BitMEX Stellar Giveaway leaderboard 23 January 2018

Check your user name here:
https://www.bitmex.com/app/leaderboard

Or follow these steps:

  1. Go to the BitMEX platform.
  2. Click on Contracts from top menu bar.
  3. Click on Leaderboard from left navigation bar.

As a reminder, 15 randomly selected Stellar contract traders will be rewarded one of the 15 prizes:

1 Grand Prize of $25K USD
1 Second Prize of $10K USD
13 Third Prizes of $5K USD

Good luck to all participants!

Cheers,
The BitMEX Team

Bitcoin ain’t a stock

The most common criticism of Bitcoin is that it has no intrinsic value. That is entirely true, but neither does the US dollar or a bar of gold. These same critics then begin to buttress their argument by comparing Bitcoin’s market cap against the equity value of some large blue-chip companies. Surely Bitcoin is in a bubble if it is worth $250 billion and company X is worth slightly less.

A share of stock in a company is the net present value of all future dividends, which implies that stocks have intrinsic value. It is intellectually lazy to compare Bitcoin, which possesses no income stream, against a stock that does.

This leads me to believe that most financial journalists do not fundamentally understand any of the financial assets they write about daily. The mischaracterisation of Bitcoin and its value proposition further illustrates their ignorance.

The second facet of Bitcoin in the market that pains me is that many people don’t understand exchange rates. If Bitcoin has no intrinsic value, its value comes from the market’s perception of its moneyness — which means that Bitcoin has a price only versus another asset, crypto coin, or fiat currency. Therefore, either Bitcoin can be in a bubble now or the asset it is valued against was previously.

Take the above weekly log graph of the Bitstamp USD/Bitcoin price since 2012. Viewing this chart would lead you to believe that the dollar was in a bubble, which then burst. Hard-money folks have been labelled modern-day Cassandras because the hyperinflationary fiat doomsday collapse has yet to manifest itself. The inflation, which government statistics expertly conceal, rears its ugly head through crypto-coin pumps and Hong Kong cage homes worth millions of USD.

My pet peeves do not prove that Bitcoin deserves its current market-clearing price against fiat currencies. Rather, if one wants to dismiss Bitcoin as a fad for the young’uns and financially stupid, the arguments used must make financial sense.

BTFD!

 

January historically has been a great month to pick up cheap Bitcoin. Over the past five years, Bitcoin has turned bearish during this month and has, eventually, recovered from its drop (although it took a little longer in 2014 and 2015).

Creative traders who believe that Bitcoin will indeed again recover from this current market slump can look at ways to increase their alpha while holding Bitcoin using BitMEX products.

At the time of writing, XBTH18 and XBTM18 are trading at $100 and $800 premiums over a spot price of $10,950, which translate to 4.6% and 16.5% annualised premiums, respectively.

Historically, the basis on the fixed-date products trade on average around 25% to 30% annualised basis levels and thus these trades could be an extremely cheap way to pick up cheap Bitcoin.

For example, consider if the basis reverts back to its historical average immediately at the current price levels: we should see a premium on XBTH18 and XBTM18 of $640 and $1,450 respectively.

Hence, a trader looking to BTFD on Bitcoin, who believes that the basis should revert to its historical average, could then see additional gains of $540 to $650 on the fixed-date products. Happy trading!

XBT/USD curve structure

Due to the increased liquidity on BitMEX’s Bitcoin/USD contracts, a six-month fixed-date contract can finally be listed! This new contract is XBTM18, and it expires 29 June 2018. Now we have the beginnings of a Bitcoin/USD contract-interest-rate term structure. Valuable insights can be gleaned into the market’s perception of the future value of Bitcoin from the premium or discount of these contracts.

The above chart illustrates the annualised percentage premium of XBTH18 (March 2018) and XBTM18 (June 2018) on 4 January 2018 and 16 January 2018.

Looking at the 4 January observations, I am immediately struck by how flat the curve is. Given the explosive Bitcoin price volatility in December, I would expect XBTM18 to trade significantly lower or higher than XBTH18 in annualised percentage terms.

If we time travel back to 4 January, I would advise one of two strategies:

Bullish: Sell XBTH18 vs. Buy XBTM18

If you believe that the price of Bitcoin will rise, this is a price-neutral way to express that view. Why not just go naked long? If your prognosis is incorrect, your absolute losses will be much less using a 3m versus 6m basis trade.

If the spot price were to continue upwards over the next few weeks, XBTM18 would outperform XBTH18. That is due to traders purchasing the long end of the curve in anticipation of much higher prices come June. This outperformance manifests itself by the XBTM18 annualised premium rising much higher than XBTH18’s.

Bearish: Buy XBTH18 vs. Sell XBTM18

If you believe the price of Bitcoin will fall, this is a price-neutral way to express that view. Again, in case you are wrong, you want to limit the absolute losses via a basis trade.

If the spot price were to continue downwards over the next few weeks, XBTM18 would underperform XBTH18. That is due to traders selling the long end of the curve in anticipation of much lower prices come June.

What Actually Happened

Spot prices fell, and the curve parallel-shifted lower. In addition, XBTM18 underperformed XBTH18 over the 12-day time period.

In annualised percentage terms on 4 January and 16 January, XBTM18 was 0.59% and 1.92% cheaper than XBTH18, respectively. The change in average spot price between both days was down 8.19%. The XBTM18 basis held up quite well, all things considered.

That indicates that there is a strong bid under XBTM18. The market does not expect the Bitcoin spot armageddon to continue into the summer. Or, said another way, hope springs eternal. And hope plus 100x leverage is a strong cocktail.

Trade Idea: Sell XBTH18 vs. Buy XBTM18

This bout of weaker prices allows an excellent entry point into this trade. If you believe the price will soon test $10,000 and maybe $8,000, wait for the dip. During the despair, traders will short the bottom and push the whole curve close to flat premium. If the market is super bearish, XBTM18 might even trade at a discount. Then you back up the truck, and go all in.

Otherwise, the current curve structure still affords an excellent entry point. My base case is that the curve will parallel-shift upwards to an annualised 40%, and XBTM18 will move to flat vs. XBTH18. In the bullish case, XBTM18’s premium will continue to outperform and hit 50% to 60% annualised.

Daily Theta

Theta is the daily income earned or lost due to the passage of time.

Theta = (outright % premium) / (days until expiry)

For the trade described above, you earn theta by being short XBTH18 and pay theta by being long XBTM18. This is because both contracts trade at a premium. Currently the net theta is +0.0053% per day. A positive theta means the trade pays for itself. Said another way, the trade has positive carry.

One caveat: your positive XBTH18 theta position evaporates in 73 days once it expires. The clock is ticking. The trade must move into your favour before XBTH18 expires. If you roll into another 3m versus 6m calendar spread in late March, the levels may not be attractive and/or you may lock in a loss.

Ode to speculators

As a good friend of mine says, “Everyone hates bankers until it’s time to pay the bill.”

The same can be said for crypto speculators. The common rejoinder amongst those who wish they were crypto rich, but who are too scared or lazy to jump in, is that crypto won’t last because the only use case is speculation.

It is true that the number-one use case for crypto is speculation. However, without these unwashed speculators, would anyone outside of a few technologists really care a fig about this industry?

Building infrastructure

What makes a coin valuable? At a fundamental level, most coins need some sort of usage. A coin with a dedicated community is able to attract users and talented developers to improve the protocol. The technology ideally will be useful, but that depends on the quality of work produced.

But if you are a developer, how do you decide which project to devote your time to? If you are a user, how do you first hear about a new coin or project?

Forums, IRC, Twitter, and eventually traditional technology-focused media outlets are the first to pick up on new trends. It is difficult to find a worthy project while wading through the Internet sewer of questionable content. The eureka moment occurs not when just one person discovers something new and useful, but when a group of like-minded folks are moving in the same direction on the path to enlightenment.

That is the slow approach. The faster and more popular approach is to use some objective measure to determine whether a group of people believe in a new coin or project a priori. The best objective measure is a market-determined price. One of the best facets of this industry is that most projects possess a tradable asset. The price, traded volume, and market cap reflect the market’s judgement of the value of a project.

When a price goes up and to the right, that validates those already working on the project. It also creates a desire for others to join the revolution for fear of missing out. This positive feedback loop lays a solid foundation for a project to scale and possibly realise its vision.

Fake news

Think back to how you first heard about Bitcoin. For me, it was a Zero Hedge article about how the price had shot up, to a then all-time high of $250 in April 2013. The sharp price rise intrigued me and prompted my further investigation. Only then did I read Satoshi’s white paper and become a believer.

I imagine that most readers have a similar story. The mainstream media’s most popular stories usually deal with someone making a lot of money in a short period of time. In our hyper-competitive and fast-paced world, everyone is trying to spot the next thing. They too want to discover the next Netscape, Google, Amazon, and Facebook. You too can sell books, give TED talks, go to Burning Man, and wear a puffy vest that shows off your mega biceps in your 50s.

Most people learned about Bitcoin through the media. Back in 2013, any major news outlet writing a story about Bitcoin could send the price up or down, depending on the content. Developers and punters use media outlets to determine what new skills to learn, and which new assets to HODL.

The media needs a constant stream of volatility for them to continue to write about an asset class. That is why you rarely see articles about the intricacies of the bond markets. It is boring because the volatility is low. Equities, however, are sexy. They have stories, and their prices at times move violently on new developments.

The media now loves crypto because the coins move. There is a constant flow of news. There are outrageous personalities who lead projects and own large stashes of coins. The crypto industry appeals to the emotions and greed of the public, and a new euphoria is palpable — a euphoria that central banks and regulators destroyed in the traditional asset markets.

Ode to speculators

Developers, users, and investors all depend on a horde of uncouth speculators to create a liquid market for crypto coins. I say uncouth, because many financial outlets regard retail investors as stupid. Retail investors don’t work at white-shoe investment banks, wear formal business costume, or read The Economist for pleasure on the weekend. Yet, the craze is led by these hooligans.

A new class of millionaires and billionaires were created from a stock of undesirables. The memes, language, and behaviour of many of the leading figures have no place at large banks and technology firms. But these people speculated that crypto could change the world.

Of course, the financial media and vaunted figures such as Jamie Dimon would pooh-pooh crypto as a cesspool filled with retail speculators. It would be unimaginable for them to endorse a market they don’t understand. However, there is also a disturbing trend of disdain toward said speculators even among even those who grew famous within the industry because they contributed to an asset class that has grown by hundreds of billions of dollars in one year.

Rather than complaining about the wild gyrations of the crypto markets, a more appropriate response is to express gratitude that crypto isn’t as boring as the S&P 500.

But what are they used for?

Bitcoin is the most mature crypto coin, and it is less than a decade old. Many of the coins that people love to hate are less than one year old. In another decade, it might be appropriate to ask, “Where’s the beef?”

Right now as a trader or HODL’er. you want as much volatility as possible. That drives more smart engineers into the industry, more users to interact with the technology, more crypto media articles, and liquidity from new retail punters.

BitMEX Stellar Giveaway Leaderboard Jan 18th, 2018

Check your user name here:
https://www.bitmex.com/app/leaderboard

Or follow these steps:

  1. Go to BitMEX platform
  2. Click on Contracts from top menu bar
  3. Click on Leaderboard from left navigation bar

As a reminder, fifteen randomly selected Stellar contract traders will be rewarded one of the fifteen prizes:

1 Grand Prize of $25K USD
1 Second Prize of $10K USD
13 Third Prizes: $5K USD

Good luck to all participants!

Cheers,
BitMEX Team

ADA New Year Giveaway Has Now Concluded

Thanks to all of the participants for helping to make the contest a success, and congratulations to all the winners! Please see the email you received for prize details.

The Grand Prize was a fierce competition, with Razor-Cloud-Face and Mint-Flint-Spear battling it out to the last hours of the competition. In the end, Razor was able to maintain his lead and cross the finish line first by a small margin.

 

The second place winner was a dark horse, coming up from nowhere near the end of the competition to dominate on profit by a healthy margin. Hats off to Solstice-Destiny-Salmon for taking us by surprise.

 

Finally, the five lucky $5K Winners were selected randomly from all contestants, and their trading volume ranges from as low as .01 XBT. Any trader, big or small, can win the lucky draw, so make sure your name is in the hat for the next one.

 

If you didn’t get one of the lucky prizes, don’t worry – you have an even better chance with fifteen randomly awarded prizes on our new Stellar giveaway. This time, one lucky winner will receive $25K! Learn more.

Wishing you a prosperous 2018.

Cheers!
BitMEX team

 

 

 

Mining Incentives – Part 3 – Short-Term vs. Long-Term

Abstract: In this third piece on crypto-mining incentives, we look at the different time periods miners may choose to maximize profits; short-term or long-term.  We draw analogies with related concepts in “traditional” mining, such as “high-grading”.  In corporate finance circles there are rumours of potential IPOs for crypto-miners, which could mean management focus shifts to the short term, as they may unfortunately need to justify quarterly earnings to investment analysts. We then look at the implications of this on potential network issues, such as Replace By Fee (RBF), ASICBOOST and the blocksize limit.  Whether one likes it or not, we think full RBF is coming.

 

Bitmain mining farm in Inner Mongolia – Photograph & Satellite image – Bitcoin mining is no longer for hobbyists

 

Source: Google Maps satellite image

 

Overview

Back in September 2017 we wrote two pieces on mining incentives. Part 1 focused on the mining cost curve and compared it to the dynamics of the cost curve in “traditional mining”, while part 2 looked at circumstances in the energy industry which could result in attractive opportunities for crypto-miners, concluding that failed or otherwise uneconomic energy projects may be best suited for Bitcoin mining.  In November 2017 we wrote about miners chasing short term profits in the Litecoin vs Dogecoin “hashrate wars” of 2014 and how this was repeated again with Bitcoin Cash, as the hashrate oscillated between coins, as miners attempted to maximize short-term profits, rather than make decisions based on ideological support for their favored coin.

In this piece we look at whether miners will focus on short-term profit maximization (perhaps even next block profit maximization) or alternatively if miners may focus on promoting the long-term viability of the system, by enacting policies designed to improve the end user experience, thereby potentially increasing long term profits.  We conclude that the level of competition in the industry, as well as the level of profitability, can alter the focus between short-term and long-term profit maximization decisions. Higher levels of competition and lower profit margins may result in a more short-term outlook.  We then go on to look at implications each strategy could have on various issues facing Bitcoin, such as replace by fee transactions, ASICBOOST or the blocksize limit policy.

We believe that mining is becoming less ideological and more commercial. At the same time the intensity of competition may increase in the coming months and years.  Therefore we predict full RBF will become prevalent in Bitcoin mining, as miners seek to maximize short-term profits.

 

Long term vs short run

It is widely accepted that most businesses want to maximize profits and Bitcoin mining is likely to be no exception to this.  In the past perhaps some miners were hobbyists or idealists, but this era now appears to have ended and now profits are seen as a main driver as the industry grows and becomes more commercialized.  However, profit maximization can be a more complex concept than one may think. Strictly speaking, investors should select projects which maximize discounted returns, and how to value the difference between profits today and profits tomorrow – the discount rate – is often a challenging metric to evaluate.

 

Analogy with traditional mining – High-grading

In “traditional mining”, high-grading is the practice of mining a higher grade of ore in a way that reduces the overall return of the mine, by wasting or destroying lower grade ore.  This is often seen as a destructive process, which reduces the value of the ore body, by making some ore inaccessible or literally destroying it to access higher grade ore. Mining management teams may engage in this process due to short-term pressure, for example to boost profit margins to satisfy short-term shareholders, to generate cash flow to satisfy debt holders, or boost their own performance-linked bonuses.  Management teams might then conceal the  conduct of the activity from the public or from investors.

High-grading often occurs during prolonged periods of price weakness of the relevant commodity, when profit margins are low, debt levels are high and there is considerable pressure on management teams.

 

The question is, are the companies going to re-cut their business long-term at a lower gold price, or are they going to re-cut their short-term business hoping they’ll be rescued in the long term by the gold price? That second one is called high-grading and it’s a disaster.

Source: Randgold Chief Executive Mark Bristow

 

The below diagram illustrates what a high-grading open pit mining plan may look like.  The initial plan for a larger mine captures more of the ore.  However, the alternative plan, shown below, increases the grade of the ore mined, but permanently destroys or removes access to some high grade ore, potentially against the long term interest of mine owners.

 

Source: Exploration Alliance

 

Revising a mining plan due to changes in discount rates, costs or commodity prices can of course be entirely legitimate in some circumstances, however high-grading has negative connotations and is normally associated with reducing the value of assets in an inappropriate manner.

Although there is no direct link between high-grading and crypto-mining, the concept demonstrates that when mining teams are under pressure, they can make some short-term decisions which can destroy long-term shareholder value. This is particularly relevant in the listed space, where shareholders may have less control, less information or more of a short-term focus.

 

Mining profitability

Whether miners make these “destructive” short-term focused decisions or not often depends on the level of profitability, which can be determined by the price of the underlying commodity. If the price of the commodity or crypto asset falls, such that a miner is not profitable, they may be faced with three options:

 

  • Operate at a loss – Perhaps making a contribution to fixed costs
  • Suspend operations  – In legacy mining this could reduce the supply of the commodity increasing the price. On the other hand, in crypto-mining this could lower the difficulty, increasing profit margins for the remaining miners
  • Modify mining policies – In legacy mining this could be a modification to the mining plan – for example, high-grading.  In the case of crypto, it could be engaging in full RBF, overt ASICBOOST or, in the event of an unlimited blocksize limit, clearing the memory pool to scoop up all the fees, despite the negative impact this could have on pricing in the transaction fee market, destroying industry prospects.

In general lower profitability can increase the pressure on management teams, such that they make more short-term decisions, for example to pay down debt if they are under pressure from banks or to return to profitability if they are under pressure form shareholders.  Higher margin companies may have more freedom to focus on the long term and may be able to invest for the future.

 

Industry concentration

In addition to profitability, another factor to consider in crypto-mining is the level of concentration in the industry.

 

Mining pool concentration over the last 6 months

Source: BitMEX Research, Blockchain.info

 

The above chart illustrates the level of concentration among mining pools, however one could also analyse the level of concentration in the industry by looking at chip production or the control of mining farms.  With respect to chip production, we estimate that Bitmain may have a 75% market share in Bitcoin.

If a miner has a large market share, their policies may have a significant impact on Bitcoin, which could impact the value of the system.  In contrast, the policies of a small miner with a low market share may not have much impact on the system as a whole.  A tragedy of the commons type situation could therefore occur, where policies which are best for the system as a whole, are not what is best for each small individual miner. For instance if a small miner with a 1% market share can engage in action which increases profits, but would damage the term prospects of the system if all miners engaged in the practice, why not conduct the activity, since 1% alone will not make much difference.

In addition to this the level of competitive intensity may also matter.  If miners are ruthlessly competing against each other for market share, they may be more focused on doing whatever it takes to improve profit margins to win business.

 

Replace by fee (RBF)

Replace by fee is a system that enables the replacement of a transaction in a miner’s memory pool with a different transaction that spends some or all of the same inputs, due to higher transaction fees.  A variant of this feature was first added by Satoshi, before Satoshi later removed it.  Bitcoin Core then added in an opt-in version of the technology, where users must specify that the transaction can be replaced when making the transaction.

RBF has always been controversial, both the full version and the opt-in version, with detractors claiming it reduces the usability of Bitcoin by undermining zero confirmation transactions. Supporters of RBF claim, among other things, that miners will eventually adopt full RBF anyway, as it boosts short-term profits by selecting transactions with larger fees, even though it may harm long term profitability by reducing the utility of the system, which could lower the Bitcoin price. Again, its sometimes seen as a tragedy of the commons type problem. Opponents of RBF may counter this by saying miners have more of a long term focus, and therefore RBF advocates are solving a theoretical game theory type problem which may not apply.

One can thing of the type of industry characteristics, where this short-term profit driven motive and therefore full RBF, become more or less likely:

 

Short-term profit – full RBF more likely Long-term profit –  Full RBF less likely
A period of falling Bitcoin prices A period of rising Bitcoin prices
Lower profit margins Higher profit margins
Lower levels of industry concentration Higher levels of industry concentration
More intense competition and a rivalry between miners A less intense competitive environment and collaboration between miners
Publicly owned mining companies Privately owned mining companies
Profit driven miners Ideologically driven miners

 

An unlimited blocksize limit

As anyone following Bitcoin knows, the “blocksize debate” is a complex issue which can be looked at form many angles.  One such angle is that of the interrelationship between the fee market and mining incentivization.  Supporters of larger blocks sometimes argue that a fee market would still work with an unlimited blocksize, while “smaller blockers” often dispute this point.

An element of this argument is related to whether miners focus on the long term or the short term, just like for RBF above. Supporters of an economic blocksize limit claim that we need an economically relevant blocksize limit, by claiming that without a limit miners may focus on maximizing short-term profits and scoop up all the fees, resulting in low fees and insufficient mining incentives.  “Larger blockers” then counter this by claiming miners will have more of a long-term focus and would not take such action, as it would damage the long term viability of the system, and therefore their businesses.

 

The history of the “death spiral” argument

In some ways, this short-term vs. long-term incentive discussion, or the “death spiral” argument, goes right to the genesis of the blocksize debate, back in in April 2011.

 

The death spiral argument assumes that I would include all transactions no matter how low their fee/priority, because it costs me nothing to do so and why would I not take the free money? Yet real life is full of companies that could do this but don’t, because they understand it would undermine their own business.

Source: Mike Hearn (April 2011)  – Bitcointalk – One day earlier Mr Hearn thought that “The death spiral failure mode seems plausible” but then changed his mind after thinking about the issue further.

 

Although ironically, the narrative from some of the “larger blockers” has somewhat shifted in recent years, to a “pro mining” type philosophy of chasing short term profits.  Perhaps this is because ironically a large miner, Bitmain, has been one of the most prominent advocates of larger blocks. Most “larger blockers” appear have shifted the narrative on to some other valid points, although, as we explained above, this short term vs. long term line of thought can be considered as the genesis of the blocksize debate and part of the initial reason for the division in the community.

In our view, there is no right or wrong answer to these questions.  Whether miners have a short-term focus or long-term focus depends on many factors, including profitability and market share, as we explained above.  In our view the industry may go through cycles, where the industry shifts between the long-term and short-term focus depending on conditions in the industry.  This phenomenon is visible in traditional mining, driven by commodity price cycles impacting industry conditions.

 

Changing times – A short-term profit focus will be king

The Bitcoin community is rapidly changing, the transformation from a cohesive group of people with a shared vision working together to build a revolutionary technology, to a much larger community made up of competing profit-driven factions, is almost complete.  It may have seemed unrealistic a few years ago to assume miners would be primarily driven by short-term profit maximization, however this is increasingly accepted as the norm now, certainly after the hashrate swings caused by Bitcoin Cash’s EDA.

Mining is a business: TSMC has reported that one crypto mining business may be spending US$1.5bn per annum on chips, and growing. In some corporate finance circles, rumours are circulating that large mining pools or chip producers could conduct an IPO shortly, something almost unimaginable a few years ago. This could put management of the mining pool in the unfortunate position of needing to justify operating profit margins to investment analysts and shareholders, each quarter.  At the same time, many expect the mining industry to become more competitive this year, with new companies expected to launch competitive products.

In this new world, RBF type behavior and the fee market “death spiral failure mode”, seem more and more inevitable.  Perhaps early fee market and RBF advocates were too obsessed with unrealistic and complex game theory, and maybe they were too early, when a better tactical decision could have been to focus on the user experience before adopting RBF and full blocks.  Although now Bitcoin has changed, short-term profit maximization is the new mantra.

In the coming years, we predict that many miners will engage in full RBF and even overt ASICBOOST (which can also boost profits), as they do all they can to maximize short-term profits.  Whether one likes it or not, in our view, it’s coming…

Trade the new Stellar contracts at BitMEX and you could win up to $25K

BitMEX is thrilled to announce a new $100K lottery giveaway for Stellar (XLMF18) contracts! To win one of the 15 lottery prizes, simply trade the new Stellar contract on BitMEX to collect tickets. Even with just one ticket, you have the chance to win the grand prize of $25K.

Start: Wednesday, Jan 17 2018 00:00 AM UTC
End: Friday, Jan 26 2018 12:00 PM UTC

Prizes:

1 Grand Prize of $25K USD
1 Second Prize of $10K USD
13 Third Prizes: $5K USD

Rules:

  • Any trader who trades 5,000 Stellar contracts earns a lottery ticket. Each trader can earn up to 10 lottery tickets.
  • Bonus tickets: any trader who trades a total volume of one million or more Stellar contracts receives an extra 10 lottery tickets, for a total of 20 lottery tickets.
  • Each lottery ticket has an equal chance of winning one of the fifteen prizes.
  • A trader cannot win more than one prize.

It’s simple to participate:

Cheers,
The BitMEX Team

Terms & Conditions:

  1.     BitMEX reserves the right to cancel or amend the giveaway or giveaway rules at our sole discretion.
  2.     Users who engage in market manipulation will be excluded from the contest. This determination will be made at the sole discretion of BitMEX.
  3.     Winner will be notified via email on Jan 31st 2018.
  4.     All awards are paid out in Bitcoin at the prevailing price of the .BXBT index at Jan 26th 2018 12:00PM UTC.