Talk:Grayscale Investments

Reuploading draft with hope for feedback

@Anthony Bradbury: I saw that you deleted the initial draft of the article for Grayscale Investments. I've reuploaded it to my User space to tinker with, and I'd really appreciate some feedback on how to improve the draft. I saw you flagged it as "unambiguously promotional". I want to create an informative and accurate article while meeting Wikipedia's standards for tone and neutral point of view. I am happy to make adjustments to the draft. I would love some suggestions about what content needs changes to meet Wikipedia guidelines.

I have done my best to follow sourcing requirements and use only the best sources. I think that Grayscale does meet Wikipedia's notability requirements (as a company, Grayscale has received in-depth coverage from CNBC, Fortune, and Forbes, among many others). The speedy deletion criteria under which this was deleted (G11) says that "If a subject is notable and the content could plausibly be replaced with text written from a neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion." I'm happy to take a crack at rewriting this if I can get a few pointers on what needs to be improved.

Thanks in advance for your help! BenViagas (talk) 17:55, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the assistance

@David notMD and Raymond Kestis: Thank you both so much for your responses at the Teahouse. I saw the conversation was archived, so I thought I'd say thanks here. I've made updates based on your suggestions. I'd invite both of you to take a look if you're interested. Again, thank you for taking the time to help me with this. BenViagas (talk) 01:04, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

New Wall Street Journal reporting

Here: [1] Thriley (talk) 03:54, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

FTX contagion

Hello editors,

Benjamin here with a small request. I noticed that there was a new section, Contagion from FTX bankruptcy, that has been added and I had some concerns about it. All those outlets are quality outlets, but after a close reading of the actual article content, I think it is misstating the connection between the price of GBTC and what happened with FTX.

For example, the Financial Times article specifically talks about GBTC trading at a lower price, then talks about how FTX has lowered confidence in crypto markets. It does not make any attributions about FTX directly impacting GBTC prices. Specifically, the article says "Confidence in digital assets has been sideswiped by the implosion of crypto exchange FTX", which sounds to me like there is not a direct connection between the two events.

The Bloomberg article directly contradicts the idea that it's related to FTX at all, saying that "The dislocation is rooted in the fact that despite Grayscale’s best efforts, US regulators have repeatedly denied applications to convert GBTC into a physically-backed exchange-traded fund…"

It seems a bit like this might be a case of synthesis. I also think the phrasing of that section heading might be a little less than neutral. "Contagion" in particular feels like a loaded word. What do editors think? Could we remove that content and add a sentence to the effect of "By November 2022, GBTC shares declined by more than 74% " to the end of the History section? I'm always open to further suggestions. Please let me know what you think! BenViagas (talk) 02:54, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

@David notMD and Raymond Kestis: Both of you were so helpful when reviewing my draft, would you be interested in taking a look at this request? I'd really appreciate any thoughts you might have! BenViagas (talk) 20:44, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Here based on your request at Wikiproject Companies. The edit request appears to be more of a discussion than an actual request, but I see the gist of what you are trying to do. With that in mind, I looked and feel that entire section in more WP:SYNTH and WP:UNDUE with how it is written. Instead of reducing it to the sentence you propose, I would say we need to include a little more information about any direct connection such as this. But I also recommend that be in the history section and to remove the heading of "contagion from ftx bankruptcy."--CNMall41 (talk) 19:16, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look! I'm reviewing that source and seeing what else I can dig up. Hopefully I'll come up with a replacement that works better. BenViagas (talk) 20:53, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

@CNMall41: I've come up with some language that I hope is closer to what you were envisioning.

For much of GBTC's existence, investors in the trust including Alameda Research had engaged in arbitrage trades, but by 2020 the value of bitcoin had sunk sufficiently that shares were trading at a discount compared to the value of the currency in the trust. As part of a series of legal actions against various counterparties, including Grayscale, Alameda's post-bankruptcy management attempted to recoup the full represented value of the shares.

References

Please let me know what you think! I'd also be curious about your thoughts on if this suit belongs in the article to begin with. I'm wondering if it counts as encyclopedic information or if there is too much weight being put on a suit that has not yet been resolved. It seems to me like it might be more relevant to the Alameda Research article but maybe I'm misinterpreting things. Appreciate your thoughts on the topic! BenViagas (talk) 13:38, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Over the next few weeks I will be on Wikipedia sparingly. I would advise that you always start new threads and add the "edit request" template to each one so that others are able to review. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:02, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

@CNMall41: Thanks for the tip! I'll do that. BenViagas (talk) 15:13, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Updated FTX contagion request

Hi editors, as a follow up to the above post, I'm opening a new request to replace the content in the Contagion from FTX Bankruptcy section with what is in the box below, removing that heading and placing this content at the bottom of the History section as CNMall41 said above. I believe this better represents what is in the available sourcing and avoids original research:

For much of GBTC's existence, investors in the trust including Alameda Research had engaged in arbitrage trades, but by 2020 the value of bitcoin had sunk sufficiently that shares were trading at a discount compared to the value of the currency in the trust. As part of a series of legal actions against various counterparties, including Grayscale, Alameda's post-bankruptcy management attempted to recoup the full represented value of the shares.

References

Please let me know what you think! BenViagas (talk) 15:26, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Reply 26-JUL-2023

Claims made in the request

Individual claim	Issue with wording
For much of GBTC's existence, investors in the trust including Alameda Research had engaged in arbitrage trades	—
but by 2020 the value of bitcoin had sunk sufficiently	The use of the word "but" seems to negate something in the previous claim, yet no rebuttal is made.
shares were trading at a discount compared to the value of the currency in the trust.	Comparisons are made using like items. "Discount as compared to currency in the trust" is comparing items which are not alike: value of currency in the trust and discounts. Discounts should only be compared to other discounts, whereas the value of something should be compared to another value. If I have 10 dollars and there is a discount of 50% being offered, how can these two items be compared? If the item is 50% off $100 dollars, than the comparison with my 10 dollars would be?
As part of a series of legal actions against various counterparties, including Grayscale,	Counterparties is not a term I'm familiar with
Alameda's post-bankruptcy management attempted to recoup the full represented value of the shares	"Attempted" means that this was a failure? It's not known. "represented value" is unclear, as it is not known who is doing the representations.

Is there a way to reword this so it's not so much... wordy I guess you could say. Please forgive my extreme ignorance here but in my mind the idea of a discount is a good thing, so and so got a discount when they went to make the purchase ....or he paid a discounted price when he applied his savings from taxes.... so the idea that shares were trading at a discount, is that a good thing that they're at a discount? If you could help me to understand the concept that would help with my review of this request. Also, all three references are placed at the end of the passage of text. By this, I'm assuming that all three equally reference all the claims made in the passage. Which leads to the question of WP:OVERCITE. I'm not entirely sure that this was intended, and yet, the three references are there. Please advise. Thank you! Regards,  Spintendo  02:55, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

@Spintendo: I can certainly try to reword it! It's a tricky topic. I understand where you're coming from with the word "discount" being commonly used in a different way. I replaced that with "lower value" along with some other edits. How's this?

For much of GBTC's existence, investors in the trust including Alameda Research engaged in arbitrage trades based on the difference in price between GBTC’s shares and the corresponding amount of bitcoin. At the time of Alameda’s bankruptcy, shares of GBTC were trading at a lower value than the corresponding amount of bitcoin held by the trust.[ Alameda's post-bankruptcy management sued Grayscale in 2023 to recover the value of the shares in bitcoin.

References

Let me know what you think! BenViagas (talk) 18:45, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

@BenViagas Thank you for your reply, and I agree lower value does help to explain this difference much better (to myself and laypersons reading the article). I'll take another look at this and review it shortly. Regards,  Spintendo  05:51, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

 Implemented  Spintendo  09:47, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that! BenViagas (talk) 18:15, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Request to update and add info

Hi editors, I had two small requests I was hoping the community might weigh in on. First, I was wondering what editors thought of adding the manner of verdict of the case against the SEC to the current last sentence, changing it from:

• Finally, it won the case against the SEC on Aug 29, 2023.

To

• Finally, it won the case by unanimous vote in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on August 29, 2023.

I think that adds a little more specificity related to the case, but am open to whatever editors think is best!

For my second request, could we add the following to the end of the article?

• In October 2023, Grayscale launched five indices with FTSE Russell related to the crypto sector. The indices track more than 150 cryptocurrencies and divide them based on function: currencies that serve as an exchange medium, currencies that are used with smart contract platforms, currencies used in financial transactions, currencies used to support "consumption-centric activities", and currencies used for enterprise applications.

References

Please let me know what you think! BenViagas (talk) 22:05, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Reply 1-DEC-2023

  Edit request partially implemented  

1. Y The information concerning the unanimous vote was added.
2. N The information regarding the five indices was not added, as the reporting on it is based on a press release and not spontaneous journalistic reporting.

Regards,  Spintendo  00:03, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate you taking a look! BenViagas (talk) 15:11, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Logo update

Hi editors, I recently uploaded Grayscale's new logo to Wikipedia. Could someone please replace the old logo with the current one? You can find that here. As I have a conflict of interest I won't make the change myself. Thanks in advance! BenViagas (talk) 15:10, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Edit request accepted

Verified via company website and changed as requested. Thanks, Lewcm Talk to me! 23:11, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

@Lewcm: Thanks for the assist! BenViagas (talk) 20:17, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Recent vandalism

Hi editors, I noticed that this article was recently vandalized. Would someone be willing to revert it? Given the tag on the article and my COI I don't want to make any changes myself. @CNMall41, Encoded, and Spintendo:, you've all responded to my requests in the past, would one of you be willing to take a look and revert this? BenViagas (talk) 16:19, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

 Done Encoded Talk to me! 16:45, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, Encoded! BenViagas (talk) 19:33, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

@BenViagas: I cannot speak for everyone, but many of us who monitor COI edits do not have an issue with reverting something that is obvious vandalism. Keep in mind this would mean a revert that is so obvious it would be uncontested if you removed it. --CNMall41 (talk) 12:34, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

@CNMall41: Good note! Given the flag on the article at the moment (which I find a bit confusing, the only change I made directly to the article was to correct the HQ location, all other changes were made through AfC or on the Talk page, and the article has been tagged since acceptance) I really wanted to make sure I was keeping everything above board. I'll keep that in mind for the future though. BenViagas (talk) 15:48, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

To clarify, I am saying that it would not be an issue if YOU reverted obvious vandalism. Not that it would be okay for you to edit as long as you are not vandalizing. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:07, 27 February 2024 (UTC)