I figured this would be the exact place to post this because I got into a huge argument with a number of people on the way they talk regarding all this.
I am just an average American who understands exactly how to read and what proper grammar usage is. I also apply proper grammar to anything that is explained and this is how to find out can work or not.
This whole topic will be using proper grammar, how to read, and apply that to the phrasing people use which will prove the entire explanation about leverage, stop/loss and x leverage incorrect and it cannot work according to the explanation and how grammar applies
WHAT IS ACTUALLY BEING SAID WHEN PEOPLE USE THE PHRASING (X)
Using $500 as an investment
When the phrase 500 at (X) is applied this is literally what is being said
Leverage is x where x is how much the original investment is divided by
So 500 cannot be done at 2x because that makes it 500x2 which = 1000 and you do not have 1000, you would only be able to do 500 at 1x.
The only way to do 500 at 2x is to divide 500 by 2 which would be 250x2 because you can only use UP TO THE ORIGINAL INVESTMENT. Only way to do 500 at 2x is to invest 1000.
WHY A STOP/LOSS CAN ONLY BE DONE AT 1x with an investment
First you have to understand what stop/loss is designed for, it’s for making the exchange money nothing more. How it works is not the same as what it’s designed to do so lets keep those 2 separate.
A stop/loss works like this
It automatically and instantly closes the trade when the entire ORIGINAL INVESTMENT can no longer be covered. You can set the stop/loss to whatever but the original amount cannot cease to exist with a stop/loss in place
So that means even if you somehow could do 500 at 2x, a stop/loss on that would instantly and automatically close the trade the instant you started it because as explained above is exactly how it applies when people say it, and so the stop loss requires 1000 and if you only have 500 the stop /loss
WHY YOU DO NOT NEED ANY MONEY TO BORROW FROM THE EXCHANGE
When people say you can invest 500 at 10x that literally says you now have 10 piles of $500 each which now you have a total of $50,000 because you were just given $49,000 for free which is MONEY YOU DO NOT HAVE. Because you only invested $500 that means you are leveraging WITH MONEY YOU DO NOT HAVE AND DOES NOT EXIST.
Now you apply that to this:
Now if you are being given $49,500 for free and can use it, you are now leveraging money you do not have and doesn’t exist so, that alone proves you do not need any money at all to borrow from then exchange because the exchange is just giving you money to use that you do not have and doesn’t exist.
The whole point to this is you cannot dispute anything above when using grammar and phrasing the way people are, you also cannot say yes you can leverage 500 at 10x but then say it isn’t using money you don’t have then say you cannot use no money to be given an amount you do not have and doesn’t exist.
People can try to argue and spin all this anyway they want but the fact remains is this all comes back to when you speak English and you say certain phrases, what you say is exactly how it is applied, trying to say it doesn’t work like that or that English grammar doesn’t apply, doesn’t work. You cannto change the function of language or how it’s applied.
Until the phrasing has been fixed and corrected, to have proper wording done then everything in this entire topic is a 100% fact
And this topic isn’t for people to debate and argue and cram down my throat how it works or I don’t understand it or any other nonsense, I’m simply pointing out a major grammatical flaw everyone has been using incorrect all this time.
You cannot argue with grammar and language and how it applies and it’s definitions
The fact is 500 at 10x is not possible grammatically and mathematically because that’s how math applies and language works. 500 at 10x is saying 500 x 10 which $50,000 which would have to be the original investment you cannot just have 500 and magically get $49,500 out of nowhere to invest, that requires an intial investment of $50,000 not $500
What people are trying to say is it’s 500 with a return of times 10,
1 post - 1 participant
Read full topic
