Putting $400M of Bitcoin on your company balance sheet
Also posted on my blog as usual. Read it there if you can, there are footnotes and inlined plots. A couple of months ago, MicroStrategy (MSTR) had a spare $400M of cash which it decided to shift to Bitcoin (BTC). Today we'll discuss in excrutiating detail why this is not a good idea. When a company has a pile of spare money it doesn't know what to do with, it'll normally do buybacks or start paying dividends. That gives the money back to the shareholders, and from an economic perspective the money can get better invested in other more promising companies. If you have a huge pile of of cash, you probably should be doing other things than leave it in a bank account to gather dust. However, this statement from MicroStrategy CEO Michael Saylor exists to make it clear he's buying into BTC for all the wrong reasons:
“This is not a speculation, nor is it a hedge. This was a deliberate corporate strategy to adopt a bitcoin standard.”
Let's unpack it and jump into the economics Bitcoin:
Is Bitcoin money?
No. Or rather BTC doesn't act as money and there's no serious future path for BTC to become a form of money. Let's go back to basics. There are 3 main economic problems money solves: 1. Medium of Exchange. Before money we had to barter, which led to the double coincidence of wants problem. When everyone accepts the same money you can buy something from someone even if they don't like the stuff you own. As a medium of exchange, BTC is not good. There are significant transaction fees and transaction waiting times built-in to BTC and these worsen the more popular BTC get. You can test BTC's usefulness as a medium of exchange for yourself right now: try to order a pizza or to buy a random item with BTC. How many additional hurdles do you have to go through? How many fewer options do you have than if you used a regular currency? How much overhead (time, fees) is there? 2. Unit of Account. A unit of account is what you compare the value of objects against. We denominate BTC in terms of how many USD they're worth, so BTC is a unit of account presently. We can say it's because of lack of adoption, but really it's also because the market value of BTC is so volatile. If I buy a $1000 table today or in 2017, it's roughly a $1000 table. We can't say that a 0.4BTC table was a 0.4BTC table in 2017. We'll expand on this in the next point: 3. Store of Value. When you create economic value, you don't want to be forced to use up the value you created right away. For instance, if I fix your washing machine and you pay me in avocados, I'd be annoyed. I'd have to consume my payment before it becomes brown, squishy and disgusting. Avocado fruit is not good money because avocadoes loses value very fast. On the other hand, well-run currencies like the USD, GBP, CAD, EUR, etc. all lose their value at a low and most importantly fairly predictible rate. Let's look at the chart of the USD against BTC While the dollar loses value at a predictible rate, BTC is all over the place, which is bad. One important use money is to write loan contracts. Loans are great. They let people spend now against their future potential earnings, so they can buy houses or start businesses without first saving up for a decade. Loans are good for the economy. If you want to sign something that says "I owe you this much for that much time" then you need to be able to roughly predict the value of the debt in at the point in time where it's due. Otherwise you'll have a hard time pricing the risk of the loan effectively. This means that you need to charge higher interests. The risk of making a loan in BTC needs to be priced into the interest of a BTC-denominated loan, which means much higher interest rates. High interests on loans are bad, because buying houses and starting businesses are good things.
BTC has a fixed supply, so these problems are built in
Some people think that going back to a standard where our money was denominated by a stock of gold (the Gold Standard) would solve economic problems. This is nonsense. Having control over supply of your currency is a good thing, as long as it's well run. See here Remember that what is desirable is low variance in the value, not the value itself. When there are wild fluctuations in value, it's hard for money to do its job well. Since the 1970s, the USD has been a fiat money with no intrinsic value. This means we control the supply of money. Let's look at a classic poorly drawn econ101 graph The market price for USD is where supply meets demand. The problem with a currency based on an item whose supply is fixed is that the price will necessarily fluctuate in response to changes in demand. Imagine, if you will, that a pandemic strikes and that the demand for currency takes a sharp drop. The US imports less, people don't buy anything anymore, etc. If you can't print money, you get deflation, which is worsens everything. On the other hand, if you can make the money printers go brrrr you can stabilize the price Having your currency be based on a fixed supply isn't just bad because in/deflation is hard to control. It's also a national security risk... The story of the guy who crashed gold prices in North Africa In the 1200s, Mansa Munsa, the emperor of the Mali, was rich and a devout Muslim and wanted everyone to know it. So he embarked on a pilgrimage to make it rain all the way to Mecca. He in fact made it rain so hard he increased the overall supply of gold and unintentionally crashed gold prices in Cairo by 20%, wreaking an economic havoc in North Africa that lasted a decade. This story is fun, the larger point that having your inflation be at the mercy of foreign nations is an undesirable attribute in any currency. The US likes to call some countries currency manipulators, but this problem would be serious under a gold standard.
Currencies are based on trust
Since the USD is based on nothing except the US government's word, how can we trust USD not to be mismanaged? The answer is that you can probably trust the fed until political stooges get put in place. Currently, the US's central bank managing the USD, the Federal Reserve (the Fed for friends & family), has administrative authority. The fed can say "no" to dumb requests from the president. People who have no idea what the fed does like to chant "audit the fed", but the fed is already one of the best audited US federal entities. The transcripts of all their meetings are out in the open. As is their balance sheet, what they plan to do and why. If the US should audit anything it's the Department of Defense which operates without any accounting at all. It's easy to see when a central bank will go rogue: it's when political yes-men are elected to the board. For example, before printing themselves into hyperinflation, the Venezuelan president appointed a sociologist who publicly stated “Inflation does not exist in real life” and instead is a made up capitalist lie. Note what happened mere months after his gaining control over the Venezuelan currency This is a key policy. One paper I really like, Sargent (1984) "The end of 4 big inflations" states:
The essential measures that ended hyperinflation in each of Germany,Austria, Hungary, and Poland were, first, the creation of an independentcentral bank that was legally committed to refuse the government'sdemand or additional unsecured credit and, second, a simultaneousalteration in the fiscal policy regime.
In english: *hyperinflation stops when the central bank can say "no" to the government." The US Fed, like other well good central banks, is run by a bunch of nerds. When it prints money, even as aggressively as it has it does so for good reasons. You can see why they started printing on March 15th as the COVID lockdowns started:
The Federal Reserve is prepared to use its full range of tools to support the flow of credit to households and businesses and thereby promote its maximum employment and price stability goals.
In english: We're going to keep printing and lowering rates until jobs are back and inflation is under control. If we print until the sun is blotted out, we'll print in the shade.
BTC is not gold
Gold is a good asset for doomsday-preppers. If society crashes, gold will still have value. How do we know that? Gold has held value throughout multiple historic catastrophes over thousands of years. It had value before and after the Bronze Age Collapse, the Fall of the Western Roman Empire and Gengis Khan being Gengis Khan. Even if you erased humanity and started over, the new humans would still find gold to be economically valuable. When Europeans d̶i̶s̶c̶o̶v̶e̶r̶e̶d̶ c̶o̶n̶q̶u̶e̶r̶e̶d̶ g̶e̶n̶o̶c̶i̶d̶e̶d̶ went to America, they found gold to be an important item over there too. This is about equivalent to finding humans on Alpha-Centauri and learning that they think gold is a good store of value as well. Some people are puzzled at this: we don't even use gold for much! But it has great properties: First, gold is hard to fake and impossible to manufacture. This makes it good to ascertain payment. Second, gold doesnt react to oxygen, so it doesn't rust or tarnish. So it keeps value over time unlike most other materials. Last, gold is pretty. This might sound frivolous, and you may not like it, but jewelry has actual value to humans. It's no coincidence if you look at a list of the wealthiest families, a large number of them trade in luxury goods. To paraphrase Veblen humans have a profound desire to signal social status, for the same reason peacocks have unwieldy tails. Gold is a great way to achieve that. On the other hand, BTC lacks all these attributes. Its value is largely based on common perception of value. There are a few fundamental drivers of demand:
Means of Exchange: if people seriously start using BTC to buy pizzas, then this creates a real demand for the currency to accomplish the short-term exchanges. As we saw previously, I'm not personally sold on this one and it's currently a negligible fraction of overall demand.
Criminal uses: Probably the largest inbuilt advantage of BTC is that it's anonymous, and so a great way to launder money. Hacker gangs use BTC to demand ransom on cryptolocker type attacks because it's a shared way for an honest company to pay and for the criminals to receive money without going to jail.
Apart from these, it's hard to argue that BTC will retain value throughout some sort of economic catastrophe.
BTC is really risky
One last statement from Michael Saylor I take offense to is this:
“We feel pretty confident that Bitcoin is less risky than holding cash, less risky than holding gold,” MicroStrategy CEO said in an interview
"BTC is less risky than holding cash or gold long term" is nonsense. We saw before that BTC is more volatile on face value, and that as long as the Fed isn't run by spider monkeys stacked in a trench coat, the inflation is likely to be within reasonable bounds. But on top of this, BTC has Abrupt downside risks that normal currencies don't. Let's imagine a few:
A critical software vulnerability is found in the BTC codebase, leading to a possible exploitation.
Xi Jinping decides he's had enough of rich people in China hiding their assets from him and bans BTC.
Some form of bank run takes hold for whatever reason. Because BTC wallets are uninsured, unlike regular banks, this compounds into a Black Tuesday style crash.
Blockchain solutions are fundamentally inefficient
Blockchain was a genius idea. I still marvel at the initial white paper which is a great mix of economics and computer science. That said, blockchain solutions make large tradeoffs in design because they assume almost no trust between parties. This leads to intentionally wasteful designs on a massive scale. The main problem is that all transactions have to be validated by expensive computational operations and double checked by multiple parties. This means waste:
BTC was estimated to use as much electricity as Belgium in 2019. It's hard to trace where the BTC mining comes from, but we can assume it has a huge carbon footprint.
A single transactions is necessarily expensive. A single transaction takes as much electricity as 800,000 VISA transactions, or watching 50,000 hours of youtube videos.
There is a large necessary tax on the transaction, since those checking the transaction extract a few BTC from it to be incentivized to do the work of checking it.
Many design problems can be mitigated by various improvements over BTC, but it remains that a simple database always works better than a blockchain if you can trust the parties to the transaction.
For anyone who is at all informed about wallets and exchanges, especially their fee structures or how exchange rates work, I have a short story, followed by a question, and I would greatly appreciate your insight and advice.
Heavily-edited Xpost from cryptocurrency after reading a very enlightening post regarding meme spam and moon harvesting...what on earth is wrong with people...? First off, super quick, can anyone steer me toward a cryptocurrency converter that takes timestamps into consideration? I need a conversion tool that I can plug dates and times into that can tell me how much the contents of my wallet was on a given day and time. Or how much a transaction was worth at the time that it was sent. These must exist, and yes, I've Googled for them, but I never find exactly what I'm looking for. I figured Reddit probably knows, because collectively, Reddit knows pretty much everything. 😁😁 Okay so, story: I sent a friend 11.88 XMR this morning through an exchange service that claims to not cost anything to send to other users within the service. He only received 11.55. We didn't notice it at first, and he proceeded to forward that money on to a third party who informed him he was short, as she had only received 11.24 xmr and change. I'm sure you're all aware of this, but Monero's value has increased by like $25 just this weekend. Cool, right? Sure it is, but not at all the point, which is that 11.88 XMR (at the time I found out that what I sent wasn't what got received and went looking through my transactions and thought to plug numbers into a converter and see how much we lost) was roughly $1,582. But 11.55 xmr was only $1,538. And 11.24 was only $1,497. So to transfer coin from point A to point C, all within a service which is supposedly free to send within that service, ended up costing us like $85 somehow? And legit, guys, I'm not sure how or why.... (Hence the need for a converter that allows for timestamps. When I complain about my missing money, it would be good to have accurate exchange rates available.) So once I realized that, I went looking through my transaction history. There's similar discrepancies relating to actual coin exchanges also, where I've traded Bitcoin for Monero or vice versa, but the value of what I traded is greater than the value of what I traded it for. By quite a bit. This morning, for instance, I had 0.14196176 Bitcoin (worth $1,641 when I looked it up later) that I exchanged for 11.8424500192 Monero (worth $1,566). So like...where the hell is the other $75? Again, this service advertises the lack of hidden fees and the free exchange of coins. Transaction fees are minimal, like 0.005 or something. Withdrawl fees also. I use it for the exact reason that one of the third party exchange services that Edge wallet uses cost me like $50 the one time that I used it, and the chunk of money being exchanged was way more than this was today. But what Really aggravates me about the situation is that I'm a donor to this service for the express reason that they've (supposedly) saved me so much money and so many headaches, while maintaining a (Supposedly) free service in the interest of preserving users' privacy. I'm pretty fucking outraged about it honestly, but I'm trying to maintain some semblance of composure because.... I'm aware that I don't know what I don't know. And I don't have all that much experience with/various exchanges. For all I know, there is a standard deduction I should have been aware of all this time that I just didn't know about. Or I should but don't know that there's typically a loss of ×% when trading one coin for another. Or...something, you know? So I don't want to rant and rave about shitty business practices and them effectively misleading their users and stealing our money if what's actually happening is that I just don't know what the hell is going on or how anything works, if that makes sense. I have a (polite) email drafted to the support staff of the service requesting some clarification regarding their fee structure, as well as an explanation for their having marketed themselves as offering such a service for their users and claiming not to charge us for it but then apparently doing exactly that. Before I send it though, I thought it might be wise to consult others who have more experience than I with exchanges and wallet services. I was hoping that someone much more experienced with and educated on cryptocurrencies/wallets/exchanges/etc might be able to give me a crash course on why I lost $160 by using a service for it's intended purpose, and who I need to bitch at to get it back. (I'm just kidding. I'm perfectly aware that it's never getting refunded. Because why would it?) So my question is: What don't I know? Basically any information or considerations at all that I should be aware of or just insights that might be in any way helpful would be really appreciated. And not that I expect any, but I wouldn't turn down any tips y'all might wanna share regarding how I might quickly earn back the money we lost, since now we're short lol. (Lost? Spent? I'm not sure how to classify that in my head....) Thanks guys!
Instead of honest democracy or free-market meritocracy, we truly live under rule by parasites. (This term is not meant to be derogatory but to be apt. I suppose many, if not most of us, would opt to be one of the parasites, if given the choice.) Trying to describe how the financial and political elites receive unearned wealth and power can get complicated very quickly. To find a simple but rigorous theory to cover most major features of the beast requires looking at it the right way. By and large, how it works is that:
The elites use state power to prop up the values of money, debt, and other financial assets artificially, to benefit those who issue them, i.e. themselves. When some over-valued asset eventually must crash, the entire economy suffers the loss of jobs, business and savings.
Example: The Bank Account Public illusion. A commercial-bank 'deposit' is as good as money. You will get all your money back, any time you want. Reality. 'Deposits' are really loans to the bank which lends them to borrowers, some of whom may never pay them back. Another danger is that savers may ask for their money at any time, while loans by the bank tend to have longer-term maturities. How to bridge myth and reality. An truly free-market system would drive banks to communicate expectations openly. A simple example could be having 'depositors' expect to lose money if the bank makes bad loans. The problem with such an honest system, of course, is that top politicians and bankers wouldn't benefit much, since people would likely put much less money in banks. The confidence trick. The government props up the illusion, while it can. Classic tools over the centuries include allowing banks to collude by rescuing each other in a crisis, bailing banks out with public money, and providing deposit insurance. If this gives bankers the incentives to take too much risk, bankers redeem themselves by being a lender to the government. Since both sets of elites benefit, what problem is there? (In recent decades investment banks and money market funds have formed a shadow banking system which plays an equivalent role. While the last US commercial-bank bust happened in the 1980s' savings-and-loan crisis, the last shadow-bank variety occurred in 2007-8.) Analysis. While credit is indeed crucial to economic growth, to use government power to prop up the values of loans to banks, and then to rely on bureaucrats and their rules to limit risk-taking by bankers is a distortion of the credit market. It is the driver of much human misery. Central planning, somehow, always benefits the few at the expense of the many, even if it claims to do just the opposite.
Example: Government Bonds Public illusion. The 'full faith and credit' of the government stands behind the IOU it issues to you. Your IOU is as good as money. Reality. Since much public debt is almost as trusted as money, incurring this debt is almost as good as printing money. Politicians thus have an incentive to maximize the issuance of debt to receive free political capital, even if this destabilizes their own system in the long run. Public debt all over the world goes only up. Even though powerful governments can keep their debt bubbles going for a century or more, those incentives mean that their IOUs will eventually lose value, one way or another. How to bridge myth and reality. Even aside from the moral problems of 'money' creation and putting burden on people who can't yet vote, public debt should at least be allowed to sink or swim in the capital markets. If a government incurs too much debt, savers would be incentivized to punish it by demanding a higher yield, and politicians would in turn be incentivized to cut back borrowing. The confidence trick. When savers get too wary of public debt, the central bank steps in to buy it with freshly printed money, thus propping up the value of these IOUs. This is done in the name of 'monetary policy,' either by buying public debt directly as 'open market' operations, or, more frequently, by supplying banks with cheap new money so they will buy it. Most of the time, savers can't fight city hall, and will thus tend to buy and hold IOUs, further limiting the downside risk of their values. This entire system thus amounts to a bubble. Analysis. It doesn't matter how powerful a government is -- Public debt always crashes eventually. The dominant global empires of Spain, the Netherlands, and Britain were destroyed by this crash in their days. (In the case of Britain the relevant 'public debt' took the form of paper pound sterling that was officially an IOU for a fixed amount of gold.) No one believes US debt is really payable with anything close to the purchasing power savers and foreign central banks used to buy it, although by the time its value can no longer be propped up, most politicians and voters who have benefited from issuing it will have been gone.
Example: Money Public illusion. Central banks issue and destroy currency to manage economic output for the benefit of the public. At least in the West, proper management has resulted in low and constant inflation that has justified the public's evident trust in currency's value. Reality. The real job description of the central bank is to safeguard the state-bank alliance. It holds power over the most central asset, money, in order to discourage both politicians and bankers from issuing assets too fast and thus endangering the system. The goal is well-paced harvesting of the fruits of real work. Over the decades, prices only move in one direction: up. How to bridge myth and reality. Unfortunately, there is no way to remove the incentives to abuse the issuance of money while the state or a banking cartel has any role in the issuance. The confidence trick. The problem of holding up the public's trust in currency was solved in a simple fashion by the classical gold and silver standards in their day, while the authorities had enough precious metals to back their paper. Today, the central bank needs to keep the return on 'safe' assets (e.g. short-term Treasuries, insured deposits) above the return on non-state-issued assets, i.e. gold, silver and Bitcoin. (Recent books like 'Gold Wars' and 'The Gold Cartel' have come up with good evidence of central-bank suppression of precious metal prices by trading derivatives.) In this it seems to succeed most of the time, but fail spectacularly at other times. It also needs to keep the return on 'safe' assets below the return on risky assets like stocks, over the long term. The goal of both operations is to use state power to force savers to take risks and help prop up the bubble economy. (Ever wonder why financial crisis always seems to come back?) When you hear of 'tightening' or 'loosening' the money supply, this control is what's really going on. So, it's not that the public trusts currency; most feel they have no choice. Analysis. It's not, as most mainstream economists claim, that state-controlled money is required for modern economic growth. The Italian Renaissance and Scottish 'free-banking' era were counter-examples. It's really the other way round. The real productivity of the modern world gives value to the financial assets issued by the elites, and thus help sustain their financial inflation, at least until the perverse incentives destabilizes the system anyway. In the Middle Ages, money was physical gold and silver -- when there was no wealth to extract, the state couldn't create its financial inflation.
Final Thoughts A key feature of this system is that it doesn't matter if you understand it. You still must gamble, or risk your savings being eaten away by inflation. The gamble by the public as a whole is certain to end in loss, since the elites will always destabilize asset values to the point of collapse. The lose-lose proposition works the same way as literal highway robbery -- you can certainly hold on to your money; you just can't keep your life at the same time. That said, there are times when the elites are likely to be forced to devalue their money, and with it all other conventional assets, against gold, silver and Bitcoin, in order to hold on to power. This makes it statistically profitable to hold non-state-issued assets at those times. (An analogy would be standing at the front of the line to redeem deposits for cash during a bank run, or to redeem pound sterling for gold at the Bank of England just before Britain was forced off the gold standard.) Necessarily, only a minority will profit from this bet, but its existence is a healthy incentive that pushes the elites to minimize financial inflation. This devaluation is conceptually the same as 'banana republics' having to devalue their currency against the dollar because they've printed too much. The typical way to do this is to strongly deny any prospect of devaluation until the very moment, devalue as fast as possible (and devalue enough to keep their system stable for a while,) and deny any further devaluations in future. So, it's perhaps no accident that the price movements of gold, silver and Bitcoin have been long and gradual declines most of the time, punctuated by sharp rises over short periods, and rising overall over the long term. The system is an 'open conspiracy.' Instead of secrecy, it relies on a combination of state power and ignorance by the public. The only sustainable path to achieving a healthy and just system is for the public to wake up. But the devaluation of its issued money against non-state monies shows that, in a subtle but profoundly real sense, the system is a paper tiger. Since the power of the modern imperial system depends necessarily on various alliances of self-interest as well as the perception of its support for classically liberal ideals, if enough people, and people in the right places, refuse to be intimidated, or expose its nature, the system must make concessions, and make the world perhaps a little better. This possibility of piecewise progress exists in all corners of the system, at most times. Here, then, is where our hope must be for the future. It will be a long battle indeed, and we must be prepared for the entire duration.
I'm kinda ok with MCO -> CRO Swap; a indepth personal view
EDIT: this post https://www.reddit.com/Crypto_com/comments/i2yhuz/open_letter_to_kris_from_one_of_cdcs_biggest/ from u/CryptoMines expresses my sentiments and concerns better than I could ever put into words myself. I'd say read his/her post instead. Very long post ahead, but TL;DR, I actually see this swap as a positive change, despite fearing for what it may do to my portofolio, and having mixed feelings about its consequences on CDC reputation.Before I start, for the sake of context and bias, here's my personal situation as a CDC user:
I'm just a average Joe, with a 500 MCO Jade card. I bough 50 MCO at 5,22€ in September 2019 and staked for Ruby, then bough 440 MCO at 2.47€ in March 2020 and upgraded to Jade. The total amount of MCO I own is currently 515, and everything above the 500 stake is cashback rewards.
I bought MCO exclusively for the card and bonus Earn interest benefits, and had no plans to unstake my MCO. Now with the swap, definetly won't unstake.
The MCO -> CRO conversion rates increased the fiat value of my MCO in about 1000€.
I own a decent amount of CRO, wich I bought at ~0,031€ in March 2020.
The country where I live is crypto friendly and completely crypto-tax free; I only have to pay income tax if I deposit a certain threshold of fiat in my bank.
Take all these factors into account as possible (if not major) influencers or bias on my opinions; both the emotional and economical ones. Call me a fool or a devil's advocate if you want, but keep your torches and pitchforks down. As we say here on Reddit: "Remember the human".----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Like all of you, I woke up to find this anouncement, wich came right the #[email protected] out of nowere, and gives you little to no options. Good or bad, this announcement arrived as basicly a "comply or die" choice. Emotionally, this came as both terrifying and disgusting; but rationally, I cannot blame CDC for it. Because wether we like it or not, CDC is a centralized company, and the MCO tokens were never a stock or legally binding contract; something wich pretty much every crypto company or ICO warns in their T&C and risk warnings. Not to mention the mostly unregulated status of the cryptocurrency and. I'll call this "dishonest" any day, but I cannot see it as a "scammy" since I can't see how they broke any rules or terms. A scammer would take your money/assets away, but CDC is offering you to swap it for another asset wich you can sell right away if you want. And at current price, it is still worth more or less as much fiat as MCO cost at the 5 $/€ wich was more or less the comunity standard used for calculating the card prices. And by that, I mean that the fiat value of 50/500/5000 MCO (as CRO) is actually not far from the 250/2500/25'000 $/€ that the comunity commonly used as standard when calculating the ROI and (under)valuation of MCO. So CDC is at least trying to give us the option to get (some) our money back, and not at a unfair rate. If you happened to buy MCO at a price higher than this, I can't see how that's CDC's fault, just as I don't see anyone blaming Bitcoin or Altcoins for getting them stuck at the top of the 2017 bubble burst. I read many posts in this reddit calling this a "backstab" and "betrayal" of early investors and for the people who "believed in MCO". Emotionally, I share your sentiment.But after thinking it for a while, I'd say this was actually very rewarding for early investors and long term MCO supporters. As CDC clearly sates in the swap rules; nobody is going to lose their card tier or MCO stake benefits (at least not yet), and your stake DOES NOT unstake automatically after 180 days. Actually, so far they never did unstake automatically, you had to manually unstake yourself. With this in mind, everyone who already got their cards, or at least staked MCO to reserve one, basicly got them 3-5 times cheaper than future users; and IMHO, now the $/€ price of cards feels more fair and sustainable compared to their benefits.So in a sense, everyone who supported and believed on the MCO for its utility (i.e. the card and app benefits) has been greatly rewarded with perks that they get to keep, but are now out of reach for a lot of people.Likewise, the people who believed and invested in CRO (for whatever reason), have also been rewarded, as their CRO tokens now have more utility. So either the price of CRO crashes down to around 0.05 $/€, or the people who bought MCO/CRO early or cheap are now massively benefited. But then again, so is everyone who bought or mined Bitcoin in its early days, or invested in Bitcoin at crucial points of its history... how is that unfair? Some people bought Ethereum at 1'400 $ on a mix of hopes/promises that it would continue to rise; it didn't. And even today with DeFi and ETH 2.0 ever closer, it is still far from that price. And I know what some of you are thinking: "The cards aren't avaiable in my country yet, that's why I didn't buy/stake."Well, they weren't avaiable in my country either when I staked 50 MCO. Heck, the cards weren't avaiable in anyones country when MCO started, but many people still bought it and staked it. That's exacly what "early adopter", "long supporter" and "believing in MCO" means. On the other hand, the people who invested on MCO as a speculative asset and decided to HODL and hoard MCO, hoping for its price to moon and then sell MCO at big profit, had their dreams mercilessly crushed by this swap... and good lord, I feel their pain.But this is also where I'll commit the sin of being judgemental, because IMHO, speculating on MCO never made any sense to me; MCO was a utility token, not a value token, so it should not (and could not) ever be worth more than the value of its utility. That's basicly how stablecoins and PAXG are able to stay stable; because nobody will pay more/less than the value of the asset/service they represent. Tough now that I'm looking at the new card stake tiers in CRO, I have to give credit to the MCO hodlers I just now criticised; maybe you were right all along. Unless the price of CRO crashes or corrects, I wich case, I un-rest my case. One thing I'll agree with everyone tough, is that I fell that CDC just suckerpunched it's comunity. Because even if we have no vote on its decisions (wich again, we aren't necessarily entitled to, since they are a privante and centralized business) they should/could have warned that this was in their plans well in advance; if anything to allow those who wouldn't like it to exit this train calmly. Also the CRO stake duration reset. The mandatory reset of your CRO stake for taking advantage of the early swap bonus feels like another gut-punch. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Now that we got emotional feelings out of the way, here's my sentiment about how this will affect the overall CDC ecossystem. One common criticism of the sustainability of MCO was that its supply cap could never allow a large number of cards to be issued, and how could CDC keep paying the cashbacks and rebates. On the oposite corner, one of the major criticisms of the sustainability of CRO, was it's ridiculously huge supply cap and inflation caused by the gradual un-freezing and release of more CRO into the system. But now that MCO and CRO became one, it might just have made both issues more sustainable. Now the huge supply cap of CRO makes more sense, as it allows a much larger number of future users to stake for cards (at higher costs, but still). And because most card cashback is small parcels, this large supply also ensures that CDC can keep paying said cashbacks for a long time; especially since it can be semi-renewable trough the trading fees we pay in CRO. Before this, the MCO you got as cashback had no use, other than selling it for fiat or speculate on its price. But CRO can be used, at the very least, to receive a discount on trading fees. And everytime you pay trading fees in CRO or spend CRO on a Syndicate event, some of that CRO goes back to CDC, wich they can use to keep paying the cahsback/rebates. And keep in mind, the technicalities of CRO can be changed, as well as the perks and utilities it can be used for. So even if this current model doesn't fix everything (wich it probably doesn't) it can still be changed to patch problems or expand its use. Another obvious potentially positive outcome of this, is that now CDC only has to focus on 1 token, so it makes it easier to manage and drive its value. People complained that CDC was neglecting MCO over promoting CRO, but now they can focus on both services (cards/exchange) at the same time. Sure, this might not bring much advantage to the common customer, but its probably a major resource saver and optimizer at corporate levels; wich in the long term ultimately benefits its customers. Much like Ethereum is undergoing major changes to ensure its scalability, the crypto companies themselves also have to change to acommodate the growing number of users, especially as the cryptomarket and DeFi are growing and becoming more competitive. Business strategies that were once successfull became obsolete, and exchanges that once held near-monopolies had to adjust to rising competitors. There is no reason why CDC shouldn't keep up with this, or at least try to. Point is, the financial markets, crypto or otherwise, are not a status quo haven. And when something is wrong, something has to be changed, even if it costs. The very rise of cryptocurrencies and blockchain, wich is why we are here in the first place, is a perfect example of this, as it experiments and provides alternatives to legacy/traditional products and technologies. Was this the best solution to its current problems? Is this what will protect us as customers from a potentially unsustainable business model? I have no idea. This change ripped me too from my previous more or less relaxed status quo (the safety of the value of the CRO I bough for cheap), along with CRO late investors wich now probably fear for the devaluation of their CRO. To say nothing of the blow this represents for my trust (and I believe everyone elses trust) on CDC and its public relations. It's not what CDC did, it's how they did it. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wether you actually bothered to read all I wrote or just skip everything (can't blame you), I'm eager to hear your opinions and whatever criticisms on my opinions you may have. If you just want to vent at me, you are welcome too; now you can raise your pitchforks and torches.
TL;DR: Twitter has a horrible execution history and negative surprises on the most recent earnings call, but company has real long term value that has yet to be unlocked. The bet here is that TWTR has run up based on pin action from SNAP, but fundamentals and peer comparison cloud the picture. I read this post calling for a short on Twitter and it became a bit of a WSB ear worm. I generally agreed with OP's assessment, but he was a bit short on DD and most of my thoughts are based on biases against the company's horrible execution/monetization history and a general disdain for Jack Dorsey wanting to move to Africa for a year rather than focusing on the TWO companies that have made him a billionaire. I thought about it, researched some short term puts (high premium as expected given recent run up into all time high today, earnings Thursday) and basically ATM puts are running $2.76 for $51's expiring Friday or $3.36 if I want to give myself the extra week (ELECTION MADNESS!) for an extra swing at the payoff. My initial thought is that Twitter has run up with SNAP and PINS after SNAP crushed earnings. I had started to look at PINS for an earnings play but didn't get to it before SNAP sent them all (and FB) off to the races. With that said, Twitter has a history of disappointing and I'm not aware of anything they've done recently to better monetize the site. I also haven't done any DD on them in forever after getting stuck long a few times and having to wait a quarter or so twice for what should have been a short term trade. So, thanks to OP Justaryns, here's some follow on DD. Now I'm more conflicted. Financials. Strong balance sheet. Company had $7.8 Billion cash on hand end of June, adding $1 Billion of that during the first six (crash/shutdown) months of the year. Only $831 Million of current liabilities and total debt is $4.1 Billion. Market Cap is less than 4x book value. No issues here. Income statement is a bit more hokey. They took a major charge last quarter for a "non-cash tax deferred asset". That messed up a slow but steady growing trendline. How much so? Check the CNBC graphic: 2Q: Whoops Also during the last quarter, Twitter had a massive hack where some moron tried to use the accounts of famous people to try and sell (Edit; The currency that we doth not speak its name). No word on which autist here did that. The problems continued into the last few weeks, when Twitter had a massive outage that the President blamed cited the Babylon Bee as Biden protection. That's more of a reminder that headline and political risk remains in all communication services stocks, and tomorrow we'll get a better reminder as the CEO's of Twitter, Facebook, and Microsoft testify before a Congress that hates them more than their own voters. So Twitter has execution problems, political risk, and a CEO that is still trying to decide what he wants to be when he grows up. Yet it's had a massive run up as pin action from SNAP. Does it have further room to run? Chart comparisons suggest it could. Relative Performance of SNAP, PINS, TWTR, and FB This is where I get heartburn on the short. Over the past year, PINS and SNAP have had over a 150% return. FB, much more established and with a market cap 20 times that of Twitter, has still given a respectable 46% return. Twitter is up 73%, which is a lot...until you compare it to peers like SNAP and PINS. Further, analysts are sour on Twitter, with 32 of 41 giving hold or underperform ratings, and a stock price 20% below current prices. I tend to consider them a contra-indicator, in that they move after sentiment does, usually not before. CNBC analyst summary So, I'm torn. If Dorsey can demonstrate he has finally decided to execute a business plan and fix the recurring technical/security issues, there's real value to unlock here. Short term....I'm probably willing to take a gamble that he hasn't, and buy a few puts. What say y'all? Related Positions: 6 FB 275 Nov 20 calls. No positions yet on TWTR.
Meet Brock Pierce, the Presidential Candidate With Ties to Pedophiles Who Wants to End Human Trafficking
thedailybeast.com | Sep. 20, 2020. The “Mighty Ducks” actor is running for president. He clears the air (sort of) to Tarpley Hitt about his ties to Jeffrey Epstein and more. In the trailer for First Kid, the forgettable 1996 comedy about a Secret Service agent assigned to protect the president’s son, the title character, played by a teenage Brock Pierce, describes himself as “definitely the most powerful kid in the universe.” Now, the former child star is running to be the most powerful man in the world, as an Independent candidate for President of the United States. Before First Kid, the Minnesota-born actor secured roles in a series of PG-rated comedies, playing a young Emilio Estevez in The Mighty Ducks, before graduating to smaller parts in movies like Problem Child 3: Junior in Love. When his screen time shrunk, Pierce retired from acting for a real executive role: co-founding the video production start-up Digital Entertainment Network (DEN) alongside businessman Marc Collins-Rector. At age 17, Pierce served as its vice president, taking in a base salary of $250,000. DEN became “the poster child for dot-com excesses,” raising more than $60 million in seed investments and plotting a $75 million IPO. But it turned into a shorthand for something else when, in October of 1999, the three co-founders suddenly resigned. That month, a New Jersey man filed a lawsuit alleging Collins-Rector had molested him for three years beginning when he was 13 years old. The following summer, three teens filed a sexual-abuse lawsuit against Pierce, Collins-Rector, and their third co-founder, Chad Shackley. The plaintiffs later dropped their case against Pierce (he made a payment of $21,600 to one of their lawyers) and Shackley. But after a federal grand jury indicted Collins-Rector on criminal charges in 2000, the DEN founders left the country. When Interpol arrested them in 2002, they said they had confiscated “guns, machetes, and child pornography” from the trio’s beach villa in Spain. While abroad, Pierce had pivoted to a new venture: Internet Gaming Entertainment, which sold virtual accessories in multiplayer online role-playing games to those desperate to pay, as one Wired reporter put it, “as much as $1,800 for an eight-piece suit of Skyshatter chain mail” rather than earn it in the games themselves. In 2005, a 25-year-old Pierce hired then-Goldman Sachs banker Steve Bannon—just before he would co-found Breitbart News. Two years later, after a World of Warcraft player sued the company for “diminishing” the fun of the game, Steve Bannon replaced Pierce as CEO. Collins-Rector eventually pleaded guilty to eight charges of child enticement and registered as a sex offender. In the years that followed, Pierce waded into the gonzo economy of cryptocurrencies, where he overlapped more than once with Jeffrey Epstein, and counseled him on crypto. In that world, he founded Tether, a cryptocurrency that bills itself as a “stablecoin,” because its value is allegedly tied to the U.S. dollar, and the blockchain software company Block.one. Like his earlier businesses, Pierce’s crypto projects see-sawed between massive investments and curious deals. When Block.one announced a smart contract software called EOS.IO, the company raised $4 billion almost overnight, setting an all-time record before the product even launched. The Securities and Exchange Commission later fined the company $24 million for violating federal securities law. After John Oliver mocked the ordeal, calling Pierce a “sleepy, creepy cowboy,” Block.one fired him. Tether, meanwhile, is currently under investigation by the New York Attorney General for possible fraud. On July 4, Pierce announced his candidacy for president. His campaign surrogates include a former Cambridge Analytica director and the singer Akon, who recently doubled down on developing an anonymously funded, $6 billion “Wakanda-like” metropolis in Senegal called Akon City. Pierce claims to be bipartisan, and from the 11 paragraphs on the “Policy” section of his website it can be hard to determine where he falls on the political spectrum. He supports legalizing marijuana and abolishing private prisons, but avoids the phrase “climate change.” He wants to end “human trafficking.” His proposal to end police brutality: body cams. His political contributions tell a more one-sided story. Pierce’s sole Democratic contribution went to the short-lived congressional run of crypto candidate Brian Forde. The rest went to Republican campaigns like Marco Rubio, Rick Perry, John McCain, and the National Right to Life Political Action Committee. Last year alone, Pierce gave over $44,000 to the Republican National Committee and more than $55,000 to Trump’s re-election fund. Pierce spoke to The Daily Beast from his tour bus and again over email. Those conversations have been combined and edited for clarity. You’re announcing your presidential candidacy somewhat late, and historically, third-party candidates haven’t had the best luck with the executive office. If you don’t have a strong path to the White House, what do you want out of the race? I announced on July 4, which I think is quite an auspicious date for an Independent candidate, hoping to bring independence to this country. There’s a lot of things that I can do. One is: I’m 39 years old. I turn 40 in November. So I’ve got time on my side. Whatever happens in this election cycle, I’m laying the groundwork for the future. The overall mission is to create a third major party—not another third party—a third major party in this country. I think that is what America needs most. George Washington in his closing address warned us about the threat of political parties. John Adams and the other founding fathers—their fear for our future was two political parties becoming dominant. And look at where we are. We were warned. I believe, having studied systems, any time you have a system of two, what happens is those two things come together, like magnets. They come into collision, or they become polarized and become completely divided. I think we need to rise above partisan politics and find a path forward together. As Albert Einstein is quoted—I’m not sure the line came from him, but he’s quoted in many places—he said that the definition of insanity is making the same mistake or doing the same thing over and over and over again, expecting a different result. [Ed. note: Einstein never said this.] It feels like that’s what our election cycle is like. Half the country feels like they won, half the country feels like they lost, at least if they voted or participated. Obviously, there’s another late-comer to the presidential race, and that’s Kanye West. He’s received a lot of flak for his candidacy, as he’s openly admitted to trying to siphon votes away from Joe Biden to ensure a Trump victory. Is that something you’re hoping to avoid or is that what you’re going for as well? Oh no. This is a very serious campaign. Our campaign is very serious. You’ll notice I don’t say anything negative about either of the two major political candidates, because I think that’s one of the problems with our political system, instead of people getting on stage, talking about their visionary ideas, inspiring people, informing and educating, talking about problems, mentioning problems, talking about solutions, constructive criticism. That’s why I refuse to run a negative campaign. I am definitely not a spoiler. I’m into data, right? I’m a technologist. I’ve got digital DNA. So does most of our campaign team. We’ve got our finger on the pulse. Most of my major Democratic contacts are really happy to see that we’re running in a red state like Wyoming. Kanye West’s home state is Wyoming. He’s not on the ballot in Wyoming I could say, in part, because he didn’t have Akon on his team. But I could also say that he probably didn’t want to be on the ballot in Wyoming because it’s a red state. He doesn’t want to take additional points in a state where he’s only running against Trump. But we’re on the ballot in Wyoming, and since we’re on the ballot in Wyoming I think it’s safe—more than safe, I think it’s evident—that we are not here to run as a spoiler for the benefit of Donald Trump. In running for president, you’ve opened yourself up to be scrutinized from every angle going back to the beginning of your career. I wanted to ask you about your time at the Digital Entertainment Network. Can you tell me a little bit about how you started there? You became a vice president as a teenager. What were your qualifications and what was your job exactly? Well, I was the co-founder. A lot of it was my idea. I had an idea that people would use the internet to watch videos, and we create content for the internet. The idea was basically YouTube and Hulu and Netflix. Anyone that was around in the ‘90s and has been around digital media since then, they all credit us as the creators of basically those ideas. I was just getting a message from the creator of The Vandals, the punk rock band, right before you called. He’s like, “Brock, looks like we’re going to get the Guinness Book of World Records for having created the first streaming television show.” We did a lot of that stuff. We had 30 television shows. We had the top most prestigious institutions in the world as investors. The biggest names. High-net-worth investors like Terry Semel, who’s chairman and CEO of Warner Brothers, and became the CEO of Yahoo. I did all sorts of things. I helped sell $150,000 worth of advertising contracts to the CEOs of Pepsi and everything else. I was the face of the company, meeting all the major banks and everything else, selling the vision of what the future was. You moved in with Marc Collins-Rector and Chad Shackley at a mansion in Encino. Was that the headquarters of the business? All start-ups, they normally start out in your home. Because it’s just you. The company was first started out of Marc’s house, and it was probably there for the first two or three months, before the company got an office. That’s, like, how it is for all start-ups. were later a co-defendant in the L.A. County case filed against Marc Collins-Rector for plying minors with alcohol and drugs, in order to facilitate sexual abuse. You were dropped from the case, but you settled with one of the men for $21,600. Can you explain that? Okay, well, first of all, that’s not accurate. Two of the plaintiffs in that case asked me if I would be a plaintiff. Because I refused to be a part of the lawsuit, they chose to include me to discredit me, to make their case stronger. They also went and offered 50 percent of what they got to the house management—they went around and offered money to anyone to participate in this. They needed people to corroborate their story. Eventually, because I refused to participate in the lawsuit, they named me. Subsequently, all three of the plaintiffs apologized to me, in front of audiences, in front of many people, saying Brock never did anything. They dismissed their cases. Remember, this is a civil thing. I’ve never been charged with a crime in my life. And the last plaintiff to have his case dismissed, he contacted his lawyer and said, “Dismiss this case against Brock. Brock never did anything. I just apologized. Dismiss his case.” And the lawyer said, “No. I won’t dismiss this case, I have all these out-of-pocket expenses, I refuse to file the paperwork unless you give me my out-of-pocket expenses.” And so the lawyer, I guess, had $21,000 in bills. So I paid his lawyer $21,000—not him, it was not a settlement. That was a payment to his lawyer for his out-of-pocket expenses. Out-of-pocket expenses so that he would file the paperwork to dismiss the case. You’ve said the cases were unfounded, and the plaintiffs eventually apologized. But your boss, Marc Collins-Rector later pleaded guilty to eight charges of child enticement and registered as a sex offender. Were you aware of his behavior? How do you square the fact that later allegations proved to be true, but these ones were not? Well, remember: I was 16 and 17 years old at the time? So, no. I don’t think Marc is the man they made him out to be. But Marc is not a person I would associate with today, and someone I haven’t associated with in a very long time. I was 16 and 17. I chose the wrong business partner. You live and you learn. You’ve pointed out that you were underage when most of these allegations were said to take place. Did you ever feel like you were coerced or in over your head while working at DEN? I mean, I was working 18 hours a day, doing things I’d never done before. It was business school. But I definitely learned a lot in building that company. We raised $88 million. We filed our [form] S-1 to go public. We were the hottest start-up in Los Angeles. In 2000, you left the country with Marc Collins-Rector. Why did you leave? How did you spend those two years abroad? I moved to Spain in 1999 for personal reasons. I spent those two years in Europe working on developing my businesses. Interpol found you in 2002. The house where you were staying reportedly contained guns, machetes, and child pornography. Whose guns and child porn were those? Were you aware they were in the house, and how did those get there? My lawyers have addressed this in 32 pages of documentation showing a complete absence of wrongdoing. Please refer to my webpage for more information. [Ed. Note: The webpage does not mention guns, machetes, or child pornography. It does state:“It is true that when the local police arrested Collins-Rector in Spain in 2002 on an international warrant, Mr. Pierce was also taken into custody, but so was everyone at Collins-Rector’s house in Spain; and it is equally clear that Brock was promptly released, and no charges of any kind were ever filed against Brock concerning this matter.”] What do you make of the allegations against Bryan Singer?[Ed. Note: Bryan Singer, a close friend of Collins-Rector, invested at least $50,000 in DEN. In an Atlantic article outlining Singer’s history of alleged sexual assault and statutory rape, one source claimed that at age 15, Collins-Rector abused him and introduced him to Singer, who then assaulted him in the DEN headquarters.] I am aware of them and I support of all victims of sexual assault. I will let America’s justice system decide on Singer’s outcome.
In 2011, you spoke at the Mindshift conference supported by Jeffrey Epstein. At that point, he had already been convicted of soliciting prostitution from a minor. Why did you agree to speak? I had never heard of Jeffrey Epstein. His name was not on the website. I was asked to speak at a conference alongside Nobel Prize winners. It was not a cryptocurrency conference, it was filled with Nobel Prize winners. I was asked to speak alongside Nobel Prize winners on the future of money. I speak at conferences historically, two to three times a week. I was like, “Nobel Prize winners? Sounds great. I’ll happily talk about the future of money with them.” I had no idea who Jeffrey Epstein was. His name was not listed anywhere on the website. Had I known what I know now? I clearly would have never spoken there. But I spoke at a conference that he cosponsored. What’s your connection to the Clinton Global Initiative? Did you hear about it through Jeffrey Epstein? I joined the Clinton Global Initiative as a philanthropist in 2006 and was a member for one year. My involvement with the Initiative had no connection to Jeffrey Epstein whatsoever.
You’ve launched your campaign in Minnesota, where George Floyd was killed by a police officer. How do you feel about the civil uprising against police brutality? I’m from Minnesota. Born and raised. We just had a press conference there, announcing that we’re on the ballot. Former U.S. Senator Dean Barkley was there. So that tells you, when former U.S. Senators are endorsing the candidate, right? [Ed. note: Barkley was never elected to the United States Senate. In November of 2002, he was appointed by then Minnesota Governor Jesse Venture to fill the seat after Sen. Paul Wellstone died in a plane crash. Barkley’s term ended on Jan. 3, 2003—two months later.] Yes, George Floyd was murdered in Minneapolis. My vice-presidential running mate Karla Ballard and I, on our last trip to Minnesota together, went to visit the George Floyd Memorial. I believe in law and order. I believe that law and order is foundational to any functioning society. But there is no doubt in my mind that we need reform. These types of events—this is not an isolated incident. This has happened many times before. It’s time for change. We have a lot of detail around policy on this issue that we will be publishing next week. Not just high-level what we think, not just a summary, but detailed policy. You said that you support “law and order.” What does that mean? “Law and order” means creating a fair and just legal system where our number one priority is protecting the inalienable rights of “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” for all people. This means reforming how our police intervene in emergency situations, abolishing private prisons that incentivize mass incarceration, and creating new educational and economic opportunities for our most vulnerable communities. I am dedicated to preventing crime by eliminating the socioeconomic conditions that encourage it. I support accountability and transparency in government and law enforcement. Some of the key policies I support are requiring body-cams on all law enforcement officers who engage with the public, curtailing the 1033 program that provides local law enforcement agencies with access to military equipment, and abolishing private prisons. Rather than simply defund the police, my administration will take a holistic approach to heal and unite America by ending mass incarceration, police brutality, and racial injustice. Did you attend any Black Lives Matter protests? I support all movements aimed at ending racial injustice and inequality. I have not attended any Black Lives Matter protests. My running-mate, Karla Ballard, attended the March on Washington in support of racial justice and equality. Your platform doesn’t mention the words “climate change.” Is there a reason for that? I’m not sure what you mean. Our policy platform specifically references human-caused climate change and we have a plan to restabilize the climate, address environmental degradation, and ensure environmental sustainability. [Ed. Note: As of writing the Pierce campaign’s policy platform does not specifically reference human-caused climate change.] You’ve recently brought on Akon as a campaign surrogate. How did that happen? Tell me about that. Akon and I have been friends for quite some time. I was one of the guys that taught him about Bitcoin. I helped make some videogames for him, I think in 2012. We were talking about Bitcoin, teaching him the ropes, back in 2013. And in 2014, we were both speaking at the Milken Global Conference, and I encouraged him to talk about how Bitcoin, Africa, changed the world. He became the biggest celebrity in the world, talking about Bitcoin at the time. I’m an adviser to his Akoin project, very interested in the work that he’s doing to build a city in Africa. I think we need a government that’s of, for, and by the people. Akon has huge political aspirations. He obviously was a hugely successful artist. But he also discovered artists like Lady Gaga. So not only is he, himself, a great artist, but he’s also a great identifier and builder of other artists. And he’s been a great businessman, philanthropist. He’s pushing the limits of what can be done. We’re like-minded individuals in that regard. I think he’ll be running for political office one day, because he sees what I see: that we need real change, and we need a government that is of, for, and by the people. You mentioned that you’re an adviser on Akoin. Do you have any financial investments in Akoin or Akon City? I don’t believe so. I’d have to check. I have so much stuff. But I don’t believe that I have any economic interests in his stuff. I’d have to verify that. We’ll get back to you. I don’t believe that I have any economic interests. My interest is in helping him. He’s a visionary with big ideas that wants to help things in the world. If I can be of assistance in helping him make the world a better place, I’m all for it. I’m not motivated by money. I’m not running for office because I’m motivated by power. I’m running for office because I’m deeply, deeply concerned about our collective future. You’ve said you’re running on a pro-technology platform. One week into your campaign last month, a New York appeals court approved the state Attorney General’s attempt to investigate the stablecoin Tether for potentially fraudulent activity. Do you think this will impact your ability to sell people on your tech entrepreneurship? No, I think my role in Tether is as awesome as it gets. It was my idea. I put it together. But I’ve had no involvement in the company since 2015. I gave all of my equity to the other shareholders. I’ve had zero involvement in the company for almost six years. It was just my idea. I put the initial team together. But I think Tether is one of the most important innovations in the world, certainly. The idea is, I digitized the U.S. dollar. I used technology to digitize currency—existing currency. The U.S. dollar in particular. It’s doing $10 trillion a year. Ten trillion dollars a year of transactional volume. It’s probably the most important innovation in currency since the advent of fiat money. The people that took on the business and ran the business in years to come, they’ve done things I’m not proud of. I’m not sure they’ve done anything criminal. But they certainly did things differently than I would do. But it’s like, you have kids, they turn 18, they go out into the world, and sometimes you’re proud of the things they do, and sometimes you shake your head and go, “Ugh, why did you do that?” I have zero concerns as it relates to me personally. I wish they made better decisions. What do you think the investigation will find? I have no idea. The problem that was raised is that there was a $5 million loan between two entities and whether or not they had the right to do that, did they disclose it correctly. There’s been no accusations of, like, embezzlement or anything that bad. [Ed. Note: The Attorney General’s press release on the investigation reads: “Our investigation has determined that the operators of the ‘Bitfinex’ trading platform, who also control the ‘tether’ virtual currency, have engaged in a cover-up to hide the apparent loss of $850 million dollars of co-mingled client and corporate funds.”] But there’s been some disclosure things, that is the issue. No one is making any outrageous claims that these are people that have done a bunch of bad—well, on the internet, the media has said that the people behind the business may have been manipulating the price of Bitcoin, but I don’t think that has anything to do with the New York investigation. Again, I’m so not involved, and so not at risk, that I’m not even up to speed on the details. [Ed note: A representative of the New York State Attorney General told Forbes that he “cannot confirm or deny that the investigation” includes Pierce.] We’ve recently witnessed the rise of QAnon, the conspiracy theory that Hollywood is an evil cabal of Satanic pedophiles and Trump is the person waging war on them. You mentioned human trafficking, which has become a cause for them. What are your thoughts on that? I’ve watched some of the content. I think it’s an interesting phenomenon. I’m an internet person, so Anonymous is obviously an organization that has been doing interesting stuff. It’s interesting. I don’t have a big—conspiracy theory stuff is—I guess I have a question for you: What do you think of all of it, since you’re the expert? You know, I think it’s not true, but I’m not running for president. I do wonder what this politician [Georgia congressional candidate Marjorie Taylor Greene], who’s just won her primary, is going to do on day one, once she finds out there’s no satanic cabal room. Wait, someone was running for office and won on a QAnon platform, saying that Hollywood did—say what? You’re the expert here. She won a primary. But I want to push on if we only have a few minutes. In 2006, your gaming company IGE brought on Steve Bannon as an investor. Goldman later bought out most of your stock. Bannon eventually replaced you as CEO of Affinity. You’ve described him as your “right-hand man for, like, seven years.” How well did you know Bannon during that time? Yes, so this is in my mid-twenties. He wasn’t an investor. He worked for me. He was my banker. He worked for me for three years as my yield guide. And then he was my CEO running the company for another four years. So I haven’t worked with Steve for a decade or so. We worked in videogame stuff and banking. He was at Goldman Sachs. He was not in the political area at the time. But he was a pretty successful banker. He set up Goldman Sachs Los Angeles. So for me, I’d say he did a pretty good job. During your business relationship, Steve Bannon founded Breitbart News, which has pretty consistently published racist material. How do you feel about Breitbart? I had no involvement with Breitbart News. As for how I feel about such material, I’m not pleased by any form of hate-mongering. I strongly support the equality of all Americans. Did you have qualms about Bannon’s role in the 2016 election? Bannon’s role in the Trump campaign got me to pay closer attention to what he was doing but that’s about it. Whenever you find out that one of your former employees has taken on a role like that, you pay attention. Bannon served on the board of Cambridge Analytica. A staffer on your campaign, Brittany Kaiser, also served as a business director for them. What are your thoughts on their use of illicitly-obtained Facebook data for campaign promotional material? Yes, so this will be the last question I can answer because I’ve got to be off for this 5:00 pm. But Brittany Kaiser is a friend of mine. She was the whistleblower of Cambridge Analytica. She came to me and said, “What do I do?” And I said, “Tell the truth. The truth will set you free.” [Ed. Note: Investigations in Cambridge Analytica took place as early as Nov. 2017, when a U.K. reporter at Channel 4 News recorded their CEO boasting about using “beautiful Ukranian girls” and offers of bribes to discredit political officials. The first whistleblower was Christopher Wylie, who disclosed a cache of documents to The Guardian, published on Mar. 17, 2018. Kaiser’s confession ran five days later, after the scandal made national news. Her association with Cambridge Analytica is not mentioned anywhere on Pierce’s campaign website.] So I’m glad that people—I’m a supporter of whistleblowers, people that see injustice in the world and something not right happening, and who put themselves in harm’s way to stand up for what they believe in. So I stand up for Brittany Kaiser. Who do you think [anonymous inventor of Bitcoin] Satoshi Nakamoto is? We all are Satoshi Nakamoto. You got married at Burning Man. Have you been attending virtual Burning Man? I’m running a presidential campaign. So, while I was there in spirit, unfortunately my schedule did not permit me to attend. OP note: please refer to the original article for reference links within text (as I've not added them here!)
DDDD - The Rise of “Buy the Dip” Retail Investors and Why Another Crash Is Imminent
In this week's edition of DDDD (Data-driven DD), I'll be going over the real reason why we have been seeing a rally for the past few weeks, defying all logic and fundamentals - retail investors. We'll look into several data sets to see how retail interest in stock markets have reached record levels in the past few weeks, how this affected stock prices, and why we've most likely seen the top at this point, unless we see one of the "positive catalysts" that I mentioned in my previous post, which is unlikely (except for more news about Remdesivir). Disclaimer - This is not financial advice, and a lot of the content below is my personal opinion. In fact, the numbers, facts, or explanations presented below could be wrong and be made up. Don't buy random options because some person on the internet says so; look at what happened to all the SPY 220p 4/17 bag holders. Do your own research and come to your own conclusions on what you should do with your own money, and how levered you want to be based on your personal risk tolerance. Inspiration Most people who know me personally know that I spend an unhealthy amount of my free time in finance and trading as a hobby, even competing in paper options trading competitions when I was in high school. A few weeks ago, I had a friend ask if he could call me because he just installed Robinhood and wanted to buy SPY puts after seeing everyone on wallstreetbets post gains posts from all the tendies they’ve made from their SPY puts. The problem was, he actually didn’t understand how options worked at all, and needed a thorough explanation about how options are priced, what strike prices and expiration dates mean, and what the right strategy to buying options are. That’s how I knew we were at the euphoria stage of buying SPY puts - it’s when dumb money starts to pour in, and people start buying securities because they see everyone else making money and they want in, even if they have no idea what they’re buying, and price becomes dislocated from fundementals. Sure enough, less than a week later, we started the bull rally that we are currently in. Bubbles are formed when people buy something not because of logic or even gut feeling, but when people who previously weren’t involved see their dumb neighbors make tons of money from it, and they don’t want to miss out. A few days ago, I started getting questions from other friends about what stocks they should buy and if I thought something was a good investment. That inspired me to dig a bit deeper to see how many other people are thinking the same thing. Data Ever since March, we’ve seen an unprecedented amount of money pour into the stock market from retail investors. Google Search Trends \"what stock should I buy\" Google Trends 2004 - 2020 \"what stock should I buy\" Google Trends 12 months \"stocks\" Google Trends 2004 - 2020 \"stocks\" Google Trends 12 months Brokerage data Robinhood SPY holders \"Robinhood\" Google Trends 12 months wallstreetbets' favorite broker Google Trends 12 months Excerpt from E*Trade earnings statement Excerpt from Schwab earnings statement TD Ameritrade Excerpt Media cnbc.com Alexa rank CNBC viewership & rankings wallstreetbets comments / day investing comments / day Analysis What we can see from Reddit numbers, Google Trends, and CNBC stats is that in between the first week of March and first week of April, we see a massive inflow of retail interest in the stock market. Not only that, but this inflow of interest is coming from all age cohorts, from internet-using Zoomers to TV-watching Boomers. Robinhood SPY holdings and earnings reports from E*Trade, TD Ameritrade, and Schwab have also all confirmed record numbers of new clients, number of trades, and assets. There’s something interesting going on if you look closer at the numbers. The numbers growth in brokers for designed for “less sophisticated” investors (i.e. Robinhood and E*Trade) are much larger than for real brokers (i.e. Schwab and Ameritrade). This implies that the record number of new users and trade volume is coming from dumb money. The numbers shown here only really apply to the US and Canada, but there’s also data to suggest that there’s also record numbers of foreign investors pouring money into the US stock market as well. However, after the third week of March, we see the interest start to slowly decline and plateau, indicating that we probably have seen most of those new investors who wanted to have a long position in the market do so. SPX daily Rationale Pretty much everything past this point is purely speculation, and isn’t really backed up by any solid data so take whatever I say here with a cup of salt. We could see from the graph that new investor interest started with the first bull trap we saw in the initial decline from early March, and peaking right after the end of the crash in March. So it would be fair to guess that we’re seeing a record amount of interest in the stock market from a “buy the dip” mentality, especially from Robinhood-using Millennials. Here’s a few points on my rationalization of this behavior, based on very weak anecdotal evidence
They missed out of their chance of getting in the stock market at the start of the bull market that happened at the end of 2009
They’ve all seen the stock market make record gains throughout their adult lives, but believing that the market might be overheated, they were waiting for a crash
Most of them have gotten towards the stage of their lives where they actually have some savings and can finally put some money aside for investments
This stock market crash seems like their once-in-a-decade opportunity that they’ve been waiting for, so everyone jumped in
Everyone’s stuck at their homes with vast amounts of unexpected free time on their hands
Most of these new investors got their first taste in the market near the bottom, and probably made some nice returns. Of course, since they didn’t know what they were doing, they probably put a very small amount of money at first, but after seeing a 10% return over one week, validating that maybe they do know something, they decide to slowly pour in more and more of their life savings. That’s what’s been fueling this bull market. Sentiment & Magic Crayons As I mentioned previously, this bull rally will keep going until enough bears convert to bulls. Markets go up when the amount of new bullish positions outnumber the amount of new bearish positions, and vice versa. Record amounts of new investors, who previously never held a position in the market before, fueled the bullish side of this equation, despite all the negative data that has come out and dislocating the price from fundamentals. All the smart money that was shorting the markets saw this happening, and flipped to become bulls because you don’t fight the trend, even if the trend doesn’t reflect reality. From the data shown above, we can see new investor interest growth has started declining since mid March and started stagnating in early April. The declining volume in SPY since mid-March confirms this. That means, once the sentiment of the new retail investors starts to turn bearish, and everyone figures out how much the stocks they’re holding are really worth, another sell-off will begin. I’ve seen something very similar to this a few years ago with Bitcoin. Near the end of 2017, Bitcoin started to become mainstream and saw a flood of retail investors suddenly signing up for Coinbase (i.e. Robinhood) accounts and buying Bitcoin without actually understanding what it is and how it works. Suddenly everyone, from co-workers to grandparents, starts talking about Bitcoin and might have thrown a few thousand dollars into it. This appears to be a very similar parallel to what’s going on right now. Of course there’s differences here in that equities have an intrinsic value, although many of them have gone way above what they should be intrinsically worth, and the vast majority of retail investors don’t understand how to value companies. Then, during December, when people started thinking that the market was getting a bit overheated, some started taking their profits, and that’s when the prices crashed violently. This flip in sentiment now look like it has started with equities. SPY daily Technical Analysis, or magic crayons, is a discipline in finance that uses statistical analysis to predict market trends based on market sentiment. Of course, a lot of this is hand-wavy and is very subjective; two people doing TA on the same price history can end up getting opposite results, so TA should always be taken with a grain of salt and ideally be backed with underlying justification and not be blindly followed. In fact, I’ve since corrected the ascending wedge I had on SPY since my last post since this new wedge is a better fit for the new trading data. There’s a few things going on in this chart. The entire bull rally we’ve had since the lows can be modelled using a rising wedge. This is a pattern where there is a convergence of a rising support and resistance trendline, along with falling volume. This indicates a slow decline in net bullish sentiment with investors, with smaller and smaller upside after each bounce off the support until it hits a resistance. The smaller the bounces, the less bullish investors are. When the bearish sentiment takes over across investors, the price breaks below this wedge - a breakdown, and indicates a start of another downtrend. This happened when the wedge hit resistance at around 293, which is around the same price as the 200 day moving average, the 62% retracement (considered to be the upper bound of a bull trap), and a price level that acted as a support and resistance throughout 2019. The fact that it gapped down to break this wedge is also a strong signal, indicating a sudden swing in investor sentiment overnight. The volume of the break down also broke the downwards trend of volume we’ve had since the beginning of the bull rally, indicating a sudden surge of people selling their shares. This doesn’t necessarily mean that we will go straight from here, and I personally think that we will see the completion of a heads-and-shoulders pattern complete before SPY goes below 274, which in itself is a strong support level. In other words, SPY might go from 282 -> 274 -> 284 -> 274 before breaking the 274 support level. VIX Daily Doing TA is already sketchy, and doing TA on something like VIX is even more sketchy, but I found this interesting so I’ll mention it. Since the start of the bull rally, we’ve had VIX inside a descending channel. With the breakdown we had in SPY yesterday, VIX has also gapped up to have a breakout from this channel, indicating that we may see future volatility in the next week or so. Putting Everything Together Finally, we get to my thesis. This entire bull rally has been fueled by new retail investors buying the dip, bringing the stock price to euphoric levels. Over the past few weeks, we’ve been seeing the people waiting at the sidelines for years to get into the stock market slowly FOMO into the rally in smaller and smaller volumes, while the smart money have been locking in their profits at an even slower rate - hence an ascending wedge. As the amount of new retail interest in the stock market started slowed down, the amount of new bulls started to decline. It looks like Friday might have been the start of the bearish sentiment taking over, meaning it’s likely that 293 was the top, unless any significant bullish events happen in the next two weeks like a fourth round of stimulus, in which case we might see 300. This doesn’t mean we’ll instantly go back to circuit breakers on Monday, and we might see 282 -> 274 -> 284 -> 274 happen before panic, this time by the first-time investors, eventually bringing us down towards SPY 180. tldr; we've reached the top EDIT - I'll keep a my live thoughts here as we move throughout this week in case anyone's still reading this and interested. 5/4 8PM - /ES was red last night but steadily climbed, which was expected since 1h RSI was borderline oversold, leaving us to a slightly green day. /ES looks like it has momentum going up, but is approaching towards overbought territory now. Expecting it to go towards 284 (possibly where we'll open tomorrow) and bouncing back down from that price level 5/5 Market Open - Well there goes my price target. I guess at this point it might go up to 293 again, but will need a lot of momentum to push back there to 300. Seems like this is being driven by oil prices skyrocketing. 5/5 3:50PM - Volume for the upwards price action had very little volume behind it. Seeing a selloff EOD today, could go either way although I have a bearish bias. Going to hold cash until it goes towards one end of the 274-293 channel (see last week's thesis). Still believe that we will see it drop below 274 next week, but we might be moving sideways in the channel this week and a bit of next week before that happens. Plan for tomorrow is buy short dated puts if open < 285. Otherwise, wait till it goes to 293 before buying those puts 5/5 6PM - What we saw today could be a false breakout above 284. Need tomorrow to open below 285 for that to be confirmed. If so, my original thesis of it going back down to 274 before bouncing back up will still be in play. 5/6 EOD - Wasn't a false breakout. Looks like it's still forming the head-and-shoulders pattern mentioned before, but 288 instead of 284 as the level. Still not sure yet so I'm personally going to be holding cash and waiting this out for the next few days. Will enter into short positions if we either go near 293 again or drop below 270. Might look into VIX calls if VIX goes down near 30. 5/7 Market Open - Still waiting. If we break 289 we're probably heading to 293. I'll make my entry to short positions when we hit that a second time. There's very little bullish momentum left (see MACD 1D), so if we hit 293 and then drop back down, we'll have a MACD crossover event which many traders and algos use as a sell signal. Oil is doing some weird shit. 5/7 Noon - Looks like we're headed to 293. Picked up VIX 32.5c 5/27 since VIX is near 30. 5/7 11PM - /ES is hovering right above 2910, with 4h and 1h charts are bullish from MACD and 1h is almost overbought in RSI. Unless something dramatic happens we'll probably hit near 293 tomorrow, which is where I'll get some SPY puts. We might drop down before ever touching it, or go all the way to 295 (like last time) during the day, but expecting it to close at or below 293. After that I'm expecting a gap down Monday as we start the final leg down next week towards 274. Expecting 1D MACD to crossover in the final leg down, which will be a signal for bears to take over and institutions / day traders will start selling again 5/8 Market Open - Plan is to wait till a good entry today, either when technicals looks good or we hit 293, and then buy some SPY June 285p and July 275p 5/8 Noon - Everything still going according to plan. Most likely going to slowly inch towards 293 by EOD. Will probably pick up SPY puts and more VIX calls at power hour (3 - 4PM). Monday will probably gap down, although there's a small chance of one more green / sideways day before that happens if we have bullish catalysts on the weekend. 5/8 3:55PM - SPY at 292.60. This is probably going to be the closest we get to 293. Bought SPY 290-260 6/19 debit spreads and 292-272 5/15 debit spreads, as well as doubling down on VIX calls from yesterday, decreasing my cost basis. Still looks like there's room for one more green day on Monday, so I left some money on the side to double down if that's the case, although it's more likely than not we won't get there. 5/8 EOD - Looks like we barely touched 293 exactly AH before rebounding down. Too bad you can't buy options AH, but more convinced we'll see a gap down on Monday. Going to work on another post over the weekend and do my updates there. Have a great weekend everyone!
Cryptocurrencies in the Era of COVID-19 (Part One)
https://preview.redd.it/cscwryttr4o51.jpg?width=2560&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ddd90997810c0cc46cf8e6b5cac534cd8f9c796f To speak of “post-COVID” is not only premature, but perpetuates the myth that the mere passage of time will lead to some kind of universal recovery. The reality is rather more harsh. Currently, the only positive dynamic at work is that the patient will learn to cope with the symptoms of a congenital condition, until, and if, the underlying problem can be resolved. While we would prefer otherwise, this is the Era of COVID. The opening up of Europe’s Mediterranean tourist industry in the summer of 2020 was always going to increase the rate of COVID transmission, but the experiment was justified in terms of local economic dependency on foreign visitors vis-a-vis the health costs, the degree of disease impact, and overly testing the limits of voluntary social distancing. From the perspective of the pathogen, however, absolutely nothing has changed. In terms of global polity, economic policy and social welfare, everything has changed, is changing, and may well end up creating scenarios out of all recognition. Critical to appreciating the “why?” of this reorientation is the recognition that only a raft of temporary, but wholly unsustainable macroeconomic policies, have kept the global economy functioning. The problem, however, is that it is a bit like cheating a wise man. You only get away with it once. Thereafter you have to accept realities and manage how they play out as best as you can. Central to the latter is the fact that until a vaccine is developed, ours is the era of socio-economic COVID-19 management. All other determinations derive from where they stand in regards this polarity; the spread of the disease on the one part and the damage done to the global economy on the other. The balance between lives and livelihoods. In reality the two are not finally distinct. The acceptance of higher COVID-19 infection will have economic costs both over the short and long term. The worry is that these could be far, far greater than many currently anticipate. Critically, that those people with mild or no symptoms today, could develop significant health problems in their tens of millions as they get older. That the virus lays dormant at a cellular level but surfaces to cause physical problems in the future, negatively impacting the functioning of vital organs, including the brain. As this happens the economic costs will become significant. To restate. Temporary economic measures funded by quantitative easing have allowed the global economy to maintain a degree of normalcy, but over time these will inevitably weaken the economy they were designed to protect. In similitude, the temporary relief of putting short term spending needs on the credit card eventually crashes into the wall of maximised indebtedness. The consequence is either the hardship of paying back what has been borrowed, or simply walking away from the debt and being cut off from credit thereafter. The last time the global economy faced anything like this level of catastrophic dialectic was after the two world wars. For the people of Germany and France coins and banknotes were minted with ever greater number of zeros, but ever reduced buying power. In the end these currencies were simply abandoned—replaced with the Reichsmark and nouveau franc respectively. The former at a rate of one trillion (sic) to one! Stability resulted, but it must be underscored, because the printing presses were turned off. The trick was to introduce a medium of exchange whose physical number was very tightly defined and limited. As long as the temptation to cheat when you run out of money is resisted, all will be well. All this may prefigure a nouveau dollar, digital yuan or an altogether different scenario may unfold. This is where the current locus of speculation—financial and theoretical— currently lies. Any considerations in these respects needs to take into account the following factors as delimiting the parameters of probable outcomes:
Structural shifts in global economic activity away from travel, leisure, tourism, some automotive and manufacturing towards health, security, robotics, datacom and a range of advanced technologies. This not only portends shifts in investment between sectors, but more graphically, shifts in wealth between regions and nations.
Growing tensions within the European Union. With many of the southern states so highly dependent on tourism, significantly declining income will further exacerbate the north-south wealth gap, and thus tensions over budgetary redistribution.
Structural shifts in global geo-politics and trade away from multilateralism towards bilateralism, supply chain security, high-tech protectionism and hegemonic alliances.
A new era of Western statism necessary to reduce the threat of a severe economic depression. This will be directed to enhanced infrastructure projects, support for advanced, green and digital technologies, new strategies on preventative and remote health care, and internal security and surveillance.
Social acceptance of greater government intrusion and regulation as the price of minimising the impact of COVID, future pandemic threats and economic downturn.
More important than any of these are the underlying shift towards new orthodoxies at the expense of tearing up the old order. This not only includes the fundamentals of government macroeconomic theory (and thus policy) but the rules underpinning all commercial and currency infrastructures. “Fundamental” because the three are inextricably linked, yet autonomous enough for one to affect the other with a potential impact so dramatic it is difficult to overstate. These paradigms are so new, and their final impact so remote, that the most significant element of their existence is easily missed: A year ago such a narrative would have been viewed as sheer lunacy. A year from now so obvious as to merit an historical footnote. Emerging from the rabbit hole everything will be different. Everything is up in the air and everyone is scrambling to find an anchor. In the meanwhile, popular investment ethos is myopic, entirely oblivious to the undercurrents which will mark the end of the status quo. Somewhere along the line, a soaring Stockmarket has become an end in itself. Wealth, the mere addition of fiat zeros. The intention of the original cryptocurrency was to sidestep this fallacy. To extricate and preserve real wealth from constantly shifting foundations. Like all ideals, it has been imperfectly realised. No one can deny that the meteoric rise in Bitcoins’ value from $327 to almost $12,000 (at the time of writing) reflects some degree of speculation, but it also reflects substantive, intelligibly based doubts as to the fundamentals sustaining fiat currencies. They may still exist in five or ten years, but what will they tangibly be worth? Eventual outcomes here—including which cryptocurrencies prove their worth —will be determined by our collective actions. History reveals that whatever divergences take place, in the end the solid and substantial always win out. Lies are exposed and tyranny eventually falls. Shaky assets yield to solid. Bad money drives good to a premium. (Subsequent additions to this article will examine critical factors determining the path of cryptocurrency evolution in the era of COVID as these arise, including government regulations).
Does anyone know of a cryptocurrency converter that takes timestamps into consideration? Also, some questions regarding exchange fees.
The request is more or less self-explanatory. I need a conversion tool that I can plug dates and times into as well as the amount of coin or fiat I'm trying to convert. I need it to be able to tell me how much the contents of my wallet was on a given day and time. Or how much a transaction was worth at the time that it was sent. These must exist, and yes, I've Googled for them, but I never find exactly what I'm looking for. I figured Reddit probably knows. The other half of the title is kinda vague, but I'm not sure how to phrase the problem..or if there even Is a problem, or if I'm just ignorant as hell, which is a possibility I'm more than willing to allow for. Lemme explain: I sent someone money this morning and what I sent vs what they received were drastically different. We were both using the same wallet/exchange service that claims to not cost anything to send between users within the service, minus the modest transaction fee of like, I dunno, 10 cents or something. The difference was WAY more than a few cents. For instance, I sent a friend 11.88 XMR this morning. He only received 11.55. We didn't notice it at first, and he forwarded it on to a third party who informed him he was short, as she had only received 11.24 and change. I'm not sure if you're all aware of this, but Monero's value has increased by like $25 just this weekend. Cool, right? Sure it is, but not at all the point, which is that 11.88 XMR is roughly $1,582 but 11.55 is only $1,538. And 11.24 is $1,497. So to transfer coin from point A to point C, all within a service which is supposedly free to send within that service, ended up costing us like $85 somehow? And legit, guys, I'm not sure how or why.... Once I realized that, I went looking through my transaction history. There's similar discrepancies relating to actual exchanges, where I've traded Bitcoin for Monero or vice versa, but the value of what I traded is greater than the value of what I traded it for. By quite a bit. For instance, I had 0.14196176 Bitcoin (worth $1,641 when I noticed it) that I exchanged for 11.8424500192 Monero (worth $1,566 when I noticed it). So like...where the hell is the other $75? Again, this service advertises the lack of hidden fees and the free exchange of coins. Transaction fees are minimal, like 0.005 or something. Withdrawl fees also. I use it for the exact reason that one of the third party exchange services that Edge wallet uses fucked me out of like $50 the one time that I used them, and the chunk of money being exchanged was way more than this was today. What Really aggravates me about the situation is that I'm a fairly consistent donor to this service for the express reason that they've (supposedly) saved me so much money and so many headaches. I'm pretty outraged about it honestly. Having said that, I'm aware that I don't know what I don't know. I have a (polite) email drafted to the support staff of the service, but before I send it, I was really hoping that someone much more experienced with and educated on cryptocurrencies/trading/exchanges/etc might be able to give me a crash course on why I effectively lost $165 by using a service for it's intended purpose, or who I need to bitch at to get it back. (I'm just kidding. I'm perfectly aware that it's never getting refunded. Because why would it?) Basically any information or considerations at all that I should be aware of or just insights that might be in any way helpful would be really appreciated. Thanks guys!
My name is Gabriel Acosta, a small business owner seeking representation in a securities fraud case. I am a victim of online broker scam; a operation I was coerced into, and as a result of which I was defrauded by a company named Tridixoptions (Tridixoption.net), claiming to have a registered address at 1407 Moon Harbor ct, Saint Augustine, FL United States, representing itself as a “financial broker”. The perpetrators approached me through the social media platform, Instagram, using profiles inquiring whether I was interested in making a small investment into their platform, Tridixoptions. I decided to give it a try with $300 USD. In my eyes, this was an opportunity and decided to incorporate a business to use as a personal investment structure and decided to use this "online broker" as a catalyst for the opportunity. Shortly after the initial deposit, they began charging me fees as the “investment value” increased on the platform. These fees included fees to increase wallet value, enable auto-trading and finally a withdrawal insurance fee, among other various "fees". The value listed on their "platform" consistently showed an increase in value; I went ahead and believed their listed returns and continued to deposit funds into the account. At the time of payout, I was shown to have a value of over 108,000 USD and had personally invested approximately 50,000 USD into their platform. Unfortunately, on May 31, 2019 after depositing the withdrawal insurance fee, I received communication from the platform informing me that if I had not received my payout by then that I will not receive one and to proceed with filing a lawsuit against them. I am able to provide email documentation detailing what is described above, it is house and organized within the company OneDrive. Upon further reflection, it is evident that this Merchant is operating the online platform under the address http://www.tridixoption.net/ and the deposit of funds were directed into a false and fictitious “trading account”. The cryptocurrency deposits I made into their account are as follows:
Bitcoin (BTC) totally equal to 10,541.15 USD bought via Coinbase, LocalBitcoins and BitBase exchange (www.bitbase.es) platforms;
Bitcoin (BTC) totally equal to 24,016.00 USD bought via Paxful exchange (www.paxful.com) – owned and operated by Paxful Inc., a company registered under the laws of the United States, having its registered address at 3422 Old Capitol Trail PMB # 989 Wilmington, DE 19808-6124;
A wire funds totaling to 9,720.08 USD to another entity acting as Beneficiary, namely Coin Trader LLC, registered in the US with company number 1293008-93, based in 4621 SW KELLY AVE STE 200, Oregon, USA and holding an account with Keybank National Association. These funds were used to purchase additional virtual currency (BTC) and transferred into the e-wallet of the fictitious e-wallet.
The entirety of purchased BTC (virtual currency) were deposited into the following wallet addresses, as designated by the Merchant: 1EqldoPtl96ZDYF2uoATG5YV6Bj3uih4u9 (https://www.blockchain.com/btc/address/1EqLdoPtL96ZDYF2uoATG5YV6Bj3uih4u9?page=12) 3Qd7ghJ39CA3VrTc4DtATAyT3kVjvGcv6b (https://www.blockchain.com/btc/address/3Qd7ghJ39CA3VrTc4DtATAyT3kVjvGcv6b) AND 3QfSA27pAU68YRahSbbusCtEyKnNyNxp48 (https://www.blockchain.com/btc/address/3QfSA27pAU68YRahSbbusCtEyKnNyNxp48?page=1) The aforementioned should have never been treated as owned by the Merchant. Neither the Merchant nor the beneficiary of payments demonstrated capacity to keep segregated accounts for such investment endeavors. It remains unclear how the Merchant passed through the on-boarding procedures of the cryptocurrency exchange, respectively whether the Merchant acted on his own or by an authorized representative in his relations with the cryptocurrency exchange. Following the principle that possible breaches of banking and financial laws, such as the allowance of payment processing in favor of unregulated legal entity, shall be observed and established by the competent authorities, I hereby report alleged financial fraud. This situation has destroyed the potential of the company and my personal finances. The pain and suffering I have incurred due to these actions include: destruction of my personal credit, repossession of the company vehicle, eviction from my residence and subsequent homelessness and inability to provide health care of myself or my pet. Herewith I kindly request: I am searching for an attorney that can complete the following:
File a lawsuit against the brokers that house the perpetrators e-wallet and where the virtual currency was transferred into. To elaborate: The prior twelve (12) months, I have been collaborating with a company based out of Europe that was tasked with informing all stakeholders and regulators of the issues I have been facing and attempt to make recovery of the funds (mychargeback.com). As of today, we have informed the authorities and the exchanges where the currencies were purchased (Paxful, LocalBitcoins, Bitbase, Coinbase) and have conducted an online trace of where the funds were transferred into using state-of-the-art cryptocurrency technology (Cyphertrace). There are two (2) exchanges that have processed the transactions and have violated domestic and international banking laws by not conducting proper due-diligence on both sides of the transactions: one located here in the United States (Paxful, Delaware) and the other located in Singapore (Luno). I have informed both entities of the illegal activities and at this moment, they are conducting internal investigations to protect their interests and contain liability. According to email documentation, they have traced the perpetrators and flagged their accounts to hopefully prevent another victim.
Obtain the results of the subpoena and provide me additional representation in filing a lawsuit in an attempt to recover the stolen funds and provide justice for these illegal acts. This item may also involve filing a lawsuit against the cryptocurrency exchanges that failed to conduct proper investigations on both sides of the transaction to ascertain that the money was not going to fund terrorism, money-laundering, racketeering, trafficking or other illegal activities. These exchanges are now liable for violating both domestic and international law. They have failed to act in a manner consistent with being a "good banker”.
I thought I'd write about the last four years, an eventful time for Bitcoin and me. For those who don't know me, I'm Hal Finney. I got my start in crypto working on an early version of PGP, working closely with Phil Zimmermann. When Phil decided to start PGP Corporation, I was one of the first hires. I would work on PGP until my retirement. At the same time, I got involved with the Cypherpunks. I ran the first cryptographically based anonymous remailer, among other activities. Fast forward to late 2008 and the announcement of Bitcoin. I've noticed that cryptographic graybeards (I was in my mid 50's) tend to get cynical. I was more idealistic; I have always loved crypto, the mystery and the paradox of it. When Satoshi announced Bitcoin on the cryptography mailing list, he got a skeptical reception at best. Cryptographers have seen too many grand schemes by clueless noobs. They tend to have a knee jerk reaction. I was more positive. I had long been interested in cryptographic payment schemes. Plus I was lucky enough to meet and extensively correspond with both Wei Dai and Nick Szabo, generally acknowledged to have created ideas that would be realized with Bitcoin. I had made an attempt to create my own proof of work based currency, called RPOW. So I found Bitcoin facinating. When Satoshi announced the first release of the software, I grabbed it right away. I think I was the first person besides Satoshi to run bitcoin. I mined block 70-something, and I was the recipient of the first bitcoin transaction, when Satoshi sent ten coins to me as a test. I carried on an email conversation with Satoshi over the next few days, mostly me reporting bugs and him fixing them. Today, Satoshi's true identity has become a mystery. But at the time, I thought I was dealing with a young man of Japanese ancestry who was very smart and sincere. I've had the good fortune to know many brilliant people over the course of my life, so I recognize the signs. After a few days, bitcoin was running pretty stably, so I left it running. Those were the days when difficulty was 1, and you could find blocks with a CPU, not even a GPU. I mined several blocks over the next days. But I turned it off because it made my computer run hot, and the fan noise bothered me. In retrospect, I wish I had kept it up longer, but on the other hand I was extraordinarily lucky to be there at the beginning. It's one of those glass half full half empty things. The next I heard of Bitcoin was late 2010, when I was surprised to find that it was not only still going, bitcoins actually had monetary value. I dusted off my old wallet, and was relieved to discover that my bitcoins were still there. As the price climbed up to real money, I transferred the coins into an offline wallet, where hopefully they'll be worth something to my heirs. Speaking of heirs, I got a surprise in 2009, when I was suddenly diagnosed with a fatal disease. I was in the best shape of my life at the start of that year, I'd lost a lot of weight and taken up distance running. I'd run several half marathons, and I was starting to train for a full marathon. I worked my way up to 20+ mile runs, and I thought I was all set. That's when everything went wrong. My body began to fail. I slurred my speech, lost strength in my hands, and my legs were slow to recover. In August, 2009, I was given the diagnosis of ALS, also called Lou Gehrig's disease, after the famous baseball player who got it. ALS is a disease that kills moter neurons, which carry signals from the brain to the muscles. It causes first weakness, then gradually increasing paralysis. It is usually fatal in 2 to 5 years. My symptoms were mild at first and I continued to work, but fatigue and voice problems forced me to retire in early 2011. Since then the disease has continued its inexorable progression. Today, I am essentially paralyzed. I am fed through a tube, and my breathing is assisted through another tube. I operate the computer using a commercial eyetracker system. It also has a speech synthesizer, so this is my voice now. I spend all day in my power wheelchair. I worked up an interface using an arduino so that I can adjust my wheelchair's position using my eyes. It has been an adjustment, but my life is not too bad. I can still read, listen to music, and watch TV and movies. I recently discovered that I can even write code. It's very slow, probably 50 times slower than I was before. But I still love programming and it gives me goals. Currently I'm working on something Mike Hearn suggested, using the security features of modern processors, designed to support "Trusted Computing", to harden Bitcoin wallets. It's almost ready to release. I just have to do the documentation. And of course the price gyrations of bitcoins are entertaining to me. I have skin in the game. But I came by my bitcoins through luck, with little credit to me. I lived through the crash of 2011. So I've seen it before. Easy come, easy go. That's my story. I'm pretty lucky overall. Even with the ALS, my life is very satisfying. But my life expectancy is limited. Those discussions about inheriting your bitcoins are of more than academic interest. My bitcoins are stored in our safe deposit box, and my son and daughter are tech savvy. I think they're safe enough. I'm comfortable with my legacy.
Link to Coindesk:https://www.coindesk.com/data-centralization-2030 The next 10 years will witness the systematic manipulation of human life at a scale unrivaled in history. For all the recent controversies over privacy and surveillance, the real threat is ahead of us. Unless new approaches to online identity and data management take hold, both governments and private actors will move inexorably from knowing you to shaping you. Blockchain-enabled decentralization will develop as the only viable response to the iron logic of data centralization. Blockchain believers often talk as though today’s early-adopter use cases, such as cryptocurrency trading and decentralized finance, will lead straight to mass market adoption. As the inevitable ‘killer apps’ appear, so the story goes, blockchain-based systems will conquer the mainstream. One might imagine that we’ll all soon be trading digital collectibles and relying on token-curated registries for accurate information. Governments will lose control over money, and blockchain-based smart contracts will replace court-enforced legal agreements. Uber, Facebook and the banks will wither away in the face of tokenized alternatives. This narrative is wishful thinking. In most markets, intermediaries will endure for the same reasons they always have: they provide value. The Ubers and Facebooks – and yes, even the banks – tame complexity and produce coherent, convenient, de-risked experiences that no decentralized community can ever match. Early adopters use blockchain-based systems for ideological reasons or to get rich on cryptocurrency speculation. The billions behind them in the mainstream will not. The lock-in power of network effects creates high barriers for alternative economic systems. And the need for trust disqualifies decentralized solutions that are havens for criminals, incapable of effective compliance or vulnerable to catastrophic attacks – which, regrettably, means virtually all of them today. Truly decentralized blockchain systems will reach critical mass not out of hope but out of necessity. Powerful actors and mainstream users will adopt blockchain as a counterbalance to digital behavior-shaping by governments and private platforms. Dramatic innovations such as decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs), which manage activity automatically through smart contracts, will become significant at the end point of this process, once the foundations are in place. Big data and artificial intelligence, pitched as freeing us from human frailties, are becoming powerful tools for social control. This is occurring along two parallel tracks: surveillance authoritarianism and surveillance capitalism. Through massive data collection and aggregation, China’s social credit system envisions an airtight regime of perfect compliance with legal and social obligations. Many other governments, including liberal democracies, are adopting similar techniques. The potential for catching terrorists, child predators and tax evaders is simply too appealing – whether it’s the real objective or a cover story. "WHAT WE NEED IS A TECHNOLOGY THAT ALLOWS FOR SHARING WITHOUT GIVING UP CONTROL. FORTUNATELY, IT EXISTS." Meanwhile, private digital platforms are using troves of data to shape online experiences consistent with their business models. What you see online is, increasingly, what maximizes their profits. Companies such as Google, Amazon, Tencent and Alibaba can build the best algorithms because they have the most data. And they aren’t interested in sharing. Regulatory interventions will fail to derail the self-reinforcing momentum for ever more centralized data repositories. They may even accelerate it by creating layers of compliance obligations that only the largest firms can meet. Europe’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) actually increased the market share of Google and Facebook in online advertising, and so it is not surprising to see such incumbents actively welcoming the prospect of more regulation. The only lasting solution is to change the economics of data, not to impose private property rights; that would accelerate the market forces promoting data centralization. Giving you “ownership” over your data means giving you legal cover to sell it, by clicking “OK” to a one-sided contract you’ll never read. The problem is not ownership, but control. In today’s algorithm-driven world, sharing and aggregating data increases its value, producing better models and better predictions. The trouble is that once we share, we lose control to centralized data hogs. What we need is a technology that allows for sharing without giving up control. Fortunately, it exists. It is called blockchain. Blockchain technology is, fundamentally, a revolution in trust. In the past, trust required ceding control to counter parties, government authorities or intermediaries who occupied the essential validating roles in transaction networks. Blockchain allows participants to trust the results they see without necessarily trusting any actor to verify them. That’s why major global firms in health care, finance, transportation, international trade and other fields are actively developing cross-organizational platforms based on blockchain and related technologies. No database can provide a trusted view of information across an entire transactional network without empowering a central intermediary. Blockchain can. Adopting any new platform at scale, along with the necessary software integration and process changes, takes time – especially when the technology is so immature. But today’s incremental deployments will serve as proofs-of-concept for the more radical innovations to come. Chinese blockchain networks are already managing tens of billions of dollars of trade finance transactions. Pharmaceutical companies are tracking drugs from manufacturing to pharmacies using the MediLedger platform. Boeing is selling a billion dollars of airline parts on Honeywell’s blockchain-based marketplace. Car insurance companies are processing accident claims in a unified environment for the first time. These and other enterprise consortia are doing the essential technical and operational groundwork to handle valuable transactions at scale. The need for transformative approaches to data will become acute in the next five years. Every week, it seems, another outrage comes to light. For instance, users who posted photos under Creative Commons licenses or default-public settings were shocked they were sucked into databases used to train facial-recognition systems. Some were even used in China’s horrific campaign against Uighur Muslims. Clearview AI, an unknown startup, scraped three billion social media images for a face identification tool it provided, with no oversight, to law enforcement, corporations and wealthy individuals. The examples will only get worse as firms and nations learn new ways to exploit data. The core problem is there is no way to share information while retaining control over how it gets used. Blockchain offers a solution. It will be widely adopted because, behind the scenes, the current data economy is reaching its breaking point. Outrage over abuses is building throughout the world. The immensely valuable online advertising economy attracts so much fraud that the accuracy of its numbers is coming into question. Communities are looking for new ways to collaborate. Governments are realizing the current system is an impediment to effective service delivery. The technologist Bill Joy famously stated that no matter how many geniuses a company employs, most smart people work somewhere else. The same is true of data. Even giants such as Google, Facebook and Chinese government agencies need to obtain information from elsewhere in their quest for perfect real-time models of every individual. These arrangements work mostly through contracts and interfaces that ease the flow of data between organisations. As Facebook discovered when Cambridge Analytica extracted massive quantities of user data for voter targeting, these connection points are also vulnerabilities. As tighter limits are placed on data-sharing, even the big players will look for ways to rebuild trust. The blockchain alternative will begin innocuously. Government authorities at the subnational level are deploying self-sovereign identity to pull together information securely across disparate data stores. This technology allows anyone to share private information in a fine-grained way while still retaining control. You shouldn’t have to reveal your address to confirm your age, or your full tax return to verify your stated income. The necessary cryptography doesn’t require a blockchain, but the desired trust relationships do. Once people have identities that belong to them, not to banks or social media services, they will use them as the basis for other interactions. Imagine a world where you never need to give a third-party unnecessary data to log into a website, apply for a job, refinance a mortgage or link your bank account to a mobile payment app. Where you can keep your personal and professional profiles completely separate if you choose. Where you can be confident in the reputation of a car mechanic or an Airbnb or a product made in China without intermediaries warping ratings for their own gain. The convenience of user experiences we enjoy within the walled gardens of digital platforms will become the norm across the vastness of independent services. We will gradually come to view access to our personal information as an episodic, focused interaction, rather than fatalistically accepting an open season based on preliminary formal consent. Major hardware companies such as Apple, which don’t depend on targeted advertising, will build decentralized identity capabilities into their devices. They will add cryptocurrency wallets linked behind the scenes to existing payment and messaging applications. Stablecoins – cryptocurrencies pegged to the dollar, pound or other assets – will help tame volatility and facilitate movement between tokens and traditional currencies. Privately created stablecoins will coexist with central bank digital currencies, which are under development in most major countries throughout the world. Once this baseline infrastructure is widely available, the real changes will start to occur. DAOs will begin to attract assets as efficient ways for communities to achieve their goals. These entities won’t replace state-backed legal systems; they will operate within them. As numerous controversies, crashes and hacks have already demonstrated, software code is too rigid for the range of situations in the real world, absent backstops for human dispute resolution. Fortunately, there are solutions under development to connect legal and digital entities, such as OpenLaw’s Limited Liability Autonomous Organisations and Mattereum’s Asset Passports. Today, the legal machinery of contracts strengthens the power of centralized platforms. User agreements and privacy policies enforce their control over data and limit individuals’ power to challenge it. Blockchain-based systems will flip that relationship, with the legal system deployed to protect technology-backed user empowerment. Large aggregations of information will be structured formally as “data trusts” that exercise independent stewardship over assets. They will operate as DAOs, with smart contracts defining the terms of data usage. Users will benefit from sharing while retaining the ability to opt out. "DATA WILL BE TREATED NOT AS PROPERTY BUT AS A RENEWABLE RESOURCE, WITH THE COMPETITION FOR ECONOMIC VALUE IN THE APPLICATIONS BUILT ON TOP OF IT." Many significant applications require aggregation of data to drive algorithms, including traffic monitoring (and eventually autonomous vehicles); insurance and lending products serving previously excluded or overcharged customer groups; diagnosis and drug dosing in health care; and demand forecasting for economic modeling. Collective action problems can prevent constructive developments even when rights in data are well defined. DAOs will gradually find market opportunities, from patronage of independent artists to mortgage securitization. The big data aggregators won’t go away. They will participate in the decentralized data economy because it provides benefits for them as well, cutting down on fraud and reinforcing user trust, which is in increasingly scarce supply. Over time, those who provide benefits of personalization and targeting will more and more be expected to pay for it. A wide range of brokering and filtering providers will offer users a choice of analytics, some embedded in applications or devices and some providing services virtually in the cloud. Governments will focus on making data available and defining policy objectives for services that take advantage of the flow of information. Data will be treated not as property but as a renewable resource, with the competition for economic value in the applications built on top of it. The most powerful benefit of open data built on blockchain-based decentralised control is that it will allow for new applications we can’t yet envision. If startups can take advantage of the power of data aggregation that today is limited to large incumbents, they are bound to build innovations those incumbents miss. The surveillance economy took hold because few appreciated what was happening with their data until it was too late. And the cold reality is that few will accept significantly worse functionality or user experience in return for better privacy. That is why the blockchain-powered revolution will make its way up from infrastructural foundations of digital identity and hardware, rather than down from novel user-facing applications. This vision is far from certain to be realized. Business decisions and government policies could make blockchain-based data decentralization more or less likely. The greatest reason for optimism is that the problem blockchain addresses – gaining trust without giving up control – is becoming ever more critical. The world runs on trust. Blockchain offers hope for recasting trust in the networked digital era.
Blockchain’s future is less hype, more trial and error
The noise surrounding blockchain over the past few years is a perfect example of the Gartner Hype Cycle. Blockchain rose quickly from innovation trigger to reach a peak of inflated expectations and is today crashing into the trough of disillusionment. But it would be wrong to write off blockchain just yet. The ride along the slope of enlightenment will be the really interesting one — where a growing number of industries come to grips with the technology and develop practical applications. I predict we will see some gamechanging uses for blockchain quite soon. https://preview.redd.it/iqux018kosr51.jpg?width=700&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9505a940375ac35c606f56a9de7ae40bd6f40795 Blockchain is a distributed database, which means it stores the same data in many places. This has three main advantages: the data is hard to tamper with because it is recorded in multiple places simultaneously; the data cannot be erased, only added to; and there is no controlling or dominant party, which frees it from control of a single entity and allows it to exist outside any legal or company framework. These are the elements of blockchain that many are using to build a new “internet of trust”, and it is these features that will drive the creation of valuable applications. Today blockchain is best known as a store for cryptocurrencies, with Bitcoin being the most famous — or even infamous due to the crash in its value since the start of the year. But there are many other applications across a wide section of the economy, from farming and manufacturing to the legal and accounting professions and even the retail and health industries. Some have been unsuccessful, which has partly undermined the technology’s credibility. For example, using blockchain to record anything that has a short life, such as perishable food, or creating property ownership records in countries with poorly function legal systems can cause more problems than it solves. The former doesn’t need the longevity of blockchain, while the latter risks recording false information that is very hard to put right. On the other hand, blockchain is ideal for situations where trust is required between two or more parties, particularly when those parties have no reason to trust each other. (This is particularly true on the internet). This is at the heart of work we are doing at the École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne’s new Centre for Digital Trust (C4DT). Our first live project was to create a blockchain-based e-voting system for EPFL’s school assembly. It allowed decentralised voting, maintained anonymity and the distributed nature of the blockchain ensured a tamper-proof election in which multiple groups could verify the results. Looking ahead, the technology with enhancements could be used not just on campus but in sensitive national or local elections where suspicions about interference may be an issue. Another ground-breaking project is being undertaken by the ho, banking software specialist Bank. Its aim is to create common standards around issuing, distributing and trading securities using blockchain. CMTA has founded a company called Opus Nigrum with the sole intention of setting a legal precedent in Switzerland whereby blockchain technology can be used to record share ownership. We are currently building the software and, once complete, the company directors will issue shares, transfer share ownership and record it all on a blockchain. A similar exercise has already been completed by the World Bank when it worked with the Commonwealth Bank of Australia to issue the world’s first blockchain-stored bond, dubbed the Bondi bond, in August. The rationale is that a blockchain cuts out the need for a third party, such as a notary or law firm, to register the ownership or transfer of shares. Using blockchain can therefore simplify the process and make it cheaper. CMTA hopes the Opus Nigrum exercise will provide a standard for how it should be done correctly in Switzerland and that developers will then seize the opportunity to create a robust, user-friendly platform. It’s a question of get it right once and roll it out. Once set, the precedent would allow blockchain to be used not just to record share ownership, but for other financial transactions, too, from loans and bond issuance to more complex financial instruments. The elimination of the middleman might prove to be particularly attractive to small and medium-sized enterprises because blockchain will make it easier for them to access new finance and grow. Applications like these promise to simplify transactions and democratise access to financial markets. It’s an exciting time, even if some of the hard, collaborative work to develop real-life applications for blockchain fails to grab the headlines.
Strategic Developments in Eurasia After 11 September, 1st Edition: Shireen Hunter
Contemporary Issues in Healthcare Law and Ethics, 4th Edition: Dean Harris
Transitioning from RN to MSN: Principles of Professional Role Development: Brenda Scott & Mindy Thompson
Principles and Practice of Public Health Surveillance, 3rd Edition: Lisa M. Lee & Steven M. Teutsch & Stephen B. Thacker & Michael E. St. Louis
Elementary Statistics: Picturing the World, 6th Edition: Ron Larson & Betsy Farber
Human Sexuality in a World of Diversity, 6th Canadian Edition: Spencer A. Rathus & Jeffrey S. Nevid & Lois Fichner-Rathus & Alex McKay & Robin Milhausen
Becoming Your Own Banker, 6th Edition: R. Nelson Nash
Murach's MySQL, 3rd Edition: Joel Murach
Intermediate Algebra, 13th Edition: Marvin L. Bittinger & Judith A. Beecher & Barbara L. Johnson
Planning Health Promotion Programs: An Intervention Mapping Approach, 4th Edition: L. Kay Bartholomew Eldredge & Christine M. Markham & Robert A. C. Ruiter & Maria E. Fernández & Gerjo Kok & Guy S. Parcel
Human Factors in Simple and Complex Systems, 3rd Edition: Robert W. Proctor & Trisha Van Zandt
The Irony of Democracy: An Uncommon Introduction to American Politics, 17th Edition: Louis Schubert & Thomas R. Dye & Harmon Zeigler
Understanding Earth, 7th Edition: John Grotzinger
Nursing Research in Canada: Methods, Critical Appraisal, and Utilization, 4th Edition: Geri LoBiondo-Wood & Judith Haber & Cherylyn Cameron & Mina Singh
The Philosophy of Film, 1st Edition: Thomas E. Wartenberg & Angela Curran
Disaster Nursing and Emergency Preparedness, 4th Edition: Tener Goodwin Veenema
Language in Mind: An Introduction to Psycholinguistics, 2nd Edition: Julie Sedivy
Medical Anthropology: A Biocultural Approach, 3rd Edition: Andrea S. Wiley & John S. Allen
Exploring Biology in the Laboratory, 3rd Edition: Murray P. Pendarvis & John L. Crawley
Guide to Networking Essentials, 8th Edition: Greg Tomsho
Social Psychology: A Storytelling Approach, 2nd Edition: Leonard Newman & Ralph Erber
Managing Conflict: An Introspective Journey to Negotiating Skills, 1st Edition: Dorothy Balancio
Environmental Change and Challenge: A Canadian Perspective, 5th Edition: Philip Dearden & Bruce Mitchell
Brain and Behavior: A Cognitive Neuroscience Perspective, 1st Edition: David Eagleman & Jonathan Downar
Cardiac/Vascular Nurse Exam Secrets Study Guide: Cardiac/Vascular Nurse Test Review for the Cardiac/Vascular Nurse Exam: Mometrix Media & Cardiac Vascular Nurse Exam Secrets
Keeping the Republic: Power and Citizenship in American Politics, The Essentials, 9th Edition: Christine Barbour & Gerald Wright
Principles of Environmental Science, 9th Edition: William Cunningham & Mary Cunningham
Thomas' Calculus, 14th Edition: Joel R. Hass & Christopher E. Heil & Maurice D. Weir
Pharmacology for Canadian Pharmacy Technicians, 1st Edition: Leland Norman Holland & Michael P. Adams & Jeanine Lynn Brice & Heather V. LeBlanc
Cellular and Molecular Immunology, 9th Edition: Abul K. Abbas & Andrew H. Lichtman & Shiv Pillai
Operations Management: Processes and Supply Chains, 11th Edition: Lee J. Krajewski & Manoj K. Malhotra & Larry P. Ritzman
Jews, Christians, Muslims: A Comparative Introduction to Monotheistic Religions, 2nd Edition: John Corrigan & Frederick Denny & Martin S Jaffee & Carlos Eire
Professional Nursing: Concepts & Challenges, 9th Edition: Beth Black
Practical Homicide Investigation: Tactics, Procedures, and Forensic Techniques, 4th Edition: Vernon J. Geberth
Fundamentals of Modern Manufacturing: Materials, Processes and Systems, 7th Edition: Mikell P. Groover
Genetics: A Conceptual Approach, 7th Edition: Benjamin A. Pierce
Computer Science Illuminated, 7th Edition: Nell Dale & John Lewis
The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations, 8th Edition: John Baylis & Steve Smith & Patricia Owens
Behavioral Neuroscience, 9th Edition: S. Marc Breedlove & Neil V. Watson
Canadian Human Resource Management: A Strategic Approach, 12th Edition: Hermann Schwind & Krista Uggerslev & Terry Wagar & Neil Fassina
Brief Principles of Macroeconomics, 9th Edition: N. Gregory Mankiw
Living in the Environment, 4th Canadian Edition: G. Miller & Dave Hackett & Carl Wolfe
Principles of Economics, 9th Edition: N. Gregory Mankiw
Principles of Microeconomics, 9th Edition: N. Gregory Mankiw
Child Development, 9th Edition: Laura E. Berk
Home, School, and Community Collaboration: Culturally Responsive Family Engagement, 4th Edition: Kathy Beth Grant & Julie A. Ray
Set Lighting Technician's Handbook, 4th Edition: Harry Box
Clinical Nurse Leader Certification Review, 2nd Edition: Cynthia R. King
Basic Chemistry, 4th Edition: Karen C. Timberlake & William Timberlake
Family Theories: Foundations and Applications, 1st Edition: Katherine R. Allen & Angela C. Henderson
The Earth and Its Peoples: A Global History, 7th Edition: Richard Bulliet & Pamela Crossley & Daniel Headrick & Steven Hirsch & Lyman Johnson
Sociology in Action: A Canadian Perspective, 3rd Edition: Tami Bereska & Diane Symbaluk
Operations Management: Processes and Supply Chains, 12th Edition: Lee J. Krajewski & Manoj K. Malhotra & Larry P. Ritzman
Introduction to Food Science and Food Systems, 2nd Edition: Rick Parker & Miriah Pace
Liaisons, Student Edition: An Introduction to French, 3rd Edition: Wynne Wong & Stacey Weber-Fève & Bill VanPatten
Zuckerman Parker Handbook of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics for Primary Care, 4th Edition: Marilyn Augustyn & Barry Zuckerman
Teaching in Today's Inclusive Classrooms: A Universal Design for Learning Approach, 3rd Edition: Richard M. Gargiulo & Debbie Metcalf
The Biological Basis of Mental Health, 3rd Edition: William T. Blows
Developing and Managing Electronic Collections: The Essentials: Peggy Johnson
Western Civilization: Volume II: Since 1500, 10th Edition: Jackson J. Spielvogel
Talking to Strangers: What We Should Know about the People We Don't Know, 1st Edition: Malcolm Gladwell
Understanding Pathophysiology, 7th Edition: Sue E. Huether & Kathryn L. McCance
Our Environment: A Canadian Perspective, 5th edition: Dianne Draper & Ann Zimmerman
Criminal Law: Cases and Materials, 8th Edition: John Kaplan & Robert Weisberg & Guyora Binder
A Photographic Atlas of Histology, 2nd Edition: Michael J Leboffe
Dragons and Tigers: A Geography of South, East, and Southeast Asia, 3rd Edition: Barbara A. Weightman
Climate Change Biology, 1st Edition: Jonathan A. Newman & Madhur Anand & Hugh A. L. Henry & Shelley L. Hunt & Ze'ev Gedalof
The Power of Critical Thinking: 5th Canadian Edition: Chris MacDonald and Lewis Vaughn
Principles of Fire Behavior and Combustion, 4th Edition: Richard Gann & Raymond Friedman
Informatics Nurse Exam Secrets Study Guide: Informatics Test Review for the Informatics Nurse Certification Exam: Informatics Exam Secrets Test Prep Team
General Chemistry, 10th Edition: Darrell Ebbing & Steven D. Gammon
A Practical Guide to Computer Forensics Investigations, 1st Edition: Darren R. Hayes
Basic Biomechanics, 8th Edition: Susan Hall
Essay Writing for Canadian Students, 8th Edition: Roger Davis & Laura K. Davis
Biology, 11th Edition: Peter Raven & George Johnson & Kenneth Mason & Jonathan Losos & Susan Singer
Molecular Imaging, 1st Edition: Ralph Weissleder& Brian D. Ross & Alnawaz Rehemtulla & Sanjiv Sam Gambhir
Criminology, 4th Edition: Frank Schmalleger
A Theory of Truthmaking: Metaphysics, Ontology, and Reality: Jamin Asay
The Routledge Handbook of Metaphysical Grounding, 1st Edition: Michael J. Raven
Linear Algebra and Its Applications, 5th Edition: David C. Lay & Steven R. Lay & Judi J. McDonald
Essentials of Human Communication, 9th Edition: Joseph A. DeVito
Economics: Principles, Applications, and Tools, 9th Edition, Global Edition: Arthur O'Sullivan & Steven Sheffrin & Stephen Perez
Global Health 101, 3rd Edition: Richard Skolnik
Mathematical Proofs: A Transition to Advanced Mathematics, 4th Edition: Gary Chartrand & Albert D. Polimeni & Ping Zhang
Concepts in Strategic Management and Business Policy: Globalization, Innovation and Sustainability, 15th Edition, Global Edition: Thomas L. Wheelen & J. David Hunger & Alan N. Hoffman & Charles E. Bamford
Chemistry: The Central Science, 14th Edition, Global Edition: Theodore E. Brown & H. Eugene LeMay & Bruce E. Bursten & Catherine Murphy & Patrick Woodward & Matthew E. Stoltzfus
Biopsychology, 10th Edition, Global Edition: John P. J. Pinel & Steven Barnes
Electric Circuits, 11th Edition: James W. Nilsson & Susan Riedel
Keeping the Republic; Power and Citizenship in American Politics, the Essentials, 8th Edition: Christine Barbour & Gerald C Wright
Applied Behavior Analysis: Pearson New International Edition, 2nd Edition: John O. Cooper & Timothy E. Heron & William L. Heward
Cryptography and Network Security: Principles and Practice, 7th Edition, Global Edition: William Stallings
Operating Systems: Internals and Design Principles, 9th Edition, Global Edition: William Stallings
Options, Futures, and Other Derivatives, 9th Edition, Global Edition: John C. Hull
Invitation to the Psychology of Religion, 3rd Edition: Raymond F. Paloutzian
Valuation: The Art and Science of Corporate Investment Decisions, 3rd Edition: Sheridan Titman
Comprehensive Clinical Nephrology, 5th Edition: Richard J. Johnson & John Feehally & Jurgen Floege
Miller & Freund's Probability and Statistics for Engineers, 9th Edition, Global Edition: Richard Johnson & Irwin Miller & John Freund
Exploring Strategy: Text and Cases, 11th Edition: Gerry Johnson & Richard Whittington & Patrick Regnér & Kevan Scholes & Duncan Angwin
Economics for Business, 7th Edition: John Sloman
Essentials of Economics, 7th Edition: John Sloman & Dean Garratt
Economics, 9th Edition: John Sloman & Dean Garratt & Alison Wride
Essential Economics for Business, 5th Edition: Johnsloman & Jones Elizabeth
Finite Mathematics, 7th Edition: Stefan Waner & Steven Costenoble
The SAGE Encyclopedia of Surveillance, Security, and Privacy, 1st Edition: Bruce A. Arrigo
Evolution, 4th Edition: Douglas J. Futuyma & Mark Kirkpatrick
Adult Development and Aging, 7th Edition: John C. Cavanaugh & Fredda Blanchard-Fields
Foundations of Finance, 9th Edition, Global Edition: Arthur J. Keown & John D Martin & J. William Petty
Head First Learn to Code: A Learner's Guide to Coding and Computational Thinking, 1st Edition: Eric Freeman
Learning Swift: Building Apps for macOS, iOS, and Beyond, 3rd Edition: Jonathon Manning & Paris Buttfield-Addison & Tim Nugent
Database Systems: Design, Implementation, & Management, 12th Edition: Carlos Coronel & Steven Morris
Introduction to Solid Modeling Using SolidWorks, 13th Edition: William Howard & Joseph Musto
Communications Receivers: Principles and Design, 4th Edition: Ulrich Rohde & Jerry Whitaker & Hans Zahnd
Connect Core Concepts in Health, 15th Edition: Paul Insel & Walton Roth
On Course: Strategies for Creating Success in College and in Life, 8th Edition: Skip Downing
Vander's Human Physiology, 15th Edition: Eric Widmaier & Hershel Raff & Kevin Strang
Biology, 4th Edition: Robert Brooker & Eric Widmaier & Linda Graham & Peter Stiling
The Essentials of Statistics: A Tool for Social Research, 4th Edition: Joseph F. Healey
Oracle 12c: SQL, 3rd Edition: Joan Casteel
Global Business Today, 10th Edition: Charles Hill & G. Tomas M. Hult
Project Management: The Managerial Process, 7th Edition: Erik Larson & Clifford Gray
The price of bitcoin has fallen below $8,000, bringing to an end a record-breaking rally that saw the cryptocurrency's value more than double in May. Bitcoin has crashed. The decision what to do next comes back to the schism between believing it will be worth $100,000-plus a coin or $0 a coin. Over the past two days, Bitcoin has lost around 50 percent of its value, briefly dipping below the $4,000 price level earlier today. By now, BTC is back in the $5,450 zone. However, famous Bitcoin hater Peter Schiff reckons that BTC crashing below $4,000 again is possible. Not feeling bad about losing BTC: Peter Schiff What We’ve Learned From These Examples. After reviewing the biggest crashes that have occurred over the history of Bitcoin, it’s clear that the currency is extremely volatile, and prone to crashes of up to 50% overnight.It’s also clear, however, that most crashes occur as a result of unpredictable events that shake the confidence of the cryptocurrency zeitgeist as a whole. The Bitcoin crash seems to be a temporary phase. BTC value has declined over the last two days, but it may bounce back. Here are the possible reasons for this.
BITCOIN BIG PRICE CRASH into NEW BEAR MARKET Ahead!!!?
Bitcoin Crashes 30% Today - What Just Happened? ... We've seen a 28% drop in Bitcoin's price since yesterday. That is outlier price action. In fact, this may very well be a Black Swan event. This ... Bitcoin Crashing. Before You Do Anything Watch This Video. [Stephen Colbert Video 2013] - Duration: 11:47 ... Bitcoin Price Recovery? BTC ETF, 1% In Bitcoin, XRP + Azimo & New Libra Member ... BITCOIN PRICE CRASHING! PROOF: YOU SHOULD BE BUYING BITCOIN RIGHT NOW!! CryptoJack. Loading... Unsubscribe from CryptoJack? Cancel Unsubscribe. Working... Subscribe Subscribed Unsubscribe 71.8K ... Bitcoin Price Analysis & Crypto Crash / Dump News! 👍 THUMBS UP & SUBSCRIBE NOW + 🔔! *** VIP PRIVATE TRADE ALERTS - https://t.me/joinchat/AAAAAEts9GFT3RV_6wLj... Has the Bitcoin (BTC) price crash potentially only just begun, in my opinion?! Let's discuss this live today and some cryptocurrency trading technical analysis (TA) + speculative price prediction ...