I'm not sure I’ve seen the specific one you’re talking about, but this is totally normal in the industry. The shorts take normal aspects of this sector and make it sound like doomsday.
They absolutely did incentivize all the trading… like all exchanges do until they reach adequate liquidity. Even then, some of the incentives remain.
Apparently an outfit called Upslope Capital Management published a report around August 16 that honed in on the Q2 incentives (credits) equaling the income for the quarter, implying that the only reason that Abaxx is increasing business is because the incentives are so large. And there were some accounting problems indicated in the Q2 report that need to be fixed. This has led to further deterioration of the stock price. Investors are looking to August figures for contract volume. The volume needs to pick up with incentives decreasing over time so that investors see non-incentivized growth.
Thanks for this piece and for the original article that got me into ABXX in the first place — genuinely appreciate the ongoing coverage and the transparency around your own position.
I've been reading about Hong Kong's push to become Asia's gold hub — the new state-backed clearing system launched in July, the Shanghai Gold Exchange tie-up, fee waivers, and the stated goal of 2,000+ tonnes of storage by 2030. Given gold has been the dominant driver of ABXX's volume growth, I'm curious whether you (or anyone here) has a view on how much of a competitive threat this poses to Singapore's positioning longer-term, or whether the two hubs end up serving genuinely different client bases (Western/non-aligned vs. China-aligned capital).
Not trying to talk myself out of the position — still holding — just trying to stress-test the bull case with the same rigor you've clearly put into the fundamentals. Appreciate you putting this out there for discussion.
I have been buying under $20(US) though my share cost average is under $10. I’m averaging up.
Apparently there is a new separate short report that accuses Abaxx of incentivizing most of the Q2 trading. Have you looked into this?
I'm not sure I’ve seen the specific one you’re talking about, but this is totally normal in the industry. The shorts take normal aspects of this sector and make it sound like doomsday.
They absolutely did incentivize all the trading… like all exchanges do until they reach adequate liquidity. Even then, some of the incentives remain.
All these short reports have been nothingburgers.
https://www.google.com/search?q=how+much+do+ice+and+cme+incentivize+trading+on+their+contracts+with+things+like+rebates&ie=UTF-8
Apparently an outfit called Upslope Capital Management published a report around August 16 that honed in on the Q2 incentives (credits) equaling the income for the quarter, implying that the only reason that Abaxx is increasing business is because the incentives are so large. And there were some accounting problems indicated in the Q2 report that need to be fixed. This has led to further deterioration of the stock price. Investors are looking to August figures for contract volume. The volume needs to pick up with incentives decreasing over time so that investors see non-incentivized growth.
My last post about Abaxx covered this, but yeah the accounting issues were unfortunately timed and sloppy. Oh well.
Like I said, the incentive situation is the same as any exchange launched in the past. ICE and CME do the same thing.
I did. I saw he mentioned Viceroy but not Upland, so I wasn’t sure if he was aware of the second short report.
Did you not read the post ?
Thanks for this piece and for the original article that got me into ABXX in the first place — genuinely appreciate the ongoing coverage and the transparency around your own position.
I've been reading about Hong Kong's push to become Asia's gold hub — the new state-backed clearing system launched in July, the Shanghai Gold Exchange tie-up, fee waivers, and the stated goal of 2,000+ tonnes of storage by 2030. Given gold has been the dominant driver of ABXX's volume growth, I'm curious whether you (or anyone here) has a view on how much of a competitive threat this poses to Singapore's positioning longer-term, or whether the two hubs end up serving genuinely different client bases (Western/non-aligned vs. China-aligned capital).
Not trying to talk myself out of the position — still holding — just trying to stress-test the bull case with the same rigor you've clearly put into the fundamentals. Appreciate you putting this out there for discussion.