bitcoin provides an elegant and easy solution. Therefore, the dollar can rise in a liquidity crisis along with bitcoin. It is important not to rely on an investment thesis for bitcoin that relies only on inflation, because when people realize we’re stuck in a deflationary environment, the reason to buy bitcoin would go away.
I finished up the podcast with a discussion about the bitcoin price and the possibility that tether is exposed to Chinese commercial paper. That would be horrible for tether and altcoins, but relatively neutral for bitcoin, though it would increase some short-term uncertainty.
Ethereum’s native token Ether (ETH) staged a rebound on Sept. 26 following a massive decline earlier this week that saw its prices plunging to as low as $2,651 on Coinbase.
The ETH/USD exchange rate rose 3.63% to hit an intraday high of $3,030. The upside move amounted to a 14.3% upside retracement from the pair’s week-to-date low at $2,651, showing that traders attempted to retain their bullish bias despite potential headwinds ahead.
Last week, Ether prices fell due to a flurry of issues arising from China. On Monday, traders dumped crypto assets en masse after a tumult in China’s heavily indebted property market prompted a selloff across global stock markets.
A rebound move ensued later in the week but met with another selloff on Friday after People’s Bank of China reiterated that crypto transactions are illegal. Nonetheless, Ethereum bulls maintained their foothold and pushed prices back above $3,000, a psychological resistance level.
The sentiments were similar across some top crypto assets, with the benchmark cryptocurrency Bitcoin hitting an intraday high of $43,767 on Coinbase following a 2.49% upside move. Meanwhile, Uniswap exchange’s native asset UNI also fared higher by more than 19%, becoming the top-performing crypto asset at least in the previous 24 hours.
At the same time, Ethereum’s top rivals Cardano (ADA) and Solana (SOL) performed poorly, with ADA/USD dropping more than 5% and SOL/USD losing over 3% on a 24-hour adjusted timeframe.
Ethereum gains also followed a bullish report thifrom JPMorgan & Chase. The study noted that institutional investors have started increasing their exposure in Ethereum markets.
Analysts at JPMorgan credited the ongoing craze in the decentralized finance (DeFi) and nonfungible token (NFT) sector as the primary driver behind investors’ interest in Ethereum. They added that the 21-day average Ethereum Futures premium climbed to 1% over spot ETH prices, citing the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME) data recorded since August.
The JPMorgan report coincided with a record amount of Ether tokens getting withdrawn out of all crypto exchanges, as per data provided by CryptoQuant. At press time, the net ETH reserves on trading platforms had dropped to 18.44 million ETH compared to 23.94 million ETH a year ago.
Related: Ethereum drops more than Bitcoin as China escalates crypto ban, ETH/BTC at 3-week low
Independent analyst PostyXBT also anticipates a potential further price rebound in Ethereum markets, noting that the cryptocurrency’s latest declines had pushed it inside a classic accumulation range, as shown in the chart below.
“Weekly close equally as important for ETH today as price tests the previous range highs as support,” the analyst noted.
“Seems like a logical area to make a higher low and I have bought more here for long-term bags/swing trade. RR looks favorable after a 33% correction from the local top.”
The views and opinions expressed here are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Cointelegraph.com. Every investment and trading move involves risk, you should conduct your own research when making a decision.