Another three character .COM gets hit with a UDRP

I’ve been writing more and more about UDRPs lately, along with the abuse that I think we can all see happening right in front of us. In many cases I see a simple scenario where someone does’t want to spend the money to buy their exact match domain, so they use the UDRP process to get it for pennies on the dollar.

Five and six-figure domains are definite targets and three character .COMs seem to be getting their fair share of the attention. Yesterday shared details about a new UDRP against by a company that currently has their site on

The domain name was sold to the current owner by who does have a history of selling domain names for big bucks so it’s likely that the current owner paid a pretty penny for this domain.

According to the DomainTools Whois History tool, the domain name had been owned by as recently as May of 2017. Knowing a bit about and its domain portfolio as well as some of its publicly known sales, it must have sold for a substantial amount of money. Regardless of its provenance, is a valuable domain name. (Source –

Given that sold for $44,700 two weeks ago it’s safe to say that would likely sell for $50,000+ and could easily sell for six-figures given the wide price range that three character .COMs sell for.

In this case, the current owner of isn’t a domain investor, instead it’s an end-user that bought the domain from to use for a cryptocurrency site:

aex-comI wrote an article early this month asking the question – are six-figure domains a risky investment? I don’t know how much the current owner paid for but like I speculated above, it was probably north of $50,000 and sure, there are probably people out there that would pay six-figures for it.

This UDRP is another great example of the risk domain owners face (investor or not) when they buy high-value domain names. I’ve heard some startup founders say, “well I don’t have to worry since I’m not a domain squatter, this is my one and only domain for my business.”

It doesn’t matter – whether you’re buying the domain as an investment, or as the primary domain for your site, short, valuable domain names like this are prime UDRP targets. Given that UDRPs are still a fairly arbitrary process that often comes down to personal opinion more than legal right this makes domains like a bit scary to own, no matter what your plans are for it.

For me as a domain investor, most of the domains I buy are under $10,000 – heck most are under $5,000 and I sell domains in the $2,500 – $7,500 range on average. I have thought about one day buying a domain for $25,000 – $50,000 that could sell for six-figures, the opportunities are definitely out there.

But for now, I don’t think it’s worth the risk. I’d rather buy 20 domains for $5,000 each or 50 domains for $1,000 each. Less risk and I think in many ways the same or even better/faster ROI. I also think that’s why as an investor, I’d rather deploy capital in that range into things like the stock market and real estate that carry less risk.

I’m a big fan of diversification, and domains are still the primary place I invest my money, but I’ll be staying away from three character .COMs and other short, valuable domains that are a target for the current, broken, UDRP system.

What do you think? Am I being overly dramatic or is this a BIG deal that impacts every single domain investor out there? I want to hear from you – comment and let your voice be heard!



If you don’t know the history behind DNForum’s last year, well, I don’t have the energy to go through it all so let’s just say, the forum changed hands, then changed hands again, and then once more, which is where it is now.

I am excited to say that the new owners of are actually long-time members of the forum so are likely the best people to breathe new life into what was once one of the most active forums about domain nam investing.

While some of you might be reading about this change on my blog, I actually found out about this change myself while reading one of my favorite domain blogs – Here’s the full recap as was originally posted on and later on DomainState:

“My name is Oliver and I am one of the new owners of DNF. I wanted to reach out and let the community know about our short-term plans for DNF and who the team consists off. We are sorry for keeping you in suspense for these last couple of days but we wanted a chance to get the deal finalized before taking the stage. 

We are three owners;
Lars – Castion, whom will be handling business management and development. 
Johnn – Johnn, whom will be heading up the mod team and assisting with business development. 
Myself – Seek99, whom will help with the strategic vision and act as a business advisor. 

We know it is a monumental task to bring DNF back from the brink its teetering on (/fell off) but we believe that its possible by focusing on the core values that made DNF great. A lot of people invested their money, time and wisdom here and that deserves respect. We hope to return some of that invested energy back to our community members in the form of actual tangible benefits. 

Some of our short-term goals are; 
A return to the gold / platinum / exclusive membership classes and forums.
A roll back to some of the old forums categories like short domains.
A new design to help us turn a fresh page.
Bringing back the trader ratings.
Removing Adsense ads.
Killing the crypto forums. (Already done). 

We will not be taking the forums offline but will implement our updates piecemeal during the coming months. 

Overall, we want to move the focus away from creating short term profits and towards building a sustainable community that is laser focused on domain name investing and discussion. Our end goal is for DNF to rise from the ashes reinvigorated as the go to place for professionals in our industry. 

Some of our long-term development goals are; 
Implementing a tag-based marketplace system and search.
Bringing value and benefits back into the exclusive membership.
Making user-driven innovation a focal point for further development.

We are not kidding ourselves. It won’t be an easy task, but we are in it for the long run. In the end many small steps goes a long way. We hope that you will join us in this journey and help us achieve our goal. 

Finally we would like to the previous owners of DNF for their assistance in making this transaction easy and agreeable. We wish them all the best in their future endeavours.

For Sure stay turned for updates open to ideas what domainers want to see!”

(Source – DSAD)

So now for my two cents.

I like it. Who better to bring DNForum back to life than members who were previously active on the forum? It sounds like they are also very well aware of what most members would like to see happen – i.e. Gold, Platinum, and Exclusive membership classes, and end to annoying AdSense ads, and, well not that I’m a fan but heck it’s called DNForum so I’ll take it – killing the crypto forums.

Let’s be honest. While a lot of Domainers (myself included) are also investing in crypto, the freaking forum’s name is DNForum so having sections dedicated to crypto doesn’t really make very much sense so I’m actually glad to see this wiped away.

I also really like the idea of taking the focus away from short-term profits because that really doesn’t exist in any steady-state in the domain world. Focusing on creating sustainable businesses/income makes a lot more sense and really is the only path to realistically take anyone new to this industry down.

It sounds like Oliver and team have a good plan and I’d like to sit down and chat with them more as things progress…so I’ll have to figure out if they’re in SF anytime soon or if I’ll be wherever they happen to be sooner.

Either way, I think this is a huge step in the right direction and I applaud Oliver and friends in being open and honest in their plan for what’s ahead. Here’s to the next generation of DNForum – I’m looking forward to contributing…even though I suck as staying on top of forums, no really – I suck at it, but I’ll do my best!

What do you think? Is this a step in the right direction for DNForum? I want to hear from you – comment and let your voice be heard!


I’ve always found it interesting to take a look at what happens to a domain name after you sell it. In some cases I’ve found domains that I’ve sold lay dormant for years after the sale, in other cases I’ve seen a site go up in a matter of days.

Tonight I was going through some past sales and I found the a bunch that had been developed including one that I just sold a couple weeks ago that’s now home to a new crypto startup. So I thought I’d share a few past domain sales and what’s on the domains now, enjoy! (sold Jan 2018)

pallet-io (Sold December 2017)

coinstreams (Sold in June of 2017)


It was particularly fun to see what the new owners of did with the domain. I had originally purchased this domain name when I went through Lean Startup Machine in NYC. At the time we were looking at using the domain to help startups find and vet engineering talent…pretty cool to see someone else bring a very similar idea to life on the name.

Feel free to share some of your favorite “now developed” past domain sales or comment on any of the ones I’ve listed above. Happy Sunday!


The cryptocurrency correction that started in January and extended to February moved a lot of money out of the market, or so it seemed for a minute there as Bitcoin plunged below $7,000. A lot of day traders got decimated, individual investors were terrified, and the HOLD crew – well they were all yelling HODL!
keep-calm-and-hodlThen last week came and Bitcoin crept back up breaking the $10,000 mark, a point many people could take months or more to reach. Both Litecoin and Ripple saw incredibly strong weekly growth at 52% and 46% respectively.

Here’s a look at the top ten cryptocurrencies as of publishing this post at 10:00PM PST on Thursday February 15th.


(Source –

If you take a look at the seven day price charts to the right of each cryptocurrency you’ll see pretty solid growth across-the-board. When this happens many people report on the specific good news that moved each cryptocurrency:

“After Ripple’s (XRP) announcement yesterday, Feb. 14, that they are partnering with the Saudi Arabian Monetary Authority for a pilot program for cross-border payments, the price rose from its Feb. 14 intraday low of $1.02 to $1.15.” (Source – CoinTelegraph)

While I do think the Feb 14th announcement helped Ripple, the only reason it even made it up over a dollar is because Bitcoin recovered bringing all the altcoins it had taken with it, back up. Right now we’re living at a time where the price of Bitcoin has a massive impact on altcoins, so when Bitcoin is down, so is everyone else and the recoveries work in mysterious ways.

The question now is if we’ve established a new base and started a bull run, or if this is what investors call a dead cat bounce:

“A dead cat bounce is a temporary recovery from a prolonged decline or a bear market that is followed by the continuation of the downtrend. The name “dead cat bounce” is based on the notion that even a dead cat will bounce if it falls far enough and fast enough.” (Source – Investopedia)

There’s really no way to tell until we let the next few weeks play out. The cryptocurrency markets are incredibly volatile which means trying to predict them, even using fancy technical analysis, often doesn’t really apply. Still, the overall concept of a dead cat bounce is one that does likely apply overall – if we’re still in a bear market, which we could very well be, then quick jumps up could easily be followed by sharp drops back down.

At the same time, what has so many people fascinated by cryptocurrencies is the fact that Bitcoin could be $15,000, heck if could be $19,000 and that would be entirely possible. Of course the opposite could happen and Bitcoin could drop to $5,000 or less – that’s also entirely possible. As I’ve said many times before, I’m bullish on a number of cryptocurrencies (BTC, ETH, and LTC are my three favorites), but over a multi-year time period. In the short term I can see the market rising and falling, then rising again, and falling again.

What I think is going to be interesting to watch is how the rest of February goes. There’s a lot of people speculating this is the beginning of a bull run, that would be fun to watch, but like I said, the exact opposite could happen and I don’t think anyone should be surprised.

So I’ll ask you what you think since I’m stumped. What is the second half of February going to look like?



Last week I wrote about what I think will go down as one of the worst UDRP decisions in history. In case you missed this one, here’s a quick recap. Well-known Domain Name Investor and publisher of the incredibly popular website lost via UDRP.

What made this so ridiculous (to me at least) is that one of the reasons stated in the UDRP proceedings was that the asking price of $500,000 for the three letter .COM was “way too much.” It just so happens that the same day this UDRP was announced, a three letter .COM, sold for $500,000 – how’s that for irony.

This particular UDRP decision really made me angry for two reasons:

  1. Every time a company wins a UDRP for a short, generic word like this, it becomes harder for investors to feel confident in investing and holding names like this as a real asset. In short, I think it’s bad decisions like these that threaten domain names as asset classes, and I wrote a post related to this yesterday about the risks of owning six-figure domain names.
  2. Francois is a really good guy who has done a ton for the domain industry. There’s no doubt in my mind that this is a $500,000 asset – and to watch a friend (okay we’ve never met but heck I’ve known Francois for 10 years!) lose a $500,000 asset is painful.

So I was very excited to read today on Domain Name Wire that Francois is fighting back and suing the company who in my mind stole a $500,000 asset from him.

Francois Carrillo, the owner of domain blog aggregator, has sued (pdf) Mexican bus company Autobuses dr Oriente ADO, S.A. de C.V. after a UDRP panel ordered his domain transferred. He is seeking the UDRP to be overturned and is asking for a penalty for reverse domain name hijacking. (Source –

I’m looking forward to seeing justice served here and hopefully this case will be used in the future as a warning to other thieves who are thinking about abusing the UDRP system to steal domain names like this. Still, it’s going to cost Francois a pretty penny to defend himself here, and in the end he could spend all this additional money and still lose the domain name.

Your average domain investor doesn’t have the funds to defend a bad UDRP decision which is why, like I said in my post yesterday, I think there are real risks that come with owning six-figure domain names. While I hope Francois wins this one and it goes on to become an example for future cases, I still think there is a big issue that we just can’t ignore as an industry – UDRP is a broken process, it’s 2018, let’s fix it.

Go get em’ Francois, let’s use this decision as a solid foundation to build on. Let’s get the ICA more involved, let’s get individual investors more involved, otherwise – let’s be honest, domains are going to be an increasingly scary “asset class” for your average investor to feel safe parking their hard earned money in.


Are six-figure domain names a risky investment?


Over the last few years I think it’s safe to say that the domain industry has seen some pretty terrible UDRP decisions. For any of my blog readers who don’t know what a UDRP is, here’s a quick primer:

UDRP is an acronym for Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy.

All ICANN-accredited registrars follow a uniform dispute resolution policy. Under that policy, disputes over entitlement to a domain-name registration are ordinarily resolved by court litigation between the parties claiming rights to the registration. Once the courts rule who is entitled to the registration, the registrar will implement that ruling. In disputes arising from registrations allegedly made abusively (such as “cybersquatting” and cyberpiracy”), the uniform policy provides an expedited administrative procedure to allow the dispute to be resolved without the cost and delays often encountered in court litigation. In these cases, you can invoke the administrative procedure by filing a complaint with one of the dispute-resolution service providers.

Three criteria must be met to prove a UDRP:
1. The first is that the domain name must be identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the complainant has right.
2. The second is that the registrant has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name.
3. And then the third is that the registrant registered and used the domain name in bad faith.

Domain names are transferred ten days after a UDRP case has been decided, where a decision is made to transfer the domain name to the complainant. (Source –

While you might think that buying a domain name from a reputable company for a six-figure sum would mean that you own that domain name free and clear, unfortunately that’s not always the case. Abuse of the UDRP process has opened the door for companies and individuals to literally steal domain names through a legal process that can often come down to opinion over fact.

Over the last few years it’s been hard to ignore some of the absolutely terrible UDRP decisions. In many cases, six and seven figures domain names tend to get challenged more than most, making them in my mind, riskier to own unless you have a solid budget to spend defending them. While you might feel safe spending say $150,000 to buy a domain name through a reputable marketplace like Sedo or Go Daddy, and you know the name you’re buying is worth $500,000 – you could still lose your domain in a UDRP.

Now the silver lining here is that there is such a thing as Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (skip if you know that and are sick of me posting definitions):

Specifically, according to the UDRP Rules, RDNH is defined as follows: “Reverse Domain Name Hijacking means using the [UDRP] in bad faith to attempt to deprive a registered domain-name holder of a domain name.” The Rules also state: “If after considering the submissions the Panel finds that the complaint was brought in bad faith, for example in an attempt at Reverse Domain Name Hijacking or was brought primarily to harass the domain-name holder, the Panel shall declare in its decision that the complaint was brought in bad faith and constitutes an abuse of the administrative proceeding.” (Source –

That being said, getting into a legal battle with a big company isn’t cheap so this means that if you want to hold-onto your six-figure domain you’ll need to lay out quite a bit of cash. While the risk of investing in six and seven figure domain names decrease thanks to RDNH, it doesn’t eliminate the risk since it’s not safe to assume that you’ll be able to always win every RDNH.

For your average individual domain name investor I think this makes six-figure domain names one of the riskiest places to put their money, and sadly, makes domain names one of the riskiest individual assets with that kind of value. Here’s what I mean.

Suppose I put $100,000 in as a down payment on a house that costs, let’s say $300,000. While it’s not impossible for that house to decrease in price, maybe all the way to say $150,000 – it would be next to impossible for it to drop to $0. After ten years it also wouldn’t be surprising to anyone if you sold the house you originally paid $300,000 for, for $500,000 or more.

Now let’s look at the stock market. Suppose I put $100,000 into what I would call a safe stock, something like Amazon or Apple that I think we can all say isn’t going to drop to $0 in ten years. I think many people wouldn’t be surprised if that $100,000 was $300,000 or more and I think we’d all agree the risk is pretty darn low.

Okay, now let’s get nice and boring and take the $100,000 and put it into a low load mutual fund. This time we’re likely not going to see the $100,000 turn into $300,000 or more, but you know it’s not going to $0 and you’d expect to get back more than $100,000 so still turn a profit.

These are three different well-known and widely accepted asset classes. Now let’s turn to domains names. If you put $100,000 into a domain name that we’d all agree is worth $500,000 and that past sales data shows could even sell for more…you could lost that domain in a UDRP and be left with nothing a month after you buy it. That’s a real risk.

So what’s my point here? Am I saying that nobody should buy domains that are worth over $100,000? No – that’s not what I’m saying. I think people should continue to buy high-value domains, but at the same time, I think we should be honest about the risks and the realities of the flaws that exist UDRPs and the real threat it poses to domain names as an asset class. Heck, people have been writing academic papers on this problem starting more than fifteen years ago.

If you have millions of dollars, $100,000 might be a fine amount of money to risk for the chance to turn it into $500,000 or more. You could wait five years, heck you can wait ten years or more for the right buyer to come around and boom – you just made a huge return. On the flip side your average non-millionaire domain investor probably cares a lot about that $100,000 and tying it up for 5 – 10 years, and putting it at risk of being hit with a UDRP is too big of a risk to take.

So here’s the question – can we create an environment where investors can put $100,000 or more into a single domain name and know that asset will be protected like it is with stocks, bonds, mutual funds and real estate? What can we do as an industry to improve the process and take the risk out of owning six and seven figure domain names?

Phew – this has been a long post but as you can tell it’s a topic I’m passionate about, and you should be too! Now it’s your turn, what do you think? Comment and let your voice be heard!



If you are currently involved in crypto, in just about any way, then you know that Binance – the largest cryptocurrency exchange in the world is down, and has been for most of the day today. Rumors quickly spread that the global exchange was hacked but the company has re-assured everyone via Twitter that they were troubleshooting a server issue and have not been compromised in any way.

The problem all started when Binance decided to perform “system maintenance” yesterday and told users that performance could be impacted while it was taking place.


People seemed pretty happy with Binance for their transparency as, at the time, with roughly 2,000 people liking that particular tweet. Then things, uh, didn’t go quite according to plan…the CEO later tweeted out that Binance experience a “server issue” which was “causing some data to be out of sync” which is the last thing you want to hear from a company where you have a bunch of money invested.


This of course cause widespread panic and led many people to wonder…was there really a server issue or was Binance hacked? The media immediately started covering the story and word spread quickly through the cryptocurrency community.


There was quite an uprising on Reddit and across other cryptocurrency communities across the web with users complaining about the company deciding to do what many called “surprise maintenance” on the exchange.

While I was surprised this happened in some ways, I think it’s easy for everyone to forget that a year ago there was no Binance, heck, seven months ago the world’s largest cryptocurrency exchange didn’t exist.

“Seven months ago Binance didn’t exist. Since then, its 1.4 million-transactions-per-second capability have attracted 6 million users, making it the world’s largest crypto-exchange.” (Source – Forbes, Feb 7th 2018)

For anyone who thinks “crypto is over” or “the golden years of crypto have passed” let me be the first to remind you that these are still the early days, big time. Imagine the stock market when Charles Schwab had been around for seven months…for those keeping score that would be October of 1971.

I just went to check on the status of Binance and, well, it’s still down.


I’m off to bed but I’ll be interested to see how this pans out in the morning. This is a great reminder for crypto investors that they shouldn’t keep their money in exchanges. I’m a big fan of the Trezor and the Nano S and have both devices myself, while I use Binance to trade, I don’t keep too much on the exchange so most of it is tucked away for safe keeping because, like any early adopter should know, this kind of stuff can and will happen…in the early days.




Last week I wrote a post asking my readers if they are still parking their domains or instead using “make offer” landing pages. In my book these have been the two options I’ve moved between myself, starting with parked pages and moving to where I am now with all “make offer” landing pages.

This post started a good discussion in my comment thread that included some pretty solid words of wisdom from Logan Flatt, who in case you missed the memo, had a pretty kick-ass 2017 when it comes to domain sales. Here’s what Logan shared about the landing pages he puts on his domain names:


I’ve spent the past year testing BIN landing pages and it’s been far more lucrative than PPC pages or “Make Offer” pages.

Over the years, “Make Offer” pages only seemed to invite the $100 tire kickers with a sense of unjustified entitlement or nice people from around the world who cannot read the page because they do not speak English and fill out the form thinking they are engaging with the business that formerly used the domain name for a now-defunct website. I grew tired of wasting my limited time on these inquiries and decided to start testing BIN landing pages. A made more money in one year using BIN landing pages than all other years combined.

My current 90-day test: BIN landing pages with a “Make Offer” option with a high minimum offer set at 67% of BIN. So far, so good — one negotiated sale based on the “Make Offer” option, one BIN sale that ignored the “Make Offer” option, and one “Make Offer” sale where, amazingly, the buyer offered higher than the BIN price because he wanted to make payments over time and felt the higher price would compensate me for not taking the full BIN price in cash immediately (he’s currently making payments).

I think the key is to test different approaches for at least 90 to 180 days and sticking to the test for the full test period without deviating from the strategy for that period (commitment and discipline!). Assess the sales made during the period, formulate new hypotheses about what new strategies to test that might increase portfolio cash flow, and start another test to confirm or reject the new hypotheses. Repeat again and again until you lock in a winning strategy based on portfolio cash flow and a minimum ROI for the portfolio. (Read Logan’s comment on my original post)

I’m not sure why BIN landing pages never crossed my mind, but it hadn’t, and based on Logan’s feedback I think I’ll be giving them a shot. I don’t do any outbound on my domain names so everything I sell is inbound.

I like Logan’s approach of testing for 90 to 180 days, sticking to the test, and then staying with the strategy that works the best. At Bold Metrics we live by the mantra “build, measure, learn” and I think applying this approach to domain investing as well is a smart approach.

So here’s what I plan on testing:

  • Half of my domains using landing pages with BIN prices
  • Half of my domains using Efty landing pages with BIN prices
  • Total testing time – 90 days

As usual I’ll share results with all of you along the way and then determine hopefully one of two things at the end of this experiment.

  1. Does adding BIN prices increase my sales velocity?
  2. Between and Efty, who performs the best in this scenario?

Of course, if after 90 days the results are inconclusive I’ll likely continue to run the test unless for some reason I notice negative results (i.e. nothing selling) in which case I’ll augment either my sales prices or start to split test BIN landing pages vs. my normal “make offer” landing pages.

The complexities with running a test like this is that no two domains are truly created equal so it’s going to be hard to adjust for the fact that I might end up with better names on one of the platforms. The other complexity is that the sales velocity is also dependent on what BIN price I use so I’ll be doing my best to put competitive prices on as many names as possible during the testing period. If I sell a handful of names for a bit less than expected, I’m okay with that as long as I’m still booking a solid profit.

Now is where you come in – what else do you think I can do to help create the best conditions for a test like this? I want to hear from you, comment and let your voice be heard!


Suffice it to say that today was a crazy day all around. The stock market plunged marking its largest losses since 2011, the crypto market continued to crash as Bitcoin plunged to the low $6,000’s and, a generic 3L .COM was lost in one of the most unfair UDRP decisions I’ve ever heard.

What makes this UDRP decision so ridiculous is the reasoning behind the panel’s decision which comes at an amazing time given that the sale of was announced for $500,000 today. I first read about the UDRP on Domain Name Wire, and here’s the logic the panel used in their decision:

“Among the judgments the panel made is that $500,000 was too much to ask for the domain name because Carillo purchased it for $27,500. Not only is the purchase price incorrect (Carrillo also transferred the domain to the seller as part of the deal), but panels shouldn’t generally get involved with determining what a fair price is for a domain.

One of the more forehead-slapping claims by the complainant, a Mexican bus company called Ado that uses, relates to this price. It claims that the $500,000 asking price is “outrageous when compared to the other domain names offered for sale or rent on the “” website”, according to the decision. It gives five examples:

Domain Name 500,000 USD 45,000 USD 50,000 USD 20,000 USD 80,000 USD”

(Source –

Meanwhile, today Frank Tillmanns announced the sale of the 3L .COM, for $500,000 on popular domain name marketplace


So let me get this straight…Francois lost in a UDRP because the panel felt that asking for $500,000 was “outrageous” and today a 3L .COM sells for $500,000? Pardon my french but this WIPO decision is complete bullshit.

I hope the people on the WIPO panel for read this article and realize how stupid their decision was. Also I hope Francois can take the criminals who stole his domain to court and get his domain and some well-deserved damages back for the insane reverse domain hijacking stunt they managed to pull.

It’s still crazy to me that in 2018 decisions like this still manage to get through the UDRP process, but it also shows that the domain name world is still the wild west and people can, sometimes, steal six-figure domain names through a legal process.

What can we do to help Francois and what can we all to together to help ridiculous decisions like this from happening in the future? I want to hear from you, comment and let your voice be heard!


Breaking: China issues full ban on crypto

Well it’s safe to say that the next 24-hours are going to be incredibly rough for the crypto world as China just announced a complete ban on cryptocurrency trading. The news was reported less than an hour ago in the South China Morning Post.


“China is to block all websites related to cryptocurrency trading and initial coin offerings (ICOs) – including foreign platforms – in a bid to finally quash the market completely.” (Source – South China Morning Post)

What this means for the already battered crypto markets one can only guess but with Bitcoin struggling to stay above $8,000 I think it’s safe to say we’re going to see it get quite a bit lower this week. This is also one of those times where everyone trying to do technical analysis is going to have a pretty hard time since technical analysis was really meant for markets that follow some set of rules.

Imagine trying to apply technical analysis to a stock if suddenly the US stopped allowing people to buy stocks…it just wouldn’t work. This is why I definitely think that reading articles about where Bitcoin’s “critical supports” are or about which Fibonacci line makes sense now really is just a bunch of BS.

The reality is, this news is going to scare the crap out of investors/speculators and the market is going to likely tank. As someone that’s in this for the long haul I expect a lot more bad news like this to come over the years, along with a lot of good news and adoption by large platforms like Fidelity and eTrade…but I’m getting ahead of myself, that probably won’t happen for a while.

Now you might have thought that China already banned crypto but that wasn’t quite the case, although they did make a major move in that direction way back in September.

Officially, the ban on big cryptocurrency exchanges and ICOs implemented in September 2017 has been effective in mitigating potential financial and social risks. According to the report, the amount of cryptocurrency trading in RMB made up 90% of the total volume of global transactions but the number is now down to 1%. Unofficially, however, many Chinese citizens have been trading through platforms outside of China by using online circumvention tools. Currently, Japan and Hong Kong are the most popular places to trade cryptocurrency for Chinese citizens. (Source – TechNode)

As I’ve said many times in past articles but never hurts to say again, I’m a long-term speculator in crypto so the positions I have now I’m holding for the next five years, I think any short-term trading moves is truly high stakes gambling. That being said I do sometimes buy more on the dips but this is one of those dips that I won’t be buying into right away.  Once the carnage is over I think there will be a great buying opportunity, but for now, it’s limbo time which means it’s time to see how low can it go.

I honestly wouldn’t be surprised to see Bitcoin at $5k or lower, but five years from now I wouldn’t be surprised to see it north of $50k. What do you think? Comment and let your voice be heard!