Looks like $100,000 bitcoin may be on deck, because Cramer is selling.
The ultimate inverse indicator Jim Cramer says he is selling all of his bitcoin, warning that rapid advances in quantum computing could threaten the cryptocurrency’s security within the next three to four years, according to Cointelegraph and Coindesk.
The CNBC host made the decision after interviewing IBM CEO Arvind Krishna, who urged investors to be "paranoid" about the potential impact of quantum computers on modern cryptography. Cramer said the conversation convinced him it was time to exit his bitcoin position.
Crypto traders, however, largely shrugged off the warning. Instead, many celebrated the announcement, reviving the long-running "inverse Cramer" meme, which jokingly treats his bearish calls as bullish signals. "If Cramer is selling, it's time to start buying," one trader wrote on X.
Bitcoin barely reacted, continuing to trade around $64,000 despite Cramer's comments, a recent Coldcard security incident, and signs that large bitcoin holders have begun moving or selling coins as overall crypto trading volumes decline.
The quantum computing debate itself remains unsettled. Some analysts believe bitcoin may need to transition to quantum-resistant cryptography within the next several years, while others argue practical quantum computers capable of breaking Bitcoin's encryption are still decades away. Even if such a breakthrough occurs, experts note it would threaten far more than cryptocurrencies, potentially disrupting banks, governments, and nearly every digital system that relies on modern encryption.
Cramer's latest warning also comes with plenty of historical baggage. The television personality has become famous for making high-profile market calls that later proved spectacularly wrong, from recommending Silicon Valley Bank shortly before its collapse to repeatedly changing his stance on bitcoin over the years.
That track record has turned "inverse Cramer" into one of Wall Street's favorite running jokes, with many investors instinctively betting against his latest prediction rather than following it.
Tyler Durden Wed, 08/05/2026 - 17:20Authored by Debra Heine via American Greatness,
US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on Monday arrested five more “worst of the worst” criminal illegal aliens convicted for heinous crimes, including voluntary manslaughter, criminal indecent exposure, aggravated assault, and fentanyl trafficking.
According to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), more than three million illegal aliens have left the United States due to the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown: 2.2 million self-deportations, and over 985,000 deported by DHS.
Each of the five violent criminals highlighted by DHS Tuesday were arrested in deep blue sanctuary cities where anti-ICE agitators continue to harass immigration officers.
Fernando Ruiz-Maldonado, a criminal illegal alien from Mexico, convicted for voluntary manslaughter in Los Angeles, California.
Sergio Loya-Lozano, a criminal illegal alien from Mexico, convicted for criminal indecent exposure, hit-and-run, and TWO counts of driving under the influence in San Jose, California.
Olman Josue Pineda-Jimenez, a criminal illegal alien from Honduras, convicted for aggravated assault and harassing communications in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Heriberto Hernandez-Sosa, a criminal illegal alien from the Dominican Republic, convicted for fentanyl trafficking in Worcester, Massachusetts.
Jose Manuel Pertuz-Pena, a criminal illegal alien from Venezuela, convicted for aggravated unlawful use of a weapon in Cook County, Illinois.
Immigration agents continue to carry out their law enforcement duties in blue sanctuary enclaves despite the left’s relentless coordinated campaigns of violence against them.
According to DHS, immigration officers have experienced a 1,300+ percent increase in assaults against them, a 3,300 percent increase in vehicular attacks, and an 8,000 percent increase in death threats.
“Every single day, we are REMOVING criminals from American communities. Just yesterday, ICE arrested murderers, sexual predators, violent assailants, drug traffickers, and other dangerous criminal illegal aliens,” said DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin.
“Under the Trump Administration, the Department of Homeland Security is enforcing the law, deporting criminal illegal aliens, and defending the homeland. It’s no wonder crime rates have reached historic lows.”
DHS has listed over 40,000 illegal alien criminals on their Worst of the Worst (WOW) website which tracks ICE arrests of murderers, rapists, pedophiles, violent gangbangers and arsonists.
A DHS spokesperson told American Greatness Tuesday that over 985,000 illegal aliens have been deported since President Trump took office. An additional 2.2 million have self-deported.
“In President Trump’s first year back in office, more than 3 million illegal aliens have left the U.S. because of the Trump administration’s crackdown on illegal immigration including an estimated 2.2 million self-deportations,” the spokesman said via email.
“As of July 12, we have now deported over 985,000 illegal aliens and arrested over 1 million illegal aliens.”
Tyler Durden Wed, 08/05/2026 - 17:00Sandisk was one of the largest public holdings of the hedge fund of 24-year-old former wunderkind, Leopold Aschenbrenner, and its July collapse from $2300 to $1000 was chief the main reasons why the former OpenAI employee had to liquidate his extremely overlevered hedge fund and sell all positions at a 10% discount to Citadel to meet a volley of endless margin calls.
Well, if he has some dry powder left he just may be able to repurchase some or all of his portfolio from Ken Griffen following the plunge of Sandisk after hours (we jest, of course), not because earnings were weak - they beat solidly - but because the company's revenue guidance was very disappointing... and for a stock like SNDK which is priced to perfection beyond 2030 on the assumption that nobody else can produce the biggest commodity product in electronics - memory chips - the guidance was rather dismal.
Here is what SNDK reported for fiscal Q4:
And while historical were fine, it was the company's Q1 guidance that sent its stock tumbling after hours:
Commenting on the results, SNDK said that "as the cloud and other data-intensive workloads continue to expand, we remain confident in the long-term growth trajectory of our business, further margin expansion, and strong free cash flow generation."
Perhaps, although one look at prevailing NAND prices indicates that the peak is now well in the rearview mirror...
... and the market agrees with the stock, which surged about 40% in the past few days since the Citadel takeover of the Situational Awareness hedge fund, sliding and back to about half of its all time high hit in early June.
Tyler Durden Wed, 08/05/2026 - 16:45Authored by Todd Hayen via Off-Guardian.org,
This might not apply to all sheep-types, but many of the ones I have encountered simply do not care. This could be the reason we can’t seem to get through to them with the facts we are constantly shoving down their throats. Of course, the ones I’ve talked to may just be saying they don’t care to shut me up, but I really don’t think so. They seem pretty sincere.
How could they not care? Now, that is the $64,000 question. People, in general, do not care about things they do not see directly affecting them. They should, but they don’t. People these days, at least, don’t seem very skilled at discerning things that will—if not cared about—eventually bite them in the ass. I think people used to be better at determining such things.
They used to see war in a neighbouring country, for example, and say, “Hmmm, if we don’t do something about that, those bloodthirsty marauders may be over here next.” People who thought that way—speculating about a potential ass-bite—actually disappeared a long time ago, if they ever existed at all.
Still, my point stands: if it doesn’t directly affect them in the present moment, they don’t care.
Sorry, I think that is weird.
And, of course, people seem very inconsistent about this.
Some things they do care about, and usually those things are not as important as the things they should care about.
Take immigration control and enforcement, for example. Most people leaning to the left seem to care very much about the treatment ICE gives to people suspected (or legally determined) to be in the US illegally. They worry about their rights, their families, and the way they are arrested and deported. Yes, some of these worries are legitimate.
Everyone should be treated fairly and respectfully by law enforcement officials, and if they are not, it is right to complain about it through the proper channels. But none of these people seem the least bit concerned about how millions of illegal—and often criminal—people will degrade the way of life for everyone already living here.
I often ask, “So, do you want open borders then, and as a result, never have laws about enforcing the rules regarding immigration?” They will invariably say, “Oh no, I do believe we should control our borders!” Go figure.
The same story goes for free speech. People may seem to care about hate speech and speech that does not fit their worldview, such as Charlie Kirk’s speaking about the negatives regarding transgenderism or abortion. But if you ask them, “So, you don’t believe in free speech then? You think the First Amendment of the US Constitution is idealistic hooey?” They will invariably say, “No, of course I believe in free speech!” But they don’t. Go figure.
They can’t see far enough ahead to recognize the consequences of cherry-picking speech—eliminating what they think is offensive and keeping only the “important stuff.” Unfortunately, you can’t do that, and up until recently people knew that. There is a consequence for freedom, and sometimes it isn’t pretty.
I think a lot of the time this “I don’t care” attitude stems from the fact that people don’t seem to care much about principles. Of course, that does depend on the “principle.” Using the immigration example again to illustrate this point: those against deporting illegal aliens seem to care about the principle of “kindness” and “loving your neighbour” and “no one should be hurt, for pretty much any reason.”
Yet they contradict this attitude in dozens of ways: expecting that people be put into prison for not calling someone by their chosen pronoun, or arresting someone giving a speech about the atrocities being committed in Gaza—they see these examples as hate speech. In these cases, it is fine to be arrested. But sneaking into the US illegally, or doing so and lying about your criminal record? That’s all okay.
I feel the shrew-types are (see my Substack for a definition of “shrew”) very aware of principles. The destruction of free speech and even the obliteration of privacy in the US is not necessarily affecting people directly (except during Covid, when it certainly did, with persecution toward the unvaccinated and the loss of jobs and livelihoods). It is a “principle thing” for a lot of us. It is the wanton destruction of the very fundamentals our country (the US) was founded on.
Not only our constitutional rights, but the inalienable rights our Creator granted us. The writing on the wall exclaiming a future none of us will be comfortable in is clear and present. We hear the train a-comin’, rolling ‘round the bend…And it doesn’t look good.
So maybe shrews also don’t freak out over injustices until we feel them, but maybe we also see what’s on the horizon more logically and pragmatically than the sheep-types do. But that too is arguable. The sheepies certainly have no problem losing their cookies over Trump, even though there is little he is doing that directly affects them in a bad way (until recently, at least).
They too claim to be looking at future calamity to justify their hate. Yet Canadians adore Carney, and can’t seem to see what his antics are bringing onto Canada: soaring inflation and grocery prices, ballooning deficits and national debt (now larger than the economy), higher taxes, and escalating trade tensions with the US through tariff retaliation and protectionist policies that critics argue risk recession and long-term economic decline. Or, probably the most devastating, getting into bed with China and the Chinese Communist Party (“It’s not Communism,” they love to bellow, “It’s socialism.” Ha ha.)
We see these inconsistencies in a variety of ways. Obama’s approach to drone warfare was entirely ignored, yet anything Trump did that was similar (before the Iran catastrophe) was considered criminal.
But do they really care? Or are they just oddly selective about what they care about?
Maybe it is more the latter we are seeing. Maybe they do care, but about strangely inappropriate things. And then not care about things that are very appropriate to care about. Got me. All I can say for certain is that it is weird. Very weird. And I do care about that.
Tyler Durden Wed, 08/05/2026 - 16:20