"Holders" are not "users".
It is possible that there are maybe 20 million bitcoin holders who never had a wallet. But one should not trust the numbers claimed by Coinbase etc. >>
Conversation
>> MtGox boasted more than a million clients, but after its collapse it was found that the *active* accounts were much, muc fewer.
Bitcoin banks like Coinbase must inflate their numbers to keep up with the competition. There is no auditing and no penalty for "creative counting"
1
8
This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more
Yes, and all exchanges and "crypto banks". Only by a much bigger factor
2
This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more
Trading volume in crypto exchanges can be inflated by wash trades. They are illegal in stock markets, but there are no regulations or monitoring of crypto markets. >>
1
1
>> If an exchange claims 10 million clients but has only 100'000 and its software can handle only 1000 simultaneous users, it will crash during big price moves anyway.
1
This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more
Of course they will.
1
1
eh some exchanges fake numbers, some do a bit, some don't.
happy to give info about which do and don't! and what I think the *real* numbers are.
1
2
Everyone will try to present themselves in a good light; if they say "X users" with no more color, it's probably total registered, not daily active; and lots of exchanges fake volume.
But some don't fake any volume. Generally ftx.com/volume-monitor is good for real volume.
in terms of users -- idk what other exchanges' numbers are, but my guess is roughly, across all exchange combined, the _real_ numbers are:
100m users
5m DAUs
$100B daily volume
$30m daily revenue
$15m daily profit
1
4
I can believe your last two numbers. I don't see how one can estimate the first two, without blindly trusting the exchanges. As for trading volume, it is a meaningless number, because of script robot trading and very likely wash trading.
1
1
6
Show replies
You report is interesting, but it goes by the "innocent until proven guilty" principle, no? That is, the "36% fake" figure is "36% confirmed fake and 64% could be fake", isn't that so?