Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

The transaction in the back end probably is just an internal transfer. You do a one off transaction say 1000 and you spend from that. So you only did a single asset sale


sort by: page size:

Transactions.

There is no new value created there, it's just transferred from the buyer to the seller (with some being diverted as transaction costs).

It might be state money. Just seeing the transaction flow is gold. And once you have sold an exchange, you might never get an opportunity to buy it back.

It is unclear to me how the $1000 of fiat gets transferred from the buyer (Bob) to the seller (Sam) in the example.

great explanation, thank you. I too wonder about the conversion. I had a pending cash out transaction that was cancelled and wondering whether the assets would go towards it (from my reading it does).

It’s a special kind of account, you can sell everything and withdraw the proceeds, then buy new assets outside that account. So you can choose, but not retroactively (unfortunately!)

The issue is what to do when you can't reverse the transaction because the other end (goods, stocks, etc.) is already gone.

But it’s not client money the second the trade executes?

Transactions :)

I believe it is reverse repos [1] they are referring to.

"When the Desk conducts an overnight RRP, as in the current ON RRP exercise, it is selling an asset held in the System Open Market Account (SOMA) with an agreement to buy it back on the next business day. This leaves the SOMA portfolio the same size, as securities sold temporarily under repurchase agreements continue to be shown as assets held by the SOMA in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, but the transaction changes some of the liabilities on the Federal Reserve’s balance sheet from deposits to reverse repos while the trade is outstanding."

[1] https://www.newyorkfed.org/markets/rrp_faq.html


One occurs as a financial transaction.

The easiest way to see it is like this: Lets say you make chairs. Someone pays you 100$ for a chair. You make the chair with a small amount of materials, and sell it to the buyer for 100$.

At the start of this process, there was 100$ and maybe 5$ of materials. After the transaction, the 100$ is still there, but there is also a chair worth 100$ in circulation. So 105$ of assets turned into 200$.


Well probably just a liquid source of funds transferred directly to an account vs. some other financial instrument. No one is going to do a deal like that in physical cash.

Yes, and in fact these transactions are often in cash.

It's true there's always going to have to be an initial transaction that's dirty. But if you have some (other) way to wash that, you can do all your following transactions as "art" sales, keeping the art in a freeport so it's never taxed as an asset and is just moved from one vault to another when these sales are made.


I also see no difference. What I meant is that the "trading" part is the problem, not a specific asset.

Could you give an example of how such a bigger transaction would look like?

Transfers between accounts != liquidity. Liquidity is selling an asset without moving the price. If you sell $50m of AAPL, a highly liquid stock, the price may move a bit, but not a ton. If you actually sold $50m of bitcoin, you would probably have trouble getting the buyers AND the price would fall.

Not sure that makes any sense... if users held the assets before, they have an asset with unrealized gains. When it transfers ownership, those gains are realized.

I think they mean financial transactions where total $% changes hands between parties. Not database transactions or API calls.
next

Legal | privacy