Connect with us

Markets rally after FOMC meeting, but Bitcoin bears still have a short-term advantage

Bitcoin, altcoins and stocks rallied shortly after the Fed laid out its policy roadmap for 2022, but bears still have an advantage in this week $755 million options expiry.
Bitcoin’s (BTC) price has been in a down-trend since the…

Published

on

Bitcoin, altcoins and stocks rallied shortly after the Fed laid out its policy roadmap for 2022, but bears still have an advantage in this week $755 million options expiry.

Bitcoin's (BTC) price has been in a down-trend since the $69,000 all-time high on Nov. 10, when the the Labor report showed inflation pushing above 6.2% in the United States. While this news could be beneficial for non-inflationary assets, the VanEck physical Bitcoin exchange-traded fund (ETF) denial by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on Nov. 12 threw some investors off-guard.

Bitcoin/USD price on Coinbase. Source: TradingView

While the ETF request denial was generally expected, the reasons given by the regulator may be worrisome for some investors. The U.S. SEC cited the inability to avoid market manipulation on the broader Bitcoin market due to unregulated exchanges and heavy trading volume based on Tether's (USDT) stablecoin.

Analyzing the broader market structure is extremely relevant, especially considering that investors closely monitor meetings held by the U.S. Federal Reserve. Regardless of the magnitude of the upcoming tapering in the Fed's bond and assets repurchase program, Bitcoin's movements have been tracking the U.S. Treasury yields over the past 12 months.

Bitcoin/USD at FTX (orange, left) vs. U.S. 10-year Treasury Yields (blue, right). Source: TradingView

This tight correlation shows how decisive the Federal Reserve's monetary policy has been with riskier assets, including Bitcoin. Moreover, the yield decline over the past three weeks from 1.64 to 1.43 partially explains the weakness seen in the crypto market.

Obviously, there are cother factors in play, for example, the market pullback on Nov. 26 was primarily based on concerns over the new COVID-19 variant. Regarding derivatives markets, a Bitcoin price below $48,000 gives bears complete control over Friday's $755 million BTC options expiry.

Bitcoin options aggregate open interest for Dec. 17. Source: Coinglass.com

At first sight, the $470 million call (buy) options overshadow the $285 million put (sell) instruments, but the 1.64 call-to-put ratio is deceptive because the 14% price drop since Nov. 30 will likely wipe out most of the bullish bets.

If Bitcoin's price remains below $49,000 at 8:00 am UTC on Dec. 17, only $28 million worth of those call (buy) options will be available at the expiry. In short, there is no value in the right to buy Bitcoin at $49,000 if it is trading below that price.

Bears are comfortable with Bitcoin below $57,000

Here are the three most likely scenarios for the $755 million Friday's options expiry. The imbalance favoring each side represents the theoretical profit. In other words, depending on the expiry price, the quantity of call (buy) and put (sell) contracts becoming active varies:

  • Between $45,000 and $47,000: 110 calls vs. 2,400 puts. The net result is $105 million favoring the put (bear) options.
  • Between $47,000 and $48,000: 280 calls vs. 1,900 puts. The net result is $75 million favoring the put (bear) instruments.
  • Between $48,000 and $50,000: 1,190 calls vs. 1,130 puts. The net result is balanced between call and put options.

This crude estimate considers call options being used in bullish bets and put options exclusively in neutral-to-bearish trades. However, this oversimplification disregards more complex investment strategies.

For instance, a trader could have sold a put option, effectively gaining a positive exposure to Bitcoin (BTC) above a specific price. But, unfortunately, there's no easy way to estimate this effect.

Bulls need $48,000 or higher to balance the scales

The only way for bulls to avoid a significant loss in the Dec. 17 expiry is by sustaining Bitcoin's price above $48,000. However, if the current short-term negative sentiment prevails, bears could easily pressure the price down 4% from the current $48,500 and profit up to $105 million if Bitcoin price stays below $47,000.

Currently, options markets data slightly favor the put (sell) options, thus creating opportunities for additional negative pressure.

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.

Read More

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

ARPA-H appoints Etta Pisano to lead its Advancing Clinical Trials Readiness Initiative

The Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health (ARPA-H) has appointed Etta D. Pisano, MD, FACR, senior portfolio lead, to build the agency’s clinical…

Published

on

The Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health (ARPA-H) has appointed Etta D. Pisano, MD, FACR, senior portfolio lead, to build the agency’s clinical trial portfolio and lead the ARPA-H Advancing Clinical Trials Readiness Initiative under ARPA-H Resilient Systems Mission Office Director Jennifer Roberts.

Credit: N/A

The Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health (ARPA-H) has appointed Etta D. Pisano, MD, FACR, senior portfolio lead, to build the agency’s clinical trial portfolio and lead the ARPA-H Advancing Clinical Trials Readiness Initiative under ARPA-H Resilient Systems Mission Office Director Jennifer Roberts.

The first radiologist to be appointed to such a role, Dr. Pisano is an internationally recognized expert in women’s health, breast cancer research, and the use of artificial intelligence in medical imaging applications.

“I am honored to be working for ARPA-H to identify and promote research that can improve healthcare quality, efficacy and delivery, and to improve patient care and access to clinical trials for all Americans, including women, rural residents, and the underserved,” said Dr. Pisano.

Dr. Pisano will continue to serve as study chair of the large-scale Tomosynthesis Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial (TMIST) for the ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group (ECOG-ACRIN). TMIST is led by ECOG-ACRIN with funding from the National Cancer Institute, part of the National Institutes of Health. She will also continue to serve as the American College of Radiology® (ACR®) Chief Research Officer (CRO). Dr. Pisano previously served as the principal investigator of the landmark Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial (DMIST).

The TMIST breast cancer screening study is among the fastest growing National Cancer Institute (NCI) trials of the COVID-19 era. Under Dr. Pisano’s leadership, TMIST is assembling one of the most diverse cancer screening trial populations ever. Approximately 21% of TMIST U.S. participants are Black—more than double the average rate for Black participation in NCI-funded clinical trials (9%).

With ARPA-H, Dr. Pisano will work to build underserved and minority participation in clinical trials—including identifying and onboarding rural facilities and those outside of large academic medical centers—such as emerging retail healthcare sites. 

These duties are also very consistent with the missions of ECOG-ACRIN and ACR, which include promoting the exploration and identification of next-generation technologies that can benefit patients and providers.

“This is a great opportunity for Etta, and I’m excited about the impact she will make on our approach to clinical trials,” said Mitchell D. Schnall, MD, PhD, group co-chair of ECOG-ACRIN.

About ECOG-ACRIN

The ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group (ECOG-ACRIN) is an expansive membership-based scientific organization that designs and conducts cancer research involving adults who have or are at risk of developing cancer. The Group comprises nearly 1400 member institutions and 21,000 research professionals in the United States and around the world. ECOG-ACRIN is known for advancing precision medicine and biomarker research through its leadership of major national clinical trials integrating cutting-edge genomic approaches. Member researchers and advocates collaborate across more than 40 scientific committees to design studies spanning the cancer care spectrum, from early detection to management of advanced disease. ECOG-ACRIN is funded primarily by the National Cancer Institute, part of the National Institutes of Health. Visit ecog-acrin.org, and follow us on X @eaonc, Facebook, LinkedIn, and Instagram.

Media Contact: Diane Dragaud, Director of Communications, communications@ecog-acrin.org.


Read More

Continue Reading

Spread & Containment

Bacteria subtype linked to growth in up to 50% of human colorectal cancers, Fred Hutch researchers report

Researchers at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center have found that a specific subtype of a microbe commonly found in the mouth is able to travel to the gut and…

Published

on

Researchers at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center have found that a specific subtype of a microbe commonly found in the mouth is able to travel to the gut and grow within colorectal cancer tumors. This microbe is also a culprit for driving cancer progression and leads to poorer patient outcomes after cancer treatment.

Credit: Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center

Researchers at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center have found that a specific subtype of a microbe commonly found in the mouth is able to travel to the gut and grow within colorectal cancer tumors. This microbe is also a culprit for driving cancer progression and leads to poorer patient outcomes after cancer treatment.

The findings, published March 20 in the journal Nature, could help improve therapeutic approaches and early screening methods for colorectal cancer, which is the second most common cause of cancer deaths in adults in the U.S. according to the American Cancer Society.

Examining colorectal cancer tumors removed from 200 patients, the Fred Hutch team measured levels of Fusobacterium nucleatum, a bacterium known to infect tumors. In about 50% of the cases, they found that only a specific subtype of the bacterium was elevated in the tumor tissue compared to healthy tissue.

The researchers also found this microbe in higher numbers within stool samples of colorectal cancer patients compared with stool samples from healthy people.

“We’ve consistently seen that patients with colorectal tumors containing Fusobacterium nucleatum have poor survival and poorer prognosis compared with patients without the microbe,” explained Susan Bullman, Ph.D., Fred Hutch cancer microbiome researcher and co-corresponding study author. “Now we’re finding that a specific subtype of this microbe is responsible for tumor growth. It suggests therapeutics and screening that target this subgroup within the microbiota would help people who are at a higher risk for more aggressive colorectal cancer.”

In the study, Bullman and co-corresponding author Christopher D. Johnston, Ph.D., Fred Hutch molecular microbiologist, along with the study’s first author Martha Zepeda-Rivera, Ph.D., a Washington Research Foundation Fellow and Staff Scientist in the Johnston Lab, wanted to discover how the microbe moves from its typical environment of the mouth to a distant site in the lower gut and how it contributes to cancer growth.

First they found a surprise that could be important for future treatments. The predominant group of Fusobacterium nucleatum in colorectal cancer tumors, thought to be a single subspecies, is actually composed of two distinct lineages known as “clades.”

“This discovery was similar to stumbling upon the Rosetta Stone in terms of genetics,” Johnston explained. “We have bacterial strains that are so phylogenetically close that we thought of them as the same thing, but now we see an enormous difference between their relative abundance in tumors versus the oral cavity.”

By separating out the genetic differences between these clades, the researchers found that the tumor-infiltrating Fna C2 type had acquired distinct genetic traits suggesting it could travel from the mouth through the stomach, withstand stomach acid and then grow in the lower gastrointestinal tract. The analysis revealed 195 genetic differences between the clades.

Then, comparing tumor tissue with healthy tissue from patients with colorectal cancer, the researchers found that only the subtype Fna C2 is significantly enriched in colorectal tumor tissue and is responsible for colorectal cancer growth.

Further molecular analyses of two patient cohorts, including over 200 colorectal tumors, revealed the presence of this Fna C2 lineage in approximately 50% of cases.

The researchers also found in hundreds of stool samples from people with and without colorectal cancer that Fna C2 levels were consistently higher in colorectal cancer.

“We  have pinpointed the exact bacterial lineage that is associated with colorectal cancer, and that knowledge is critical for developing effective preventive and treatment methods,” Johnston said.

He and Bullman believe their study presents significant opportunities for developing microbial cellular therapies, which use modified versions of bacterial strains to deliver treatments directly into tumors.

###

Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center unites individualized care and advanced research to provide the latest cancer treatment options while accelerating discoveries that prevent, treat and cure cancer and infectious diseases worldwide.

Based in Seattle, Fred Hutch is an independent, nonprofit organization and the only National Cancer Institute-designated cancer center in Washington. We have earned a global reputation for our track record of discoveries in cancer, infectious disease and basic research, including important advances in bone marrow transplantation, immunotherapy, HIV/AIDS prevention and COVID-19 vaccines. Fred Hutch operates eight clinical care sites that provide medical oncology, infusion, radiation, proton therapy and related services. Fred Hutch also serves as UW Medicine’s cancer program.


Read More

Continue Reading

Government

“Are you better off than you were four years ago?”

  – by New Deal democratNo economic news today, so let me take a look at the supposed killer recent GOP meme that they claim is completely unanswerable:…

Published

on

 

 - by New Deal democrat


No economic news today, so let me take a look at the supposed killer recent GOP meme that they claim is completely unanswerable: “Are you better off today than you were four years ago?”


This is based primarily on consumer sentiment reading as well as polling that has consistently shown that most people think that the economy is poor, even though they rate their own situation as doing well. Dan Guild has a model comparing consumer sentiment with Presidential approval ratings. He concludes that Biden will lose re-election unless consumer sentiment as measured by the University of Michigan does not improve to the index level of 82.

As I’ve pointed out in the past, Presidential approval correlates quite well with the price of gas. Here’s the historical record updated through last month:



Except for those periods late in recessions and shortly thereafter, when the price of gas has typically declined sharply but the unemployment rate is very high, generally speaking, the lower the cost of gas, the higher the consumer sentiment. Interestingly, except for the early part of the 1990s, when gas prices were ridiculously low, the correlation holds better nominally than adjusted for income.

But perceptions aside, are most people in fact worse off than 4 years ago? Here are two ways of looking at that.

First, as I noted several months ago, Motio Research has produced very good monthly estimates of median household income, that track very well with the (unfortunately) annual measure, which is only reported in September of the next year (thus, for example, the most recent official report even now is for the year 2022). Here’s their update through February:



Note that they recommend (in the small print at the bottom) ignoring the results from March through October 2020, when response rates were very skewed. Leaving those out, only three months during Trump’s term were better than the current reading, and two of those, at 112.7, were equaled by January’s reading. Only February 2020 scored higher, at 112.9.

A second way of measuring is to compare real average and aggregate wages. Below I show average hourly wages (blue), average weekly wages (red), and aggregate payrolls divided by population (black), all deflated by the CPI, and normed to 100 as of February 2020:



Most of the surge in average hourly and weekly earnings in 2020 and early 2021 were compositional. That is, most of the workers laid off during the worst of the pandemic were low wage service workers, in places like restaurants, bars, and entertainment venues. When those workers were rehired during 2021 and 2022, the averages went down, with a very big assist from gas prices spiking to $5/gallon. Since then, both measures have exceeded their levels from just before the pandemic.

Aggregate payrolls, even divided by population, and so including everyone who is not working, and not even in the labor force, hit their pre-pandemic level late in 2021 and haven’t looked back. They are *not* affected by compositional issues. And they are currently 2.9% higher, even on this per capita basis, than they were just before the pandemic.

So the truthful answer for most people to “Are you better off than you were four years ago?” is by any reasonable measure, “Yes.”

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending