Jump to content

Cryptocurrencies


rkbabang

Recommended Posts

You have to be truly gifted to be this arrogant, and this incompetent😇 ... 

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-crypto-wonderfi-coinsmart-coinsquare-merger-competition-bureau/

 

" WonderFi Technologies Inc., CoinSmart Financial Inc. and Coinsquare Ltd. said in news releases, media interviews and statements to investors on July 10 that a deal to combine their cryptocurrency operations had received official approval from the bureau, which regulates mergers and acquisitions. The companies even referenced the assent as they rang the opening bell on the Toronto Stock Exchange that day to mark the closing of their transaction, which had been months in the making.

 

Now, the companies say they never actually sought approval for their merger agreement to begin with.“The confusion in our messaging was that there was no official objection from the Competition Bureau to prevent this deal from closing, so we communicated this as an approval,” The transaction was “too small to require notification to the bureau.”

 

Mr. Power said the bureau must generally be given advance notice of a proposed transaction when an acquisition target’s assets in Canada, or its revenues from sales in or from Canada generated by those assets, exceed $93-million. If the combined Canadian assets or revenues of the parties and their respective affiliates in or from Canada exceed $400-million, the bureau must also be notified. When the deal was announced earlier this month, the crypto companies said the merger would put together nearly $600-million in combined assets under custody, from a customer base of around 1.65 million users, with 1.6 million of them in Canada. Client assets under management do not count as company assets under the bureau’s test for advance notification. "

 

SD

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, TwoCitiesCapital said:

 

I'm massively overweight then 😬

 

And this is massively more than the 1-2% I've seen touted elsewhere. 

 

Just imagine 5-10% of the hundred trillion in global wealth moving to 21 million Bitcoin....would equate to 250-500k/coin assuming none are lost. 

Nevertheless, the most powerful open-source LLM ever released agrees with you on sizing.

It may even be smarter than Blackrock.

 

I've still invested 10% because I'm uncomfortable with Tether's dominance in the space.

 

 

 

Edited by Dave86ch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/13/2023 at 3:54 PM, jfan said:
On 7/13/2023 at 10:42 AM, rkbabang said:
Expand  

https://aul.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/permalink/01AUL_INST/u9e6on/alma995901882406836

 

Out of print. But the above link connects with an online copy.

 

Interesting.  It is still available at the above link, but apparently not at MIT anymore and Lowery has been "ordered" to stop talking about it publicly. 

https://twitter.com/JasonPLowery/status/1684637080029196288?s=20

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Dave86ch said:

Nevertheless, the most powerful open-source LLM ever released agrees with you on sizing.

It may even be smarter than Blackrock.

 

I've still invested 10% because I'm uncomfortable with Tether's dominance in the space.

 

 

 

 

 

I'm closer to 15% following the drawdown and subsequent adds (and a markdown of a portion of the assets held at Celsius until recovery rates are known).

 

Hoping to get back to 20-ish before the next bull run which is where I topped out at on the last one. 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, rkbabang said:


Here’s a downloadable link to the pdf from someone’s google drive. Who knows how long this will be available.

 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1xF6qA8PUHohxn3gwAtzz7oPmR2WGl7vK/view?usp=drivesdk

 

27 minutes ago, Castanza said:

Softwar_A Novel Theory on Power Projection.pdf 5.91 MB · 1 download

 

If this is against site rules let me know and I’ll take it down. No clue tbh

Many thanks to both of you

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, rkbabang said:

Surprised they didn't combine with an ordinal to create an NFT. @rkbabang @Castanza thank you for the copy. I glanced through it already and it seems very interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, jfan said:

Surprised they didn't combine with an ordinal to create an NFT. @rkbabang @Castanza thank you for the copy. I glanced through it already and it seems very interesting.

 

No problem.  I think it's an important work.  If the US doesn't take heed of his advice, I'm sure people from other countries have obtained copies already and have read it.  In the real world you can't really put something that has been available for months on the internet into the memory hole.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, rkbabang said:

 

No problem.  I think it's an important work.  If the US doesn't take heed of his advice, I'm sure people from other countries have obtained copies already and have read it.  In the real world you can't really put something that has been available for months on the internet into the memory hole.

 

 

 

Word is almost every pdf version is being scrubbed from the net. Doubt it tho. 
 

Might want to list your copy $19,999

Edited by Castanza
Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://cointelegraph.com/news/first-major-success-in-us-congress-for-two-crypto-bills-law-decoded-24-31-july

In a 35–15 vote, the House Financial Services Committee (FSC) approved the Financial Innovation and Technology for the 21st Century Act. The bill is intended to establish rules for crypto firms on when to register with either the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) or the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The bipartisan Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act, also passed a vote in the FSC. It aims to set guidelines removing hurdles and requirements for “blockchain developers and service providers” such as miners, multisignature service providers and decentralized finance platforms.

 

https://cointelegraph.com/news/grayscale-sec-approve-all-bitcoin-etfs-together

Crypto fund manager Grayscale is urging the Securities and Exchange Commission to approve all proposed spot Bitcoin exchange-traded funds (ETFs) at the same time to avoid one having an advantage. July 27 Grayscale’s legal team submitted a letter regarding eight spot Bitcoin ETF filings — including its own — arguing the SEC shouldn’t pick “winners and losers” and instead make a fair and orderly decision.

 

In late June, the SEC pushed back on the ETFs due to there being no surveillance sharing agreements (SSAs), saying they were needed due to what it claimed was the potential for crypto markets to be manipulated. Grayscale claimed that the SSA’s “would neither satisfy nor be necessary” under the SEC’s standards, as Coinbase isn’t registered with the SEC as a securities exchange or broker-dealer nor with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission as a futures exchange. An issue that is now resolved..... 

 

It would seem that the BTC spot ETF just got a whole lot closer ....

 

SD

 

 

Edited by SharperDingaan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Coinbase CEO Reveals SEC Told the Company To Delist Everything but Bitcoin

https://www.btctimes.com/news/coinbase-ceo-reveals-sec-told-the-company-to-delist-everything-but-bitcoin

 

"Armstrong stated that the SEC reportedly expressed its belief that "every asset other than Bitcoin is a security."

He added that “we said, well how are you coming to that conclusion? Because that’s not our interpretation of the law.”

He recalled the regulator's stance, saying, "we’re not going to explain it to you; you need to delist every asset other than Bitcoin."

 

That is a crazy opinion by any definition.   If Bitcoin is not a security, then neither are the Bitcoin clones or bitcoin-like coins such as Litecoin, Bitcoin Cash, Dodgecoin, Ravencoin, etc....

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, rkbabang said:

 If Bitcoin is not a security, then neither are the Bitcoin clones or bitcoin-like coins such as Litecoin, Bitcoin Cash, Dodgecoin, Ravencoin, etc....

 

Again simple test - when the founder/architects of a new token make representations/promises about the future of a coin/token ecosystem prior to their initial sale to someone about what might occur post-sale......its a security.....

 

Bitcoin's launch did not involve the sale of tokens to anyone with promises or representations of what would happen next....it had an algorithmic structure with rewards set out in the whitepaper...it established a protocol/nodes & miners...and it was pushed into existence...it was not SOLD into existence.....it was pushed into existence....and as such was both a commodity at birth and remains so today.

 

Dogecoins.....promise was that there was none.....it was joke......it was pushed into existence with no roadmap, no promise to do anything after you bought it intially or to this day.....it was a commodity at birth and remains so.

 

The problem when you read the compliant against Coinbase...and look at the Coins selected by the SEC........they all to a letter were 100% securities at birth.....and remained so after....they had leadership teams, project roadmaps, 'community' protocol 'foundations' pumping out press releases, initial use case companies sitting on top that had the same people involved at the token launch.....they have/had effectively tech development teams who decentralzied only via the fact they held huge treasury token holdings such they could push changes to protocols.....in short they were elaborate deconstructions of a tradtional corporate entity that IPO'ing......taking an initial intial public offering......and then smashing that promoter group into three supposdely unrelated related third parties -  (1) a foundation (2) a use case/consulting/operating company(e.g. Ripple Labs) (3) technical/technology leadership with big chunks of tokens/nodes - is as I said a very elaborate way to deconstruct an IPO'ing company....post-IPO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, SharperDingaan said:

the House Financial Services Committee (FSC) approved the Financial Innovation and Technology for the 21st Century Act. The bill is intended to establish rules for crypto firms on when to register with either the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) or the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

 

Sure thats great - but this is not a passed bill - far from it.........even assuming it can come out of the house on a straight line vote (not a sure thing)....it cant come out of the senate as not a single democrat there is on record supporting it.

 

2 hours ago, SharperDingaan said:

An issue that is now resolved..... 

 

 

What's resolved? - dont understand this bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, changegonnacome said:

 

Again simple test - when the founder/architects of a new token make representations/promises about the future of a coin/token ecosystem prior to their initial sale to someone about what might occur post-sale......its a security.....

 

Bitcoin's launch did not involve the sale of tokens to anyone with promises or representations of what would happen next....it had an algorithmic structure with rewards set out in the whitepaper...it established a protocol/nodes & miners...and it was pushed into existence...it was not SOLD into existence.....it was pushed into existence....and as such was both a commodity at birth and remains so today.

 

Dogecoins.....promise was that there was none.....it was joke......it was pushed into existence with no roadmap, no promise to do anything after you bought it intially or to this day.....it was a commodity at birth and remains so.

 

The problem when you read the compliant against Coinbase...and look at the Coins selected by the SEC........they all to a letter were 100% securities at birth.....and remained so after....they had leadership teams, project roadmaps, 'community' protocol 'foundations' pumping out press releases, initial use case companies sitting on top that had the same people involved at the token launch.....they have/had effectively tech development teams who decentralzied only via the fact they held huge treasury token holdings such they could push changes to protocols.....in short they were elaborate deconstructions of a tradtional corporate entity that IPO'ing......taking an initial intial public offering......and then smashing that promoter group into three supposdely unrelated related third parties -  (1) a foundation (2) a use case/consulting/operating company(e.g. Ripple Labs) (3) technical/technology leadership with big chunks of tokens/nodes - is as I said a very elaborate way to deconstruct an IPO'ing company....post-IPO

Exactly what I just said. Look at raven coin. No promises, no issuance, no premine, it is a mined coin just like Bitcoin. There are a lot of coins like this. To say only Bitcoin is not a security is just asinine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, rkbabang said:

Coinbase CEO Reveals SEC Told the Company To Delist Everything but Bitcoin

https://www.btctimes.com/news/coinbase-ceo-reveals-sec-told-the-company-to-delist-everything-but-bitcoin

 

"Armstrong stated that the SEC reportedly expressed its belief that "every asset other than Bitcoin is a security."

He added that “we said, well how are you coming to that conclusion? Because that’s not our interpretation of the law.”

He recalled the regulator's stance, saying, "we’re not going to explain it to you; you need to delist every asset other than Bitcoin."

 

That is a crazy opinion by any definition.   If Bitcoin is not a security, then neither are the Bitcoin clones or bitcoin-like coins such as Litecoin, Bitcoin Cash, Dodgecoin, Ravencoin, etc....

 

 

Rather think that one of these quotes is wrong: Armstrong stated that the SEC reportedly expressed its belief that "every asset other than Bitcoin is a security." He recalled the regulator's stance, saying, "we’re not going to explain it to you; you need to delist every asset other than Bitcoin."

 

This only makes sense if BTC is viewed as a security, and the clones are not. (1) BTC has a CME options and futures market, the clones do not (2) Only the original (BTC) is the security, child clones using Bitcoin Protocol are not (3) If the coin (ETH, Lightning Network) is used for utility purposes, it is not a security. Wipes out most of the Stable Coin, NFT's, Sh1te Coin of the world, as for the most part - they are all used for some kind of utility purpose. Elegant.    

 

It also wipes out most of the crypto-exchange activity, concentrates trading within just a few crypto names, and makes wash trading (money laundering) a lot more visible. Very bad news for many of the off-shore crypto exchanges. Elegance squared.

 

SD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, rkbabang said:

Exactly what I just said. Look at raven coin. No promises, no issuance, no premine, it is a mined coin just like Bitcoin. There are a lot of coins like this. To say only Bitcoin is not a security is just asinine.

 

I wouldnt say alot....there are a quite a few.

 

The problem is that about 99% of the 22,000 tokens out there aren't like this and did not have 'fair' launches...they had IPO's/ITO/ICO's....they were just intially unregistered securities offerings....then they may be morphed on a continuous basis into investment contracts via stalking and various Airdrop schemes etc.

 

Coinbase is going to get nailed because greed made it constantly push the line on its securities howey test 'checklist'.....and it began to list tokens that were so clearly securities offerings....they are toast for this reason. Check out the SEC compliant....they've name checked the tokens they are going to kill Coinbase on.....and they've chosen well.....all they need is one of these tokens to be deemed a security and they are toast.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SharperDingaan said:

Assumed the bill was now law, and that Coinbase would now come under regulatory control.

 

SD

 

No afraid not - this is just some piddly finance committee......important and its how bills get made and gain wider support in the house..........for now its really just one of the many pieces of paper that get shuffled around D.C. and serve as means by which politicians get to 'follow-through' on lobbyists 'asks'.

 

The question remains, like for every draft bill floating around D.C.....whats the politics like on getting it passed....the poltics on this bill is very difficult

 

Cointelegraph has a way of making every draft crypto bill knocking around congress sound like it's sitting on the president's desk waiting to get signed into law any minute now.

 

 

Edited by changegonnacome
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, rkbabang said:

 If Bitcoin is not a security, then neither are the Bitcoin clones or bitcoin-like coins such as Litecoin, Bitcoin Cash, Dodgecoin, Ravencoin, etc....

 

Not sure whether Armstrong is a credible witness to private conservations with the SEC.........and the SEC sure hasnt named a single one of those coins in its Coinbase compliant.

 

The problem for Coinbase are not the ones above......the problem are these ones:

  • Solana (SOL), Cardano (ADA), Polygon (MATIC): Included in the lawsuit
  • Filecoin (FIL), Sandbox (SAND), Axie Infinity (AXS): Also included in the lawsuit
  • Chiliz (CHZ), Flow (FLOW), Internet Computer (ICP), Near (NEAR), Voyager Token (VGX), Nexo (NEXO): Added to the lawsuit
  • AMP, RLY, DDX, XYO, RGT, LCX, POWR, DFX, KROM: Listed as securities in a lawsuit against a former Coinbase employee for alleged insider trading

You go look at these tokens from birth.........and they pretty much ALL fail the XRP test.......which is to say at inception/birth i.e. ITO/ICO they were illegal securities offerings.....some sold to institutions, some sold to retail....doesn't matter....they had websites, roadmaps, founding teams, they made promises and representations about what would happen after the initial token sale, things that the promoters would be doing to grow the 'community', evolve the technology, build use cases.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been getting more interested in this topic, started with the Softwar book recommended but is there also a more general introductory book you guys could recommend? The Bitcoin standard?

 

I want to do more research before I decide to make this a part of my portfolio.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...