Any thoughts on why the price isn't lower with all this value going out to exchanges but not coming back in?
I wonder if people are buying up SBD after selling STEEM and just leaving their SBD on an exchange. They'd miss out on the 10% interest, but it would be better than holding STEEM.
That explanation doesn't work. If the STEEM are going to an exchange, and staying there, then someone is holding them on the exchange in the form of STEEM. It may be the original owner who transferred the there, or it could be a new owner, but it is certainly someone.
What we are seeing with these imbalanced numbers is more and more coins being held on exchanges and less directly in the system. Whether that is a good or bad thing is unclear (though it is reasonably clear that it is good for SP holders, all else being equal, which it may not be). What these reports tell us is more about shifts in in the nature of ownership, not really anything directly related to the price.
Important principle to remember: For every seller there is a buyer. It is true 100% of the time. But it is also the case that these buyers need not move their coins off an exchange necessarily, so net coins moving to an exchange does not always mean an excess of selling pressure. For example, we could see an increase in buying demand on exchanges, and coins moving to exchanges to satisfy that demand. (In fact this is exactly what happened in mid July when there was an large price increase.) Other market dynamics are possible.
As I mentioned in my other comment reply, I stated my assumptions in detail in the first report. I still think it's a safe assumption to make that money held in an exchange is a strong indicator for the desire to exchange steem related value to some other token of value. Otherwise, why else would someone transfer to an exchange?
these reports tell us is more about shifts in in the nature of ownership, not really anything directly related to the price.
Maybe not directly related to price, but isn't change in ownership what impacts price? Without a change in ownership, there's no change in supply/demand, so no change in price.
(In fact this is exactly what happened in mid July when there was an large price increase.)
The summary report also shows some negative days in July which means those who purchased transferred that value off the exchange back to their own accounts. Negative days in mid July for STEEM include:
2016-07-11
2016-07-17
2016-07-18
2016-07-23
2016-07-24
Though in total, those days are dwarfed by large transfers to exchanges on 2016-07-12, 2016-07-14, and 2016-07-20.
Thanks for your feedback, @smooth! I've been posting this data for a weeks now, looking for more input and challenges to my interpretations. Your input is greatly appreciated!
I still think it's a safe assumption to make that money held in an exchange is a strong indicator for the desire to exchange steem related value to some other token of value.
At some point perhaps, but when it comes down to it, someone is still owning it either way. What it means most likely is that there is increased interest in shorter-term speculative owning as opposed to longer-term owning.
but isn't change in ownership what impacts price?
Sure, but there isn't an clear connection between exchange flows and price. There may be some connections, under some circumstances, with asterisks. You pointed this out as well!
Any thoughts on why the price isn't lower with all this value going out to exchanges but not coming back in?
I wonder if people are buying up SBD after selling STEEM and just leaving their SBD on an exchange. They'd miss out on the 10% interest, but it would be better than holding STEEM.
That explanation doesn't work. If the STEEM are going to an exchange, and staying there, then someone is holding them on the exchange in the form of STEEM. It may be the original owner who transferred the there, or it could be a new owner, but it is certainly someone.
What we are seeing with these imbalanced numbers is more and more coins being held on exchanges and less directly in the system. Whether that is a good or bad thing is unclear (though it is reasonably clear that it is good for SP holders, all else being equal, which it may not be). What these reports tell us is more about shifts in in the nature of ownership, not really anything directly related to the price.
Important principle to remember: For every seller there is a buyer. It is true 100% of the time. But it is also the case that these buyers need not move their coins off an exchange necessarily, so net coins moving to an exchange does not always mean an excess of selling pressure. For example, we could see an increase in buying demand on exchanges, and coins moving to exchanges to satisfy that demand. (In fact this is exactly what happened in mid July when there was an large price increase.) Other market dynamics are possible.
As I mentioned in my other comment reply, I stated my assumptions in detail in the first report. I still think it's a safe assumption to make that money held in an exchange is a strong indicator for the desire to exchange steem related value to some other token of value. Otherwise, why else would someone transfer to an exchange?
Maybe not directly related to price, but isn't change in ownership what impacts price? Without a change in ownership, there's no change in supply/demand, so no change in price.
The summary report also shows some negative days in July which means those who purchased transferred that value off the exchange back to their own accounts. Negative days in mid July for STEEM include:
Though in total, those days are dwarfed by large transfers to exchanges on 2016-07-12, 2016-07-14, and 2016-07-20.
Thanks for your feedback, @smooth! I've been posting this data for a weeks now, looking for more input and challenges to my interpretations. Your input is greatly appreciated!
At some point perhaps, but when it comes down to it, someone is still owning it either way. What it means most likely is that there is increased interest in shorter-term speculative owning as opposed to longer-term owning.
Sure, but there isn't an clear connection between exchange flows and price. There may be some connections, under some circumstances, with asterisks. You pointed this out as well!