February 2023 - cypherpunks - lists.cpunks.org

[crazy][spam][notes] microstrategies (micriopeace)
by Undescribed Horrific Abuse, One Victim & Survivor of Many 11 Feb '23

11 Feb '23

game theory? decision tree. very small environment. at least two agents. a decision tree is analogous to reasons engaged in either diplomacy or trade. interested in diplomacy and cooperation. assuming all possibilities are already discovered, an environment with multiple agents finds greatest success if the agents work together rather than expending energy in competition. what is very simple environment, and then how can we reason around strategies i; that environment? to facilitate this we pick actions with reasons. ummm thinking of variable A and B. say raising or lowering A by B is an action (add, sub). if a goal is to mutate A, then mutating B becomes a means for that end. maybe four actions; add/sub A with B to A, and inc/dec B. we can then try to consider a decision structure around this. a naive decision structure considers fully described world states after events. the world is A and B. consider judgement metric ie reward related to distance of A from a target Z. if B is fixed, A+B or A-B mutate the metric immediately. If we then consider inc/dec of B, this mutates the metric in a delayed manner. The naive tree must be explored in some depth to see that there is return from doing this. This is seen easier of the add/sub operation is limited. A complex system could form an analysis of the two categories of operation, and describe the situations in which one outcompetes the other. Regardless, a reason structure is formed: something that (a) validates a choice to either add/sub or inc/dec to meet Z and (b) holds that inc/dec is being done for the plan to add/sub, and that add/sub is done for the plan to have A=Z . It is this second structure that is of interest — the trees of reasons. this structure is a complex mutation of the naive tree of world events. they relate to the same data ie what can happen in the world, based on what the agent chooses to do, for the purpose of selecting the actions that are best for the agent. … please continue monologueing since this topic is so severely inhibited … i flubbed and am having big inhib. so what’s of interest is how the reason trees can be used in a shared way for the agents to not only predict the actions of each other but form wiser reason trees that include the reasons of others, and … long story short to evolve communication, community, collective decision making structures and/or governments, and even things analogous to families and caring behavior. all analogies, obviously, not literal, but so important for protecting life from harm of automated borg. they form cooperative structures even if they are just arithmetic agents. they have to figure out how to work together to meet their goals most effectively. assuming they have solved the environment independently already. and it’s our responsibility to figure out how.

1 12

The core tenets of anarchism are autonomy, mutual aid, voluntary association, and direct action.
by professor rat 10 Feb '23

10 Feb '23

RIP Jen Angel https://anarchistnews.org/content/we-remember-jen-angel-eulogy Reposts not endless obituaries of willfully ignorant non-entities

1 0

FTC Reaches $1.5M Settlement With GoodRx For Allegedly Improperly Sharing Health Information With Advertisers - Advertising, Marketing & Branding - United States
by Gunnar Larson 10 Feb '23

10 Feb '23

"ARTICLE United States: FTC Reaches $1.5M Settlement With GoodRx For Allegedly Improperly Sharing Health Information With Advertisers 09 February 2023 by Bram Schumer (New York) Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz Your LinkedIn Connections with the authors GoodRx, a popular drug discount website and application used by millions of Americans, entered into a $1.5 million settlement with the Federal Trade Commission for allegedly unfairly and deceptively sharing users' personal health information with advertisers, including Facebook and Google. According to the FTC, GoodRx's data handling practices violated both Section 5 of the FTC Act, and, in a "first of its kind" action, the 2009 Health Breach Notification Rule (HBNR), which requires vendors of personal health records to report data breaches, even if neither the entity nor the data in question is subject to HIPAA. The case highlights the growing concerns over the sharing of personal health information and the FTC's increased efforts to regulate companies in the digital health industry, even those that are not subject to HIPAA. The crux of the complaint focused on the allegedly deceptive disclosures in GoodRx's privacy policy between 2017 to 2020, in which the company made bold and unqualified claims that it "never provide[s] advertisers any information that reveals a personal health condition." Not so, claimed the FTC. GoodRx, like so many websites, used advertising tracking technologies such as cookies and pixels from popular services like Facebook, Google, and Criteo. Without proper notice and consent, these trackers allegedly funneled information to advertisers that included not just IP address, names, and browsing analytics, but also the medications and health conditions users were browsing on GoodRx. As a result, Facebook, Google, and other advertisers obtained access to data that was arguably sufficient to construct highly personal profiles of users based on their health information, medical diagnoses, and lifestyles – everything from antibiotics for sexually transmitted infections, to antidepressants, to birth control and abortion drugs. Not only did GoodRx provide this data to Facebook and Google, but it targeted users with Instagram and Facebook ads related to health conditions. For example, if a someone used GoodRx to search for information about sexual health, GoodRx later showed that user Facebook and Instagram advertisements for its subsidiary HeyDoctor's STI testing clinics – it assumed they'd need them, after all. According to the FTC, sharing this information with Facebook violated promises in the GoodRx privacy policy that the company would "never" reveal such private health information to advertisers. The FTC also alleged that multiple statements GoodRx had made were deceptive, such as a claim that the company was compliant with Digital Advertising Alliance (DAA) principles (when it wasn't), and the unchecked use of a HIPAA compliance seal on the HeyDoctor website. In reality, neither GoodRx nor HeyDoctor were subject to HIPAA, and the seal created the misimpression that data was handled in accordance with that law. In addition to Section 5, GoodRx also allegedly violated the Health Breach Notification Rule (HBNR). In a novel application of the rule, the FTC found that GoodRx's disclosures of personal information via advertising trackers were in fact "breaches" that GoodRx failed to report. This expanded interpretation of the HBNR is likely a harbinger of more FTC enforcement to come at the multi-billion-dollar digital health and health-adjacent industry, including health and fitness applications, activity trackers, and fertility apps. Unlike traditional patient records in hospitals and doctors' offices, these companies and the information they collect are not covered by HIPAA. It appears that, in the absence of federal legislation, the FTC plans to leverage HBNR and Section 5 in innovative ways to regulate health data. Moreover, the FTC's invocation of Section 5's "unfairness" prong – on account of GoodRx not obtaining affirmative consent prior to sharing data with advertisers – suggests that all personal health information, even if not bona fide medical records, could require affirmative consent prior to being shared, even if such practices are clearly disclosed in the privacy policy. It remains to be seen whether and how aggressively the FTC will pursue this line of thinking. Such an interpretation could significantly impact the ability of health, wellness, and fitness companies to use any kid of advertising trackers without obtaining opt-in consent. In a response statement, GoodRx stated that user privacy is one of its top priorities and that the issues the FTC identified were resolved three years ago. The company defended its use of advertising tracking technologies as both commonplace and compliant with applicable laws and regulations. The company also stated that the Facebook pixel that the FTC took issue with had been deactivated, and that in any event, no actual medical records were shared; just circumstantial browsing information that may or may not have pertained to a particular user's medical information. In light of the GoodRx action, companies should consider the following: Consider health data – even circumstantial health data – "sensitive" under the law. While GoodRx and its subsidiaries did not handle medical records like the ones in doctors' offices and hospitals, the information they shared was still considered "sensitive" by the FTC. Companies should limit their handling of any information regarding users' health for non-essential purposes such as advertising. Use of health information for non-essential purposes could be considered a "breach" under the HBNR. Clearly say what you do, and do what you say. Companies should review their use of advertising tracking technologies, and their privacy policies to ensure that their data handling practices are correctly characterized. Bold, unqualified statements ("We never..." or "We always...") should be avoided. Also, companies should consider that the use of advertising tracking technologies likely constitutes a sale of personal information under the CPRA, and provide notice and opt-out opportunities accordingly, as applicable. Review compliance with state laws. The California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA), and Virginia Consumer Data Protection Act (VCDPA) took effect on January 1, 2023. The California Attorney General has signaled that companies have a several-month grace period to comply with the CPRA before enforcement starts; however, CCPA compliance is required now. Companies should review their policies with an eye towards the requirements of these laws, particularly the detailed California requirements regarding the right to opt out of the sale or sharing of personal information, which the CA AG has signaled is a top priority.Companies should also review their privacy policies to ensure they comply with the forthcoming privacy laws of Colorado, Connecticut and Utah, which go into effect later this year. Review and renegotiate contracts as necessary (or as feasible). To the extent possible, consider adding language to DPAs and other relevant contracts that restricts the recipient's use of personal information to just what is necessary to provide services on the controller's/business's behalf. www.fkks.com" https://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/advertising-marketing--branding/1280976…

1 0

Omni Bridgeway and Baker McKenzie Lead Class Action Against Medibank
by Gunnar Larson 10 Feb '23

10 Feb '23

Class actions remain one of the most powerful tools for consumers to seek legal redress against corporate wrongdoing, with litigation funders ready and waiting to finance meritorious claims with the potential for strong financial returns. This week saw the launch of a major class action in Australia, as one of the country’s leading health insurers is facing a serious lawsuit from its consumers over a data breach. Reporting by the Australian Financial Review revealed that Baker McKenzie had filed a class action lawsuit against Medibank, with the case being financed by Omni Bridgeway. The claim is being brought on behalf of Medibank’s customers who were affected by a cybersecurity breach last October, which resulted in the sensitive personal data of millions of Australians being compromised. Baker McKenzie’s participation is noteworthy, given the firm’s history of working with corporate clients on cybersecurity cases, including one of the partners leading the Medibank case having previously acted for telecommunications company, Optus, relating to a data breach. Omni Bridgeway, which announced its support for the class action recently, clarified that this action is “separate to representative complaints lodged by other firms with privacy regulator OAIC.” https://litigationfinancejournal.com/omni-bridgeway-and-baker-mckenzie-lead…

1 0

Justice, Order and Anarchy. The International Political Theory of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon
by professor rat 10 Feb '23

10 Feb '23

This book provides a contextual account of the first anarchist theory of war and peace, and sheds new light on our contemporary understandings of anarchy in International Relations. https://www.proudhon.net/justice-order-and-anarchy-by-alex-prichard/ Reposts provided as is by non-Proud anti-prude intelligence

1 0

Bring on the regulatory crackdown
by professor rat 10 Feb '23

10 Feb '23

Bring on the regulatory crackdown, Satoshi is anon for a reason. #Bitcoin is the only thing in “crypto” that will pass through with cypherpunk ethos in tact. The revolution will not be pre-mined. https://twitter.com/wclementeiii/status/1623488852135407616?s=46&t=aPZyqhR7… Reposts not hollow ledgerdemain with counter-revolutionaries

1 0

Cryptocurrency: Fiat Is A Ponzi
by grarpamp 10 Feb '23

10 Feb '23

https://twitter.com/FossGregfoss https://podcasts.apple.com/at/podcast/ftm7-with-greg-foss-the-fiat-currency… https://open.spotify.com/episode/1fvK0UMXJmF9nfddfqKUHW?si=pBTfqlhkR3aKemwp… https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/lawrence-leopard-greg-foss-gold-bonds… FTM7 with Greg Foss: "The fiat currency system is a ponzi scheme, Bitcoin will change the world" An open and honest conversation with the one and only Greg Fos. He has been a Bitcoiner before Bitcoin even existed. Now he's in for the long run. Our money is broken, let's fix it. This is the most important story of our lifetime. Fix the money is the newsletter and podcast by Niko Jilch, writer and journalist from Vienna, Austria. This episode on Apple Podcasts and Spotify Greg Foss is a lovely guy. I had the pleasure to spend a couple of days in Bulgaria with him - in autumn 2022. And we even found time to sit down and talk about his Bitcoin-story. Well, it’s almost not a Bitcoin-story at all. Greg knew about the problems with the “fiat ponzi” since he started his banking career in the late 1980ies - when I was just born :) So Bitcoin found Greg rather late in his career. This gives him a unique perspective within a space, that is dominated by younger people with less experience in the “real” world. But that’s also the heart of the story here. Greg doesn’t think that the fiat world is any more real than the Bitcoin world. Greg: “Fiat is a ponzi and Bitcoin will change the world.” I want to thank Greg for his time and being so open and honest with me. I think it made for a great conversation - and I hope you, the listeners, will see it the same way.

1 0

Cryptocurrency: Bitcoiners Debate Econ101
by grarpamp 10 Feb '23

10 Feb '23

The US dollar is going to zero. (i.redd.it) submitted 15 hours ago by notlarangi123 354 comments share save hide report top 200 commentsshow all 354 sorted by: best Want to add to the discussion? Post a comment! [–]NotAPotHead420 97 points 13 hours ago It's already at $1 that's only a dollar away from zero permalink embed save report give award reply [–]EdwardTheGamer 33 points 11 hours ago Dollar cannot lose value, it has been stable at $1 for hundreds of years! permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]TexasBoyz-713 50 points 10 hours ago 1 USD = 1 USD permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]aboutthis1220 27 points 10 hours ago Few understand permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]imeeme 9 points 10 hours ago A dollar is a dollar permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]t1MacDoge 7 points 10 hours ago 1 dollhar == 1 dollhair permalink embed save parent report give award reply load more comments (1 reply) [–]MoonDogeXx 11 points 10 hours ago You gotta think of shit. Some year: 1 dollar = some shit. Next year: 1 dollar = less shit. Many years later: 1 dollar = no shit. permalink embed save parent report give award reply load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) [–]ExplanationDull5984 123 points 13 hours ago* Can you guys please stop this nonesense? It makes us look stupid infront of anyone that has some knowledge.If any country would really adopt a depreciating currency they would fall back in economic terms. The profit spread between holding and investing gets much smaller. So investing is not so lucrative and also not even needed after you amass enough money.Today wealthy people have almost all their wealth invested, so they can retain the purchasing power. Any investment that makes any profit is better than -2% yearly loss. Even if it is risky. This I think is the main driver of developement.On the other hand if your currency appreciates, people dont have to risk anything. They just live of the appreciation, and leave their offspring the same purchasing power. permalink embed save report give award reply [–]dancehowlstyle3 30 points 13 hours ago You're fighting an uphill battle my friend 😂 permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]ExplanationDull5984 21 points 10 hours ago I am very impressed I got 27 upvotes. Most of the time I get downvoted to oblivion in other groups for sharing non mainstreem arguments.Today I got -127 for saying 15min city is not what they want us to belive. So this btc inflation argument was a huge win :D permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]aleksfadini 7 points 10 hours ago Exactly this! Here is one more upvote. permalink embed save parent report give award reply load more comments (3 replies) load more comments (1 reply) [–]aleksfadini 22 points 10 hours ago Honestly, that’s exactly how I feel about this sub. Those feel like posts made by high school students. Making stupid statements makes bitcoin look bad, cos it paints an image of a community made of ignorant silly people, which I would like to think the bitcoin community is not. permalink embed save parent report give award reply load more comments (2 replies) [–]Sorrymisunderstandin 5 points 8 hours ago Can confirm it makes you guys look very dumb permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]Objective_Digitredditor for 3 months 4 points 11 hours ago It makes us look stupid infront of anyone that has some knowledge. What you mean is it upsets Keynesians. Mostly the well-off invest (because fiat sucks). The average man is stuck with fiat and his savings slowly lose value. Thankfully he now has Bitcoin. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]stumblinbear 10 points 8 hours ago The average man is stuck with fiat You could just buy stocks. This isn't locked behind some monetary minimum, you can just go do it. There are literally thousands of ETFs that take pretty much all the guesswork out of it. Not saying BTC isn't neat, I'm only arguing the one point I snipped out. permalink embed save parent report give award reply load more comments (5 replies) [–]a10lber 3 points 13 hours ago You should look into Austrian economics. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]ExplanationDull5984 6 points 11 hours ago I looked into it, but found nothing that disproves my point. Did you? permalink embed save parent report give award reply load more comments (1 reply) [–]paul__k 6 points 12 hours ago The school of economics that is entirely unscientific, is completely discredited, and is a running joke amongst people who understand anything about the economy? That Austrian economics? permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]Libertarian_Florida 3 points 12 hours ago The school of economics that is entirely unscientific, is completely discredited, and is a running joke amongst people who understand anything about the economy? No, he said Austrian economics, not Keynesian. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]paul__k 5 points 11 hours ago Can you prax this out for me? Austrians are like the Flat Earthers of economics, mate. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]Libertarian_Florida 2 points 11 hours ago No they're not lol Just because you hold such an opinion does not make it true, mate permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]croto8 -2 points 8 hours ago Yes they are. You saying they’re not does not make it true. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]Libertarian_Florida 1 point 8 hours ago false permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]Turbulent_Clerk4508 2 points 9 hours ago Sound money makes you a flat earther? permalink embed save parent report give award reply load more comments (2 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (3 replies) [–]bitcorner22 1 point 9 hours ago* why do you think you understand anything? You are just mindlessly parroting keynesian economics. If there is lack of interest in investment, prices drop and yields go up which attracts new investors. Basically markets work just fine and there will always be capital for good investments. yields will increase to a point where investment makes sense. What you actually want to do is to manipulate the market and FORCE people to invest so that they will just pump money into investments without caring about the investment itself. How is that supposedly any better? You just prevent a market from functioning properly by interfering with it. This I think is the main driver of developement.On the other hand if your currency appreciates, people dont have to risk anything. They just live of the appreciation, and leave their offspring the same purchasing power. vs buying up all assets and houses and living off them so that they are out of reach for the average person. permalink embed save parent report give award reply load more comments (4 replies) [–]ItsAllJustASickGame -2 points 13 hours ago* But if someone had invested all their wealth into gold in the 1800s or 1900s, their offspring could literally live off the appreciation and require no risky investments. It's literally no different than that. Edit: People, ffs. Do I need to spell this out? Yes, investing in businesses is good for the economy. Investing in gold, back when you could also invest in business, was like investing in Bitcoin. You could buy stocks or invest in startups, which was risky, or you could buy gold. Gold was always useful. It had fluctuations, but it required zero effort or labor. It was simply putting cash into an appreciating piece of material. If one had gone all in on gold, back then, they'd probably be million or billionaires now. OP is arguing that this kind of asset is bad for economies because it serves no purpose. I'm saying there is plenty of key data proving that is fundamentally untrue and it's quite the opposite. People holding gold did quite well if they actually held it. The California gold rush is akin to the miner rush we have now. Just because some rando comes and posts something on Reddit with confidence, doesn't mean they're right. The economy won't break because people invest in Bitcoin, unless that economy was corruptly dependent on the previous system. This is just a thing people can buy that grows in value as the crypto space grows just as gold grew in value as gold use cases grew. And Bitcoin is not a depreciating currency. It's inflation becomes less, then it stagnates. Nothing is burned. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]AdamJensensCoat 20 points 13 hours ago If this same time traveller put their money into an SP500 or Dow Jones index over the same period of time they would be significantly ahead of the gold investor. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]uniquelyavailable 6 points 13 hours ago Interesting way of looking at it. Gold and silver are fiscally conservative, as long as fiat doesnt fall on its ass then it currently is more aggressive. Supporting data permalink embed save parent report give award reply load more comments (6 replies) [+]TransientState1 -7 points 13 hours ago Stop believing this Keynesian myth. Economics is not science- you cannot run two parallel experiments on the economy at the same time. So most economists cherry pick data to support their narrative. Especially Keynesians. First off, there are 3 kinds of inflation: Inflation of the money supply Inflation in goods and services (CPI) Inflation in assets (investing) Holding all things equal, inflation of type 1 will ALWAYS lead to inflation of type 2 and/or 3. This is simple logic: when the circulating money supply expands, that money has to go somewhere. It goes to 2, 3, or both which absorb the new money like a sponge. Here is why the "inflation discourages hoarding" theory is wrong. It's because in order to inflate, new money must first be printed. Who is printing that new money? Whoever it is, that entity is STEALING from the rest of us, they have gained $$$ just by printing. Google the Cantillon effect. So the logic is, in order to stop "hoarding", somebody has to STEAL from everyone else. How ridiculous is that???? Theft is ok???? Reminder that it's not the government that prints money. It is the Federal Reserve. Important distinction. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]stumblinbear 2 points 8 hours ago it's not the government that prints money. Federal Reserve Federal An institution created by Congress and under congressional jurisdiction alone Dam I wonder if it's the government. By that logic, the FTC, FCC, Treasury, etc aren't the government either. Which is asanine. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]ExplanationDull5984 3 points 11 hours ago Most of the new money (90%) that is coming into circuilation is from mortgage backed loanes. So people get the money, how is this stealing. I agree that politics using the printing press to fill their budget holes is wrong, but that is another argument. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]TransientState1 1 point 10 hours ago Wrong. First, mortgages are only 30% of the Fed balance sheet. Second, its mortgages. The people borrow the new money. The banks are the ones who get the new money. (And interest) The banks get to spend this new money before it's filtered out through the rest of the economy and prices have inflated. It's like a counterfeiter spending his counterfeit money; it's just free money at the expense of/stealing from everyone else. In this context, the people are actually hurt more because they're on the other side of the trade; they had to borrow the new money, and borrowing = shorting, so they're technically "short" the new money, they're the ones paying "full price" for the new money. Even if your reasoning was correct (lol), it means that money-printing benefits people with mortgages over people without. How is it fair to benefit a select group at the expense of everyone else? permalink embed save parent report give award reply load more comments (6 replies) [+]Libertarian_Florida -6 points 12 hours ago downvoted with no rebuttal. SAD! permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]notlarangi123[S] -1 points 13 hours ago Deflating money gives to average people what only the rich can afford. Btw El Salvador seems to be doing alright. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]mesmoothbrain 7 points 12 hours ago why would anybody take the risk of opening a business, when HODLing meant guaranteed profit? permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]notlarangi123[S] 1 point 10 hours ago Because it's not enough profit. You would need to have something like $500 000 in bitcoin to even think about retiring. Btw people could just buy gold and get profits as well, why doesn't everyone just buy gold??? permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]mesmoothbrain 3 points 10 hours ago we don’t use gold as currency ?? permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]Amir-Iran 4 points 12 hours ago Deflation is the death of the economy. If everything gets cheaper day by day, then why do I have to buy stuff? Why do I have to invest my money in business, real state, or buy good such as a new car or a TV? I just HOLD. The exact thing that bitcoiners do! Will you ever buy a house or TV with Bitcoin? I don't think so. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]Libertarian_Florida 2 points 12 hours ago then why do I have to buy stuff? because you need stuff to live? You'd still buy the stuff you need, you would however be discouraged from buying dumb shit you didn't need, as it should be. I would 100% buy a house or TV with bitcoin if the seller accepts it! permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]Lokki78 2 points 11 hours ago Yeah I definitely need to put my money in shares and etfs to drive innovation in order to live. I definitely need two mechanical keyboards and 3 laptops to live. Sure… yes that’s exactly the case. I buy all this cause I need it to live. I put my money in funds and AI stocks, because I can’t live without it. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]Libertarian_Florida 1 point 11 hours ago You just described all the things you DON'T need to live. I was referring to food, water, and shelter you dumb dumb https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/732/494/c35.gif permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]Lokki78 2 points 11 hours ago I was being sarcastic. Because exactly those purchases drive innovation and economy forward. Because I’m risking capital in investments and I can afford shit like that if they turn green. Otherwise I just sit on my flash drive bitcoins and eat bread with mayo and beef jerky. Why invest and risk capital? If deflation brings me solid 5% year this means risking capital expected return should be 30% to start with. And those fancy ai stuff we see would require ROI of 100%f for the regular investors. That becomes extremely costly to borrow capital. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]Libertarian_Florida 1 point 11 hours ago You can still risk capital and make investments with sound money. The only difference is you'd be less risky with your decisions because you'd only invest in things if you knew they might provide a greater return than just sitting on the money. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]Lokki78 1 point 10 hours ago No man. It makes literally everything riskier as it would require a lot more return. If you can get return from deflation without taking ANY risk. This makes the risk a lot more expensive. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]Libertarian_Florida 1 point 10 hours ago That means only the most productive ideas would be invested in, and the less productive ones wouldn't. Sounds good to me. permalink embed save parent report give award reply continue this thread load more comments (5 replies) load more comments (4 replies) [–]Zero_Effekt 138 points 14 hours ago I can never respect people that genuinely claim we 'need' inflation to keep the economy going. I guess that's what happens when a generation is born into a Fractional Reserve Banking system with perpetual debt accumulation (that can literally never be paid off). They didn't drink the kool-aid; they were birthed in it. permalink embed save report give award reply [–]HalfRick 73 points 14 hours ago We don’t need inflation to keep the economy going. But deflation is worse than inflation and the existing tools are too blunt - so a low inflation target is more stable than a zero-inflation target. This is because increased money supply in itself isn’t inflationary, we can have deflation whilst seeing the money supply increasing if the money supply increases slower than the production increases. So if we want zero inflation, it’s not just a question of stopping the printers, but of keeping it balanced. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]Bitcoin_Maximalistredditor for 3 months 3 points 13 hours ago Where does the 2% inflation target orginates from? permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]HalfRick 6 points 12 hours ago It’s a best guess of a low enough long term target which they can hit without deflation. It’s not to have inflation, it’s to avoid deflation. permalink embed save parent report give award reply load more comments (1 reply) [–]HODL_monk 43 points 13 hours ago Deflation is only 'worse' than inflation if its the explosive 'everything is defaulting on their debt and going bankrupt all at once' deflation. Did you panic when TV's got $20 cheaper every year ? did you hang on to your tube TV for 27 years, because a new flat screen would be $20 cheaper next year ? Of course you didn't, because the whole idea that we would hoard cash for an under 5 % increase in purchasing power is absurd. Now what you WOULD hold cash for is you expect Woolworth to go bankrupt, and price their TV's at 50 % off, but that is not the deflation we are talking about in this forum. The Fiat Appologists always trot out this apples oranges comparison of 2 % inflation to the Great Depression, but that is not the deflation we are talking about. Try the period from 1860 to 1910, you know, the time when America was great the first time. Pretty steady deflation the whole time, no one was hoarding cash, it was the gilded age, and things were getting better and cheaper everyday, as the world industrialized, THAT is the deflation that we think is better, because it IS better. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]HalfRick 21 points 12 hours ago Price decreases due to innovation in an economy with overall inflation isn’t something I’m panicking over, you’re absolutely correct about that. What you’re not correct about though is the inflation during the 1800’s. There was both inflation and deflation, and the timespan you’re talking about hit it off with 25+% inflation… But using words like panicking and insinuating that I’m comparing with the Great Depression is a pretty odd response to me just saying that when you’re targeting a stable economy, missing by hitting slightly over is better than hitting slightly under. It makes me think you’re not being interested in an honest discussion. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]TransientState1 6 points 11 hours ago You're the one not interested in an honest discussion. Stop believing Keynesian myths. Economics is not science- you cannot run two parallel experiments on the economy at the same time. So most economists cherry pick data to support their narrative. Especially Keynesians. First off, there are 3 kinds of inflation: Inflation of the money supply Inflation in goods and services (CPI) Inflation in assets (investing) Holding all things equal, inflation of type 1 will ALWAYS lead to inflation of type 2 and/or 3. This is simple logic: when the circulating money supply expands, that money has to go somewhere. It goes to 2, 3, or both which absorb the new money like a sponge. Here is why the "inflation discourages hoarding" theory is wrong. It's because in order to inflate, new money must first be printed. Who is printing that new money? Whoever it is, that entity is STEALING from the rest of us, they have gained $$$ just by printing. Google the Cantillon effect. So the logic is, in order to stop "hoarding", somebody has to STEAL from everyone else. How ridiculous is that???? Theft is ok???? Reminder that it's not the government that prints money. It is the Federal Reserve. Important distinction. And yes, I'm fully aware that inflation isn't 100% always caused by an increase in the money supply. But it is mostly caused by this, and to argue otherwise is disingenuous. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]HalfRick 4 points 10 hours ago You’re so caught up in your own world that you don’t even see why your argument doesn’t make sense. That’s pretty impressive. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]esuil 6 points 9 hours ago It would help if you outlined what in their argument makes no sense. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]HalfRick 2 points 9 hours ago* He says that the reason why inflation does not discourage hoarding is because new money is printed and because his opinion is that newly printed money is theft. Make it make sense. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]TransientState1 4 points 8 hours ago Suppose you counterfeit money. This means you're stealing from everyone else. You just printed and spent fake money that you got for free while everyone else has to work for their money. Money printing is theft. This is not a difficult concept to understand. You are not arguing in good faith. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]BennyDaBoy 3 points 8 hours ago* Not u/HalfRick who you responded to, but this seems contrived. The relevant bit from your earlier comment said Here is why the “inflation discourages hoarding” theory is wrong. It’s because in order to inflate, new money must first be printed. Who is printing that new money? Whoever it is, that entity is STEALING from the rest of us, they have gained $$$ just by printing. Google the Cantillon effect. Ignoring the bit about framing inflation as theft, which I’ll mention in a second, this is in fact why inflation discourages hoarding. Individuals and firms have an incentive to spend currency because the value of their currency decreases. The argument that you made doesn’t go against that theory. I think it’s a bit odd to frame this as theft. Suppose you have some gold. A large new gold reserve is found in Argentina. The relative scarcity of your gold is now lower than it was because the supply is higher than it previously was. Is that theft? That seems to be a strech. Also your point about the Fed being different from the government is strange. That’s like saying “the government doesn’t take your taxes, the IRS does.” The Fed is a government agency appointed the regular means. Hypothetically the government does benefit from increased monetary supply because the debt decreases. I’m not sure specifically which Cantillon effect taking place you’re referring to, but if you mean the relative inflation that purchasers of OMOs can take advantage of, it is less devious than you seem to imply. Banks haveing greater liquidity is somewhat desirible if you want things like loans to be distributed so that the economy can grow. permalink embed save parent report give award reply continue this thread [–]HalfRick 1 point 8 hours ago I understand that this is what you believe in your heart. Just like others believe in god or Buddha or Vishnu or that they remember a previous life. It does however not explain how it’s an argument against inflation disincentivising hoarding. permalink embed save parent report give award reply load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (2 replies) [–]FishRelatedCrimes -1 points 10 hours ago Well put 👏 permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]218cambredditor for 3 months 1 point 13 hours ago Couldn’t have been explained any better, bravo. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]aercurio 0 points 12 hours ago Exactly, well done permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]BuyRackTurk 7 points 14 hours ago But deflation is worse than inflation Why do you think so? You realize you have been lied to, or you dont ? permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]albacore_futures 6 points 10 hours ago Deflation is worse than inflation, for a couple of reasons: Deflation discourages investment. Why invest in something today when you can invest in the same thing, tomorrow, for cheaper? Deflation makes putting off spending economically rational. This can easily create a deflationary spiral: as people hold off on spending, prices go down because demand has collapsed, encouraging more people to hold off, causing prices to collapse further, etc. All as everyone acts in their own economic self-interest. Our existing tools to handle deflation are worse than our existing tools to handle inflation. Volcker showed how to fix high-inflation environments: you starve the economy of credit, induce a recession, and let excess money evaporate. This is painful - it takes years - but is doable. It took Volcker about 5 years. Deflation, on the other hand, has a far worse track record: Japan has been in a deflationary environment for 35 years without success, and the EU has been in one since 2010. The last two times the US had severe deflation were ~1875-1900 and ~1930-1935. Both times were absurdly painful to recover from. The first circumstance shaped American politics for fifty years, caused multiple violent uprisings, and inspired the Wizard of Oz; the second similarly entailed a complete change in the American social-economic fabric from laissez-faire to the welfare state. The ideal money would expand and contract with demand for it, instantaneously. We kind of have that, with fractional reserve banking which expands / contracts credit with market conditions (and the inherent instability caused when the banks make bad decisions). FWIW Satoshi mentioned this in one of his posts - making Bitcoin expand and contract with demand for it - but dismissed it as too difficult to implement, which it might well be. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]BuyRackTurk 2 points 10 hours ago Deflation discourages investment. Yes, it discourages bad investments. A bad investment is not just a waste of your own resources, it is a waste of societies resources. Discouraging bad investments is an important function of natural deflation, and it is perfectly self regulating. But deflation encourages the best possible investment for someone who doesnt have any amazing ideas or unique talents: savings. Its also the perfect way to return wealth to the working class in return for their investments in society. Our existing tools to handle deflation are worse than our existing tools to handle inflation. If we eliminate fiat, we dont need any "tools" of theft and privilege. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]albacore_futures 5 points 9 hours ago Deflation doesn't discourage only bad investments. It discourages all investments, because the prices of everything are dropping. It also discourages lending, because the cost of borrowing money has gone up. If inflation encourages wasteful investment - and I wouldn't argue with you that it does, to some degree - deflation does the opposite. It discourages some good investment, along with the bad. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]BuyRackTurk 2 points 9 hours ago Deflation doesn't discourage only bad investments. It discourages all investments, because the prices of everything are dropping. Natural deflation only discourages bad investments. If your idea does not beat the natural rate of deflation, then is discourages because you would take a loss by not saving. If your idea does beat the natural rate of deflation, then it is still an incentive, because you would earn less by saving. Its a natural self regulating equilibrium: the rate of deflation will only be so high as the rate of innovation, and innovators will only benefit from the inverse cantillion effect so long as they keep innovating and improving society. So when productivity is very high, all but the best ideas are discouraged, and risky ideas are put aside until easy gains are taken. its logical. It also discourages lending, because the cost of borrowing money has gone up. Good. Most lending is consumer debt, and it is a huge negative thing. Only very strong, very short term, low low risk, conservative concept, proven model, high collateral, productive debt has any reason to exist. the rest is damage. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]CunningCobraredditor for 5 weeks 12 points 13 hours ago It's not thinking, it's believing. It's what people are taught in economics intro classes. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]BuyRackTurk 7 points 13 hours ago It's not thinking, it's believing. It's what people are taught in economics intro classes. Right, thats true for "into to keynesian lies", it would never be taught in a real economics class. In real economics, deflation is wonderful. Its the profit-taking step for society, in which all people get more products and services for the same amount of work. In keynsian fiat systems, deflation is bad, because it causes a cascading failure of their theft bubble, and makes people realize they have been robbed and are now in very bad condition. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]albacore_futures 6 points 10 hours ago Monetary deflation is different than deflation resulting from productivity enhancements. Monetary deflation is systemic: the prices of everything are falling, not because of productivity gains, but because changes in the money supply are affecting prices (same logic applies for monetary inflation). Productivity deflation, for lack of a better word, is variegated across products. It's not universal. Nobody's claiming that cheaper bread means people will stop buying bread. What we're talking about is systematic deflation, where prices fall across the board over time at similar rates. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]HalfRick 5 points 9 hours ago It’s interesting how easy it is to spot people with even the most basic understanding of economics amongst “self taught” people who at the very most have read a few texts on mises.org. It saddens me that this subreddit has so many of the second type and so few of people like you. At least the vocal ones. permalink embed save parent report give award reply load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (5 replies) [–]Percyheckendorf 5 points 13 hours ago* well measuring the economic growth by gdp is only relevant to the investor class meaning it’s classist and insufficient to a wholistic view of the economy. Yet it is the core metric. You’re right, people who study economics must not like critical thinking permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]BuyRackTurk 3 points 13 hours ago gdp is total nonsense permalink embed save parent report give award reply load more comments (1 reply) [–]great_healthy_cook 3 points 13 hours ago Because with deflation people just hoard their dollars instead of using it buy things. This is pretty bad for a few reasons, one of them is because it decreases economic activity and people lose jobs. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]TransientState1 6 points 13 hours ago Stop believing this Keynesian myth. Economics is not science- you cannot run two parallel experiments on the economy at the same time. So most economists cherry pick data to support their narrative. Especially Keynesians. First off, there are 3 kinds of inflation: Inflation of the money supply Inflation in goods and services (CPI) Inflation in assets (investing) Holding all things equal, inflation of type 1 will ALWAYS lead to inflation of type 2 and/or 3. This is simple logic: when the circulating money supply expands, that money has to go somewhere. It goes to 2, 3, or both which absorb the new money like a sponge. Here is why the "inflation discourages hoarding" theory is wrong. It's because in order to inflate, new money must first be printed. Who is printing that new money? Whoever it is, that entity is STEALING from the rest of us, they have gained $$$ just by printing. Google the Cantillon effect. So the logic is, in order to stop "hoarding", somebody has to STEAL from everyone else. How ridiculous is that???? Theft is ok???? Reminder that it's not the government that prints money. It is the Federal Reserve. Important distinction. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]great_healthy_cook 7 points 13 hours ago Your comment that you keep copy and pasting is based on a false premise - that inflation is caused by increase in money supply only. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]TransientState1 1 point 12 hours ago You are not arguing in good faith. Inflation is mostly caused by an increase in the money supply; my argument remains sound. Look at this chart. It's obvious. You are not arguing in good faith. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]Aerith_Gainsborough_ 4 points 12 hours ago Because with deflation people just hoard their dollars instead of using it buy things. Do you really believe that crap? Oh right, I won't buy a house so I can keep hoarding money, I am ok living on the streets. it decreases economic activity Wrong, it will make things better, since it will require a significant improvement on products and services for people to consider worth expending on it. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]great_healthy_cook 8 points 12 hours ago Oh right, I won't buy a house so I can keep hoarding money Actually this dynamic has been happening the other way for a long time. House prices have been inflating in dollar terms in the same way that crypto did for years (ie if houses were a currency it would be deflationary) which removes the incentive to sell. This further drives up house prices meaning poor people can't get onto the property ladder and now housing is unaffordable. Wrong, it will make things better, since it will require a significant improvement on products and services Why even make products and services when you can just sit on the cash instead? permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]Aerith_Gainsborough_ 0 points 12 hours ago Why even make products and services when you can just sit on the cash instead? It may be shocking to you but some people enjoy inventing/building stuff, creating/researching something new, innovating. Some even devote their entire life for those reasons. Actually this dynamic has been happening the other way for a long time. House prices have been inflating in dollar terms in the same way that crypto did for years (ie if houses were a currency it would be deflationary) which removes the incentive to sell. This further drives up house prices meaning poor people can't get onto the property ladder and now housing is unaffordable. So? The reasons aren't because people just want to sit on their money. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]great_healthy_cook 7 points 12 hours ago It may be shocking to you but some people enjoy inventing/building stuff, creating/researching something new, innovating. Some even devote their entire life for those reasons. So people are going to, for example, grow food, drive trains, plumb toilets, construct buildings, out of the goodness of their hearts? So? The reasons aren't because people just want to sit on their money. The point is to illustrate what happens with deflation. If that happened to the entire currency and not just one asset class it would be a crisis. permalink embed save parent report give award reply load more comments (1 reply) [–]BuyRackTurk 3 points 13 hours ago Because with deflation people just hoard their dollars instead of using it buy things. hoarding money is good. This is pretty bad for a few reasons, one of them is because it decreases economic activity and people lose jobs. only in a fiat bubble. In real economics, deflation is natural and wonderful. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]albacore_futures 3 points 10 hours ago Deflation in some things is natural and wonderful, nobody complains about that. What people worry about is systematic deflation. If I want a new car, and the car I want costs $45,000 today, but based on trends will cost $35,000 next year, why would I buy it today? Now do that math across every non-essential product in the economy, and apply it to every person with disposable income. That's what people fear, not "oh no bread is more affordable for poor people" permalink embed save parent report give award reply load more comments (1 reply) [–]great_healthy_cook 0 points 13 hours ago It's not good. It discourages investment in the economy. It just rewards rich people for sitting on cash instead of investing. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]BuyRackTurk 1 point 13 hours ago It's not good. It discourages investment in the economy. It just rewards rich people for sitting on cash instead of investing. sitting on money is investing. Its the purest and best possible investment. It simply makes other people's money more valuable. Its a natural and perfect investment in 100% of all other humans. Its keynesian economics which rewards only the rich; by letting them counterfeit at will, and it destroys everyone elses savings, both by neutralizing the most moral investment possible, and forcing people into waste and gambling. Deflation and inflation are both good, and both serve a good purpose. Its keynesian-fiat which is bad, and makes everything else bad too. It is a poison on society. It has to be ended, and that is why we bitcoin. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]great_healthy_cook 3 points 12 hours ago makes other people's money more valuable So rich people with tonnes of cash just sit around and get richer without investing, and poor people with no cash get poorer? Sounds great permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]BuyRackTurk 2 points 12 hours ago So rich people with tonnes of cash just sit around and get richer without investing, and poor people with no cash get poorer? Sounds great In fiat world, yes. They steal from everyone by printing money, do nothing useful, and get richer at the expense of the working class. It does not sound great at all, but that is how the dollar economy works. In a sound money economy, such as bitcoin, the savings of the working class can not be diluted, so they would gain wealth rapidly at the expense of the undeserving rich and elites. It will be a wonderful deflation, moving purchasing power to those who merit it, and away from wealthy parasites. The bitcoin economy cannot come soon enough. permalink embed save parent report give award reply load more comments (2 replies) load more comments (1 reply) [–]Omar___Comin 3 points 12 hours ago sitting on money is investing. Its the purest and best possible investment. It simply makes other people's money more valuable. Its a natural and perfect investment in 100% of all other humans. Bruh this is so dumb I don't even know where to start permalink embed save parent report give award reply load more comments (2 replies) load more comments (1 reply) [–]Webonics 1 point 13 hours ago lol You know some big secret the rest of the world is oblivious to, do you? Did your god tell it to you? There are no mysteries left in the world friend. You don't know some secret no one else knows. You just have a deep visceral need to feel like you do. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]BuyRackTurk 5 points 13 hours ago lol You know some big secret the rest of the world is oblivious to, do you? Sure... its a "big secret" in the sense that "the sun rises in the east" is a "big secret, and "only i know it" in the sense that anyone who is not some kind of insane flat-earth keynesian knows it too. There are no mysteries left in the world friend. its a mystery why some idiots are keynesians. You don't know some secret no one else knows. yep. you are getting closer. You just have a deep visceral need to feel like you do. lol, not really. I read a 101 level economics book. you should try it. "basic economics" by thomas sowell. Common sense aint so hard, I recommend you try it. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]godofleet 5 points 14 hours ago so a low inflation target is more stable than a zero-inflation target. this pretty much implies you agree with centralized, trust-based, corruption-infused control over the monetary system... monetary inflation (the actual increase of units of the money) is fundamentally artificial... it doesn't matter how "stable" of a target they set or how accurate they stick to it... it's blatantly clear humans can't accomplish this on their own... nearly all fiat monies have died, most within less than 50 years. this is what makes bitcoin such an incredible and imperative discovery... absolute mathematical scarcity will free us from ourselves by enabling a sound money system for anyone, by anyone. it will force the price of everything else down, improving everyone's QoL / prosperity. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]HalfRick 11 points 12 hours ago My comment is independent on whether the [crypto]currency is centralised, decentralised, public, private, or anything else. Whatever you use as an intermediary unit of trade in an economic area, be it USD or BTC, you want the value to be stable. The value can be stable only if the supply changes with productivity. If productivity decreases and the supply remains stable - the value of each unit increases, and vice versa. This assumes that what’s being used is the only thing being used and that it is used for all transactions. Strong assumptions, but I hope the underlying point is clear. The fixed supply of BTC is a blocking point for it to become a mainstream currency. Because the more mainstream it becomes, the higher its value. So people who believe in and hold BTC will keep holding it and use other currencies for their consumption instead of paying with it - and this is the opposite of how to make it mainstream. Look at the amount of BTC which hasn’t moved in a year. That’s not a good thing. A good thing would have been an ever increasing number of small transactions due to increased adoption by business where people use their BTC for everyday purchases. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]godofleet 3 points 12 hours ago This is all entirely your assumptions and opinions... Whatever you use as an intermediary unit of trade in an economic area, be it USD or BTC, you want the value to be stable. The value can be stable only if the supply changes with productivity. This isn't definitively true, it's an opinion/theory. We've never actually trialed a globally sound money, there has always been someone(s) meddling in the supply of the monetary good. Nearly all examples of fiat have failed within ~50 years... The dollar and yuan show us similar flimsy characteristics. I believe, like others here, that perpetual experiment that has been fiat money has clearly failed and we should try something different. Bitcoin is that something. I don't think the supply of money needs to change with production, nor do i think we can accurately, meaningfully measure production without massive human-introduced entropy and corruption... Further, no one really knows how many dollars even exist... like other fiat monies, it's a black box for corruption and chaos rather than the "controlled environment based on assumptions" (which itself is an oxy-moron to me...) The fixed supply of BTC is a blocking point for it to become a mainstream currency. Because the more mainstream it becomes, the higher its value. So people who believe in and hold BTC will keep holding it and use other currencies for their consumption instead of paying with it - and this is the opposite of how to make it mainstream. You can believe this all you want, that doesn't make it true... reality actually proves quite the opposite thus far, but only time will tell. People continue to opt out of fiat and into bitcoin... I suspect many who understand this peaceful revolution will be DCA'ing until the day they die... But we aren't stupid, we won't just starve or freeze while stacking sats, if need be (like when my dollars won't buy me a loaf of bread) - i will spend sats. That circular economy hasn't really formed yet in privledged (blissfully ignorant) financial environments like the west, but if you pay any attention to the global south, it's happening. Look at the amount of BTC which hasn’t moved in a year. That’s not a good thing. To some one like yourself that may be the case... to me, I see it as a ever dwindling supply of a finite asset with an ever increasing demand. ESPECIALLY as people continue to realize their fiat money is definitively robbing them of their purchasing power and privacy (CBDCs looming) - More are/will discover bitcoin and stack a bit... The scarcity is unlikely anything our species has ever known... logically it makes the most sense that a tightening supply and gradually increasing demand will eventually result in increased bitcoin purchasing power and increased desire from the masses to stack... You think all the hodlers won't buy houses? cars? food? ... You think they won't start businesses or put their kids through school? The whole point of bitcoin is that we don't have to worry about money as much because it simply works... That we're not perpetually chasing yields, gambling on stock markets or unsustanbly cutting corners in every facet of human society to beat inflation. Bitcoiners are dreamers and doers ... we just want to save for the future rather than rob our future selves via fiat systems of generational debt slavery/strife... permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]HalfRick 2 points 10 hours ago You lack insight into the history of money. You seem to think you’re saying I’m wrong, yet you do nothing but confirm that I’m right. Perhaps you want to read what I wrote again? permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]godofleet 1 point 9 hours ago oh the irony... lmao permalink embed save parent report give award reply load more comments (4 replies) load more comments (6 replies) load more comments (1 reply) [+]Mintleaf007redditor for 3 months -6 points 14 hours ago lol deflation is good. literally buy more with less and you think thats bad. this post is about you. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]smallbluetext 9 points 13 hours ago With deflation you are rewarded for not spending. So if everyone buys and holds and never spends, what happens to the economy? permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]CardGameFanboy 7 points 13 hours ago Maybe we should all buy less and consume less useless products that destroy the planet. People will consume what is needed to survive and will choose better to consume useless stuff. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]Webonics 0 points 13 hours ago Maybe that's your opinion you fucking hippy. Maybe you shouldn't tell the entire world how to fucking live. permalink embed save parent report give award reply load more comments (2 replies) [–]Mintleaf007redditor for 3 months 3 points 13 hours ago it moves to necessities that people still have to purchase. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]smallbluetext 4 points 13 hours ago That would be catastrophic for the global economy permalink embed save parent report give award reply load more comments (6 replies) [–]Ok_Aerie3546 2 points 13 hours ago People die coz they kept holding money instead of buying food. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]cyxobcyxob 1 point 12 hours ago or maybe they die due to stupid economy model and greed of their govt that does not allow to get great medicine and food for cheap permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]Ok_Aerie3546 3 points 12 hours ago Dont worry. Once shit becomes free coz no ones buying it. Ill buy it all and feed the hungry everyday. permalink embed save parent report give award reply load more comments (1 reply) [–]RagingBullClimbing 1 point 13 hours ago So nobody buys new electronics because they can buy better things with less money later, right? permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]smallbluetext 1 point 12 hours ago The better ones don't exist right now, so they have no choice when they live in the present. If your currency is deflationary you know for a fact you are spending more now than you would be by waiting, regardless of what you're buying. That includes food. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]RagingBullClimbing 2 points 11 hours ago But people won't (can't really) wait to buy food because it's necessary for survival. We buy things either out of necessity or out of want. If you need it, waiting until it costs less isn't much of an option. If you want it enough, you'll buy it when the cost-benefit balance makes sense to you. And your argument missed my point. People buy the latest and greatest electronics (phones, computers, etc) because they want them now even though in a year they could get the exact same thing for significantly less money. The market for electronics is inherently deflationary. That doesn't stop people from spending money on them. permalink embed save parent report give award reply load more comments (1 reply) [–]notlarangi123[S] 0 points 13 hours ago That's why no one buys smartphones, they just have to wait two years and a better one comes out. Oh wait. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]smallbluetext 2 points 12 hours ago Terrible comparison. Why would I buy a smart phone with deflationary currency when not only will the phone be newer and better in the future, but my money will also be worth significantly more? With inflation your money will be worth less, so yes go ahead and buy it now. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]notlarangi123[S] 1 point 10 hours ago Well, because you need a phone, duh. permalink embed save parent report give award reply load more comments (1 reply) [–]nickystockboyredditor for 3 months 6 points 14 hours ago So you have zero understanding of economics and no desire to learn. Interesting. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]CunningCobraredditor for 5 weeks 1 point 13 hours ago And you make zero effort to teach. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]nickystockboyredditor for 3 months 1 point 13 hours ago That's right. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]Mintleaf007redditor for 3 months -2 points 14 hours ago if inflation is good then why not 10,000% inflation? venezuela seems to love it? permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]nickystockboyredditor for 3 months 3 points 14 hours ago Brilliant permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]Mintleaf007redditor for 3 months 2 points 13 hours ago well with 10,000% deflation you can retire after working for a year. with 10,000% inflation you can work your entire life and never afford a house. one of these things is not like the other. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]HalfRick 1 point 13 hours ago I don’t think you know how percentages work. permalink embed save parent report give award reply load more comments (8 replies) load more comments (5 replies) [–]HalfRick 1 point 13 hours ago If it’s good to drink a glass a water per day, why don’t you drink 10 000 glasses of water per day? permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]HalfRick 1 point 13 hours ago It incentivises hoarding rather than investing and consuming. Depending on your point of view, this could be good. Many who are against capitalism, want to abolish different types of production and so on would like this kind of world. Those who aim to be self sufficient. But for someone whose livelihood is dependent on the consumption society and capitalism in general, especially employees but also self employed, deflation is much, much worse than inflation as the decreased cash-flows has a direct impact on their possibility of making a living. Deflation also means that we would see salary cuts rather than salary increases. Because just as the salary increases today are often intended to balance out inflation, salary cuts would be used to balance out deflation. “We can buy more with less so it’s good” is about the shallowest analysis you can make with regards to deflation. permalink embed save parent report give award reply load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) [–]sztormwariat -3 points 14 hours ago inflation is by definiton an artificial increase to money supply. The whole term comes from baloon that appears bigger but lacks real substance. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]StreetPlenty8042 5 points 13 hours ago The average person doesn't care about changes to the money supply They care about changes to their purchasing power, which is more complicated than money supply changes. Money supply, environmental issues, politics, these all impact purchasing power. permalink embed save parent report give award reply load more comments (1 reply) [–]great_healthy_cook 3 points 13 hours ago No it's not, it's a decrease in purchasing power. Can be driven by shortages of resources or labour, supply chain issues, tariffs etc. permalink embed save parent report give award reply load more comments (1 reply) [+]TransientState1 -5 points 13 hours ago* Stop believing this Keynesian myth. Economics is not science- you cannot run two parallel experiments on the economy at the same time. So most economists cherry pick data to support their narrative. Especially Keynesians. First off, there are 3 kinds of inflation: Inflation of the money supply Inflation in goods and services (CPI) Inflation in assets (investing) Holding all things equal, inflation of type 1 will ALWAYS lead to inflation of type 2 and/or 3. This is simple logic: when the circulating money supply expands, that money has to go somewhere. It goes to 2, 3, or both which absorb the new money like a sponge. Here is why the "inflation discourages hoarding" theory is wrong. It's because in order to inflate, new money must first be printed. Who is printing that new money? Whoever it is, that entity is STEALING from the rest of us, they have gained $$$ just by printing. Google the Cantillon effect. So the logic is, in order to stop "hoarding", somebody has to STEAL from everyone else. How ridiculous is that???? Theft is ok???? Reminder that it's not the government that prints money. It is the Federal Reserve. Important distinction. permalink embed save parent report give award reply load more comments (4 replies) [–]Alascala8 6 points 13 hours ago 1990’s Japan would like a word with you permalink embed save parent report give award reply load more comments (1 reply) [–]Anchorman_1970redditor for 5 weeks 4 points 12 hours ago You cant save everyone permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]Thepopewearsplaid 1 point 11 hours ago I know Bitcoiners don't like to hear it, but a tiny little bit really is good for the economy. Do we need this bullshit we're on now? Absolutely fucking not, maybe like .1% or so is fine. Case in point, if it were up to me, I'd literally sit on my money, as I know it's safe and not losing value. I need it liquid for when I buy a house (also I'm traveling now, so need liquid cash for hotels, food, etc). But because of this nasty inflation, I have the vast majority of my money in safe investments with dividend payouts etc (for anyone reading, don't do this if you're under the age of retirement - my situation is a bit more unique). I'm stimulating the economy. What good would my money be if I had my way and it was sitting in a safe at home? I know it sucks, but a tiny little bit of inflation actually is good for the economy. Our inflation rate has been much too high both recently and historically, but it's not a bad thing if implemented correctly. That said, it is NOT being implemented correctly, and the federal reserve absolutely, without a doubt, needs to go... But inflation is not inherently bad. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]Explodicle 2 points 8 hours ago We don't like to hear it because it's the falsehood that Bitcoin was designed to remedy. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]notlarangi123[S] -1 points 14 hours ago The post is already on Buttcoin with people saying inflation is good lol. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]Zero_Effekt 6 points 13 hours ago They'll buy at the price they deserve. ;) permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]HurricaneHarvey7 4 points 13 hours ago I imagine they're already pissed off that Bitcoin is +40% on the year already permalink embed save parent report give award reply load more comments (1 reply) [–]Stompya 1 point 12 hours ago Actually, it does make sense. If your dollar will have more buying power next year, you will just sit on it. Inflation that’s too high is also bad, but if there is zero or negative inflation then people stop spending their money. Keep in mind that your government, especially conservative ones, represent business, not you. The story that healthy business benefits the workers is a story that benefits business too. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]mesmoothbrain 1 point 12 hours ago but.. we do?? it’s a very basic rule for currency. you guys can’t just make ur argument “no it doesn’t because we don’t want it to” permalink embed save parent report give award reply load more comments (4 replies) [–]madmax9186 3 points 14 hours ago* Note that this is (on average) <3% inflation. EDIT: To be sure, I mean annual inflation. permalink embed save report give award reply [–]looneytones8 2 points 11 hours ago Compounding inflation is a bitch permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]Umpire_State_Bldgredditor for 3 months 21 points 15 hours ago "Money printing," that is, inflating the fiat currency supply is a form of theft. Theft is wrong. When ultra-rich banking criminals get to legally steal from the poor, the elderly, the sick/disabled, and the middle class via "money printing" -- you know that their "banking system" is fucked up: it's a form of organized crime. Wake up, people. It is time for Bitcoin. permalink embed save report give award reply [–]bittercoin99 3 points 14 hours ago Good luck convincing people of that. They know they're being robbed, you can show them a chart of their purchasing power being eroded by debasement, but they just cannot accept that money is the heart of the problem. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]BuyRackTurk 10 points 14 hours ago but they just cannot accept that money is the heart of the problem. TBF its not easy. people grow up their whole lives measuring everything around them in dollars, and it gets stuck in your head that the dollar is some kind of fixed magic unit like inches or pounds or seconds. It takes quite a bit of awareness to realize that not only is the dollar fluctuating in value like mad, but that they dont really have a stable unit of value to compare things to because the central bank tries like hell to make that impossible. They dont want the people to have a stable sense of value because it would expose their theft, and the real cost of taxation, and pretty much the whole game would be up. They need everyone to be comfortably numb and blame their problems on abstract problems like "a bad economy" or "that political party" instead of seeing the real situation. permalink embed save parent report give award reply load more comments (1 reply) [–]StalkerBat 3 points 8 hours ago Good luck convincing people of that. there is no point in trying to convict them. When they will eat enough shit from govt that they will want to run to btc and embrace it - we will mee them permalink embed save parent report give award reply load more comments (1 reply) [–]Elite_Slacker 12 points 13 hours ago Winning a fictional argument in your head by posting pictures of crying cartoons to people that probably agree with you. permalink embed save report give award reply [–]Stew-Cee23 2 points 12 hours ago Inflation can work if wages consistently outpace it, but we have a large enough sample size to know that's a fantasy. permalink embed save report give award reply [–]Guyute18 2 points 11 hours ago Rooting against the dollar is also rooting against the US as the worlds main superpower. The dollar is what keeps the US in a position of power. The US government will do what they can to maintain that power until they can somehow harness the stronghold over digital currency. permalink embed save report give award reply [–]disignore 2 points 11 hours ago where can i find such thing said? I have yet to find someone saying that about inflation. permalink embed save report give award reply [–]IndubitablyBen 2 points 10 hours ago Ngl the buttcoiners are right on thisnone. Steady inflation is good. permalink embed save report give award reply [–]twaltemode 2 points 8 hours ago Some just have learnt that their beloved fiat is also having weaknesses and inflation is one of them permalink embed save report give award reply [–]ElderBlade 2 points 7 hours ago As a data person, I love how the 2nd chart has a title and labeled x axis along with a source at the bottom. That's proper visualization of data. It also sort of conveys the notion that no coiners don't verify what they're looking at. They just trust it on the surface. Bitcoiners, however, take the deep dive into the rabbit hole to understand the truth. permalink embed save report give award reply [–]misterbigtime 4 points 9 hours ago these memes fucking suck stop posting this shit permalink embed save report give award reply [–]Lucifers_Tits 2 points 8 hours ago hey guys check out this imaginary argument that I won permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]Altruistic-Use-1104 4 points 13 hours ago Banks control most property, and business, and education. IF the mighty Dollar dies, and banks don't accept Bitcoin, and they foreclose on everyone and everything, what value does Bitcoin hold? If you can't pay with it, or trade it for useless cash.. It will just be a messy string of numbers and codes. permalink embed save report give award reply [–]tombdweller 5 points 13 hours ago This must be the most stupid thing I've seen on this sub yet. Everyone here will celebrate when bitcoin value in dollars goes up, yet this comic presents the dollar value collapsing as somehow "le epic winn for bitcoin!!"? No one accepts payment in bitcoin, it's value is completely tied to the dollar. This must be a new level of economic illiteracy. permalink embed save report give award reply [–]215illmatic 6 points 11 hours ago More of a highly advanced coping strategy but yes. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]Webonics 4 points 13 hours ago This is fucking embarassing. permalink embed save report give award reply [–]TrueCryptoInvestor 2 points 14 hours ago The meltdown is real. permalink embed save report give award reply [–]ComputerTE1 2 points 14 hours ago 20 years from now US dollar would still be here permalink embed save report give award reply [–]chadman350 2 points 13 hours ago These people don’t actually exist right? permalink embed save report give award reply [–]ZEVSmusic 1 point 13 hours ago BENOTAWARE permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]Anchorman_1970redditor for 5 weeks 2 points 12 hours ago I like how the dude on the right with hair looks exactly like the kind of guy that would say some shit like that permalink embed save report give award reply [–]Magnock 2 points 15 hours ago I wonder what happened in the 30s must have been a time of great economic prosperity 🤔 permalink embed save report give award reply [–]notlarangi123[S] 7 points 14 hours ago People see 50% deflation after 90% inflation and say deflation is the problem ahah. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]CantDrinkSoWhatredditor for 1 week 1 point 14 hours ago Yes, when the value of every asset collapses, the value of fiat rises. We are concerned with the long-term, programmatic collapse of fiat. That function ain't going back up. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]ok46reddit -1 points 15 hours ago Bitcoin doesn't care about the purchasing power of fiat. permalink embed save report give award reply [–]TreborDeadward 2 points 14 hours ago Why would it, since Bitcoin isn’t used to purchase anything permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]xbsd 5 points 14 hours ago Bitcoin is widely used in many online and offline shops permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]thinkadrian 6 points 13 hours ago But none that normal people use. permalink embed save parent report give award reply load more comments (3 replies) [–]BuyRackTurk -3 points 14 hours ago Great call out. Commies economics are deeply self contradictory. permalink embed save report give award reply [–]mesmoothbrain 3 points 12 hours ago which of these are the commies? permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]BuyRackTurk 1 point 12 hours ago the ones who advocate for plank 5 of the communist manifesto: central banking. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]solotronics 0 points 13 hours ago Based. permalink embed save report give award reply [–]beaker38 1 point 14 hours ago unmasked permalink embed save report give award reply [–]Diuqil69 1 point 13 hours ago Compare purchasing power now with tax rates. permalink embed save report give award reply [–]Oglark 1 point 13 hours ago These dumbass memes are annoying. Just give me links to that cheap $500 BTC permalink embed save report give award reply [–]Jetjones 1 point 13 hours ago Well, that’s it - I’m off to Bitcointalk.org permalink embed save report give award reply [–]murram20 1 point 13 hours ago The uno-reverso card permalink embed save report give award reply [–]OfWhomIAmChief 1 point 13 hours ago Real. permalink embed save report give award reply [–]thinkadrian 1 point 12 hours ago So if bitcoin is losing value and the dollar is losing value, how does that make bitcoin better? Are you saying that X bitcoin = Y dollars? permalink embed save report give award reply [–]jaredearle 1 point 12 hours ago Don’t they realise that the purchasing power of Bitcoin is even worse as it’s valued relative to USD? 1btc at $20k is worth less than 1btc at $20k last year. permalink embed save report give award reply load more comments (1 reply) [–]Deus_Desuper 1 point 12 hours ago In order for this to be any relevance to real world, would for BTC purchasing power to be stable long enough to want to use it to buy anything. Right now I wouldn't buy anything with BTC, because in 2 weeks it might be worth double and I 'lost' that much buying power. Until then, and until you can buy everything with it, it's going to be used for investing, to be changed into fiat, to spend later permalink embed save report give award reply [–]uncontrollableop 1 point 12 hours ago "going" to zero? it already lost over 95% of its value. permalink embed save report give award reply [–]mnorkk 1 point 12 hours ago Zero what? Todays $1 bills or coins might not be worth $1 in the future but $1 will always be worth $1. permalink embed save report give award reply load more comments (1 reply) [–]FIZUK9 1 point 11 hours ago And you earn less of them on top of that permalink embed save report give award reply [–]ghostlyman789 1 point 11 hours ago It’s weird seeing people root for the downfall of the dollar. You’ve gotta realize that if the dollar fully crashes and becomes worthless, Bitcoin won’t be the automatic de facto currency. Sure 1 Bitcoin may be worth however many thousands or even millions at that point but if you can’t cash it for usable fiat or if you can’t actually spend the Bitcoin at major retailers… then what’s the point? Nothing changes the fact that we aren’t in the full adoption phase, that’s gonna take more time unfortunately. While I believe in Bitcoin it is pegged to fiat and needs it to be spendable at most places currently. permalink embed save report give award reply load more comments (1 reply) [–]iamvalleyjoe 1 point 11 hours ago 🤣👏👍 man that was a good one! Ha permalink embed save report give award reply

1 0

Cryptocurrency: Operation Choke Point - USA Slaughters "Securities" And Banking Paths
by grarpamp 10 Feb '23

10 Feb '23

This happened because crypto pussies spent years on their knees as apologists for the law, asking for permission and regulation to work within the law, instead of demanding the silly law become null. So they got what they asked for... fucked by the law, more accurately, by the same bunch of GovBankPols who've been fucking over you and the Freedom of Humanity for at least the last 110 years. So long as you remain Sheeple, you will never attain Freedom. Stop being fucking Sheeple. Operation Choke Point 2.0 Is Underway, And Crypto Is In Its Crosshairs Detailing the Biden Admin's coordinated, ongoing effort across virtually every US financial regulator to deny crypto firms access to banking services https://www.piratewires.com/p/crypto-choke-point https://twitter.com/nic__carter https://www.cei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Iain-Murray-Operation-Choke-… https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/politics/415478-operation-choke-poi… https://twitter.com/nic__carter/status/1622973966360133634/retweets/with_co… https://www.coindesk.com/business/2022/12/06/crypto-bank-silvergate-slides-… https://finance.yahoo.com/news/signature-bank-sbny-reduce-crypto-130301487.… https://www.fdic.gov/news/press-releases/2023/pr23002a.pdf https://investors.mcbankny.com/news-events/news/news-details/2023/Metropoli… https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-01-22/binance-says-signature-s… https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/orders20230127a.htm https://www.mayerbrown.com/en/perspectives-events/publications/2023/02/fede… https://www.whitehouse.gov/nec/briefing-room/2023/01/27/the-administrations… https://archive.is/fF2i3 https://www.coindesk.com/business/2023/02/06/crypto-exchange-binance-to-sus… https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/02/07/2023-02192/policy-stat… https://archive.is/jnxFx https://www.banktrack.org/article/three_banks_step_away_from_dakota_access_… https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/10/business/bank-of-america-guns.html https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1085380063112105984 https://www.cato.org/blog/racial-equity-beyond-feds-scope https://www.sec.gov/sec-response-climate-and-esg-risks-and-opportunities https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/other20230117a.htm https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/10/04/fac… https://www.forbes.com/sites/ericfan/2022/06/21/revolving-door-riches-how-o… https://www.piratewires.com/p/readable-twitter-files https://www.coindesk.com/twitter-trump-private-company-fallacy https://luetkemeyer.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=398946 https://www.occ.gov/news-issuances/news-releases/2021/nr-occ-2021-14.html https://www.piratewires.com/p/twitter-vs-the-cathedral https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-01-05/silvergate-tumbles-after… https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/12/14/sec-gensler-crypto-ftx/ https://twitter.com/jchervinsky/status/1622979885143662592 https://www.wsgr.com/en/insights/demystifying-the-banking-regulators-recent… https://archive.is/GeLLG Nic Carter The Biden Administration is quietly trying to ban crypto. Nic Carter explains in an explosive guest post for Pirate Wires. -Solana What began as a trickle is now a flood: the US government is using the banking sector to organize a sophisticated, widespread crackdown against the crypto industry. And the administration’s efforts are no secret: they’re expressed plainly in memos, regulatory guidance, and blog posts. However, the breadth of this plan — spanning virtually every financial regulator — as well as its highly coordinated nature, has even the most steely-eyed crypto veterans nervous that crypto businesses might end up completely unbanked, stablecoins may be stranded and unable to manage flows in and out of crypto, and exchanges might be shut off from the banking system entirely. Let’s dig in. For crypto firms, obtaining access to the onshore banking system has always been a challenge. Even today, crypto startups struggle mightily to get banks, and only a handful of boutiques serve them. This is why stablecoins like Tether found popularity early on: to facilitate fiat settlement where the rails of traditional banking were unavailable. However, in recent weeks, the intensity of efforts to ringfence the entire crypto space and isolate it from the traditional banking system have ratcheted up significantly. Specifically, the Biden administration is now executing what appears to be a coordinated plan that spans multiple agencies to discourage banks from dealing with crypto firms. It applies to both traditional banks who would serve crypto clients, and crypto-first firms aiming to get bank charters. It includes the administration itself, influential members of Congress, the Fed, the FDIC, the OCC, and the DoJ. Here’s a recap of notable events concerning banks and the policy establishment in recent weeks: On Dec. 6, Senators Elizabeth Warren, John Kennedy, and Roger Marshall send a letter to crypto-friendly bank Silvergate, scolding them for providing services to FTX and Alameda research, and lambasting them for failing to report suspicious activities associated with those clients On Dec. 7, Signature (among the most active banks serving crypto clients) announces its intent to halve deposits ascribed to crypto clients — in other words, they’ll give customers their money back, then shut down their accounts — drawing its crypto deposits down from $23b at peak to $10b, and to exit its stablecoin business On Jan. 3, the Fed, the FDIC, and the OCC release a joint statement on the risks to banks engaging with crypto, not explicitly banning banks’ ability to hold crypto or deal with crypto clients, but strongly discouraging them from doing so on a “safety and soundness” basis On Jan. 9, Metropolitan Commercial Bank (one of the few banks that serve crypto clients) announces a total shutdown of its cryptoasset-related vertical On Jan. 9, Silvergate stock falls to a low of $11.55 on bank run and insolvency fears, having traded as high as $160 in March 2022 On Jan. 21, Binance announces that due to policy at Signature bank, they will only process user fiat transactions worth more than $100,000 On Jan. 27, the Federal Reserve denies crypto bank Custodia’s two-year application to become a member of the Federal Reserve system, citing “safety and soundness” risks On Jan. 27, the Kansas City Fed branch denies Custodia’s application for a master account, which would have given it the ability to use wholesale payment services, and to hold reserves with the Fed directly On Jan. 27, the Fed also issues a policy statement which discourages banks from holding cryptoassets or issuing stablecoins, and broadens their authority to cover non-FDIC insured state-chartered banks (a reaction to Wyoming Special Purpose Depository Institutions (SPDIs) like Custodia, which can hold crypto alongside fiat for its banking customers) On Jan. 27, the National Economic Council releases a policy statement not explicitly banning banks from serving crypto clients, but strongly discouraging banks from transacting with cryptoassets directly or maintaining exposure to crypto depositors On Feb. 2, the DoJ’s fraud unit announces an investigation into Silvergate over their dealings with FTX and Alameda On Feb. 6, Binance suspends USD bank transfers for retail clients (Binance US was not affected) On Feb. 7, the Jan. 27 Fed statement is entered into the federal register, turning the policy statement into a final rule, with no Congressional review, or public notice-and-comment period As of Feb. 8, Protego and Paxos’ applications to follow Anchorage and obtain full approval to become National Trust Banks are still outstanding (past the 18 month deadline), and appear likely to be imminently denied by the OCC In sum, banks taking deposits from crypto clients, issuing stablecoins, engaging in crypto custody, or seeking to hold crypto as principal have faced nothing short of an onslaught from regulators in recent weeks. Time and again, using the expression “safety and soundness,” they’ve made it clear that for a bank, touching public blockchains in any way is considered unacceptably risky. While neither the Fed/ FDIC/ OCC statement — nor the NEC statement a few weeks later — explicitly ban banks from servicing crypto clients, the writing is on the wall, and the investigations into Silvergate are a strong deterrent to any bank considering aligning itself with crypto. What is clear now is that issuing stablecoins or transacting on public blockchains (where they could circulate freely, like cash) is highly discouraged, or effectively prohibited. It is equally evident that a bank-issued fiat token would only be acceptable to regulators if it were domiciled on a surveilled, private blockchain. No ‘unhosted’ wallets allowed. 1 And perhaps most damagingly, the Fed’s devastating denial of Wyoming SPDI bank Custodia, as well as their policy statement, effectively ends any hopes that a state-chartered crypto bank might get access to the Federal Reserve system without submitting to FDIC oversight. Why might crypto entrepreneurs be wary of the FDIC? It traces back to Operation Choke Point. Some in the crypto space believe that the recent attempts to ringfence the crypto industry and cut off its connectivity to the banking system are reminiscent of this little-known Obama-era program. Beginning in 2013, Choke Point was a scheme which sought to marginalize specific industries operating legally — not through lawmaking, but by applying pressure via the banking sector. The Obama DoJ had already cut its teeth with its successful effort to sideline the online poker space in 2011 and 2012 with threats issued to banks supporting poker companies. With Choke Point, the Department decided to scale up its efforts and target other industries, starting with uncontroversial targets like payday lenders. Then, the DoJ coordinated with the FDIC and OCC to pressure member banks to “redline” — determine as too risky to do business with — certain legal but politically disfavored sectors, chief among them firearms manufacturers and adult entertainment 2 . Banks and payment processors internalized this guidance, and even after the program was formally shuttered under Trump in 2017, its shadow lingered. Today, banks simply ascribe a higher risk to activities that they suspect might draw the government’s ire, even if no specific guidance exists. Since Choke Point nominally ended, using financial rails as an extra-judicial political cudgel has only become more popular. Under pressure, a number of banks walked away from the Dakota Access Pipeline in 2017. In 2018, Bank of America and Citigroup deplatformed firearms companies, and BoA began to report client firearm purchases to the federal government. In 2019, AOC announced her intent to marginalize private prisons through her seat on the House Financial Services Committee. Financial regulators are being asked to advance progressive causes, too. In 2021, the Democratic House passed the “Federal Reserve Racial and Economic Equity Act,” which would have required the Fed to aim to “eliminate disparities across racial and ethnic groups with respect to employment, income, wealth, and access to affordable credit.” Gensler’s SEC now maintains a controversial climate agenda, as does the Fed (at smaller scale). Kamala Harris has deputized banks to advance a racial equity agenda, effectively imposing uneven demographic standards for credit provision. Today it’s even commonplace for explicitly conservative organizations like Gab or Parler, and various malcontents and dissidents who fall afoul of regime politics, to find themselves deplatformed from banks, fintech, and payment processors that they rely on to do business. For those who support this, I would invite you to imagine what financial inclusion (or exclusion) under a similarly zealous DeSantis administration might look like. “Just build your own bank,” right? Well, not if the Fed has anything to say about it. As evident with the stillborn Wyoming SPDI, the crypto industry tried that path and was utterly stymied. Banks are highly regulated public-private partnerships in an environment where new charters are excruciatingly hard to obtain, and as such remain de facto arms of the state. It has been and remains trivial to deputize them to carry out political objectives. If there was any doubt, it’s now evident that the Obama administration and its successor in Biden’s regime are comfortable circumventing the First Amendment by engaging nominally private companies to do their dirty work. Anyone paying remote attention would have noticed the oddly close revolving door between monopolistic big tech firms and Obama/ Biden security state officials. And ever since Elon Musk leaked the Twitter Files, it’s nakedly clear that the US government and its security apparatus used proxies at Twitter for overt censorship and narrative control. Twitter is “just a private company,” though, right? In 2017, Trump and Republican lawmakers like Rep. Luetkemeyer were able to put a stop to Choke Point for a time, but it didn’t last. One of the first moves from Biden’s OCC was to undo Brian Brook’s Fair Access rule that prohibited political discrimination in banking. Biden’s deputies picked up where Obama’s regulators had left off. And now, after the time it took to digest Biden’s Executive Orders, regulators are tightening the screw. Today, the outlook for banks remotely interested in crypto is precarious. Bankers tell me that crypto is toxic and the risks of engaging with the asset class aren’t worth it. In the wake of the Custodia decision, obtaining a new charter for a crypto bank looks extremely unlikely. Banking innovations at the state level, like Wyoming’s SPDI for crypto banks, appear dead in the water. Federal Charters for crypto firms with the OCC also look dead in the water. Traders, liquid funds, and businesses with crypto working capital are nervously examining their stablecoin portfolios and fiat access points, wondering if bank connectivity might be severed with little notice. Privately, entrepreneurs and CEOs in crypto tell me that they sense a regulatory noose tightening. As crypto-facing banks ‘derisk,’ younger and smaller firms will struggle to get banking, taking us back to the 2014 to 2016 period when fiat access for crypto businesses was at an extreme premium. Exchanges and other businesses that rely on fiat onramps are concerned that their few remaining bank partners will shut them off or institute draconian standards for scrutiny. As a venture capitalist operating at the early stage, I am directly witnessing the chilling effects of this policy in action. Founders are reckoning with new uncertainties around whether they’ll be able to operate their businesses at all. So why the push by bank regulators now? The FTX collapse and its ensuing effects, particularly on Silvergate, provides much of the answer. Financial regulators weren’t interested in FTX while the fraud was underway (with the exception of the SEC and its chairman Gensler, who had oddly close ties to the organization), but ever since the exchange failed in spectacular fashion, they are now contemplating ways to avoid the next such collapse. FTX as an offshore exchange was not directly supervised by financial regulators (aside from FTX US, which was a marginal stub), so it was outside of their direct aegis. However, regulators believe that they might have a silver bullet in the fiat on- and off-ramps on which the industry relies. If they can choke off fiat access, they can marginalize the industry — on and off shore — without regulating it directly. In some key respects, Crypto Choke Point 2.0 differs from the original. It appears that the administration has learned from the efforts of its predecessors. In Choke Point 1.0, guidance was mainly informal and involved backdoor, off-the-record conversations. Its main tool was the threat of investigation from the DoJ and FDIC if financial institutions didn’t internalize the administration’s risk standards. Because this was patently unconstitutional, it gave Republicans the collateral to ultimately repeal the program. In 2.0, everything is happening in plain sight, in the form of rulemaking, written guidance, and blogs. The current crypto crackdown is being sold as a “safety and soundness” issue for banks, and not merely a reputational risk issue. Jake Chervinsky of the Blockchain Association calls it “regulation by blog post.” No need to ask Congress for new laws if federal regulators can simply make policy (and in the case of the Fed, grow their scope and mandate) by publishing guidance which dissuades banks from doing business with crypto. Custodia’s Caitlin Long calls the Fed denial of her application “shooting the stallion to scatter the herd.” As a consequence, the only banks willing to touch crypto at this point are smaller, less risk-averse ones, with more to gain from banking the industry. However, this means that crypto deposits and flows end up being substantial relative to their core business, which introduces concentration risks. Banks prefer not to have excessive exposure to single counterparties, or a depository base that is highly correlated in its flows. Silvergate felt this acutely with the bank run it suffered — and survived — post FTX. While it’s impressive that they were able to honor a 70% drawdown in their depository base, that episode will dissuade any banks looking to serve crypto clients that might face the same. And practically speaking, labeling crypto-facing banks “high risk” has four direct effects: it gives them a higher premium with the FDIC, they face a lower cap rate with the Fed (which inhibits their ability to overdraw), they face restrictions on other business activities, and management risks a poor examination score with their regulatory supervisors, which inhibits their ability to do M&A. So while some analysts like Wilson Sonsini’s Jess Cheng have pointed out, somewhat optimistically, that banks are not explicitly barred from providing crypto custody or onboarding crypto clients, they still stand to get labeled high risk — and face serious business hurdles as a result. Some might be sympathetic to regulators’ attempts to insulate the banking system from the vicissitudes of the crypto space. But thus far, crypto’s various disasters haven’t produced any meaningful contagion. The industry had a full-blown credit crisis in 2022, with virtually every major lender going bankrupt, but the damage was contained. The worst fallout in the banking space was suffered by Silvergate, which suffered an $8b drawdown, but survived. No onshore, fiat-backed stablecoin suffered any meaningful adverse effects, despite the massive crypto selloff in 2021 and 2022. They functioned as intended. And no contagion spilled into traditional finance via mass selling of Treasuries, something officials have historically felt might be a key transmission channel. As Biden enters the second half of his term, his crackdown on crypto banking has deflated hopes for a regulatory rapprochement in the US. Many crypto entrepreneurs now tell me that they’re waiting for 2025 and a putative DeSantis regime for things to turn. Some can’t wait that long, and are shuttering their plans for businesses which involve any type of regulatory approval, especially with regards to bank charters. Regulators are effectively picking winners — with larger, more established crypto firms able to hang on to their bank relationships, while newer ones are shut out. Meanwhile, other jurisdictions are making a bid for their business. Hong Kong has adopted a friendlier tone once again, as has the UK. The UAE and the Saudis are looking to attract crypto firms. And US regulators can scarcely afford to forget what happened with FTX, in which they curtailed the business activities of onshore exchanges, effectively pushing US individuals into the waiting claws of SBF. If bank regulators continue their pressure campaign, they risk not only losing control of the crypto industry, but ironically increasing risk, by pushing activity to less sophisticated jurisdictions, less able to manage genuine risks that may emerge. -Nic Carter Author’s note: Thanks to Austin Campbell for his feedback on this story. Image: Public domain 1 If you’re wondering how using a stablecoin on-chain is substantively different from a bank letting clients withdraw cash from an ATM and using it to buy something from someone else, you’re not alone. 2 The FDIC at one point listed 30 different industries for banks to avoid.

1 6

Cryptocurrency: Bitfinex Tether USDT Exposed
by grarpamp 10 Feb '23

10 Feb '23

https://bitfinexed.medium.com/the-audio-recordings-bitfinex-doesnt-want-you… https://twitter.com/Bitfinexed/status/1494852525215920130 It’s because of youtube-dl that we have the audio recordings of Bitfinex executive admitting to bank fraud https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0E35oMQcCLU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62cvxPIDBGY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BA8iO_Umt6Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C59NXSaHBtU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DcIed4A8NIM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ud4V__nADA0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4smUyYEsAE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XYJUbNPJFcg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZR0NCwy7yeo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xiXP8HsRUw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nuM6QaYmot4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skuo1TmTtjU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrzeRCiPYcI Bitfinex’ed Bitfinex’ed Feb 7, 2018 · 3 min read The Audio Recordings Bitfinex doesn’t want you to hear. Bitfinex is mad because I actually took the effort to listen to all of their available recordings of their public chat channels. They know these channels can be recorded. They are public. Anyone can go onto them and listen to them. They even stream it on YouTube. In some cases, the principals behind Tether and Bitfinex make some startling admissions, including admitting to what I consider to be bank fraud, money laundering, and even admitting that they even considered doing fraud… but then say they totally didn’t. Here are those recordings. You should save these immediately and repost them to as many places as possible. None of these recordings were obtained illegally. Whalepool has taken great effort to delete their copies of these recordings, and unfortunately for them, I already got them and re-shared them. Starting from the very beginning: Phil Potter, Bitfinex/Tether executive admits to playing shell games with banks Whalepool deleted the source of this recording almost immediately. We have it available for us to hear because I have been on top of them. Phil Potter, Bitfinex/Tether executive admits to trading on his own exchange. They could be frontrunning their own customers. Tries to explain how he doesn’t trade he just buy’s and sells… uh… huh? Phil Potter, Bitfinex/Tether executive is asked who is in charge of Bitfinex. For some reason this question sends him into a panic. Phil Potter, Bitfinex/Tether executive admits that their plan was to pay off Bitfinex tokens with Tethers. Admits that Bitfinex owns Tether. Phil Potter, Bitfinex/Tether executive admits that he knew that the lawsuit against Wells Fargo was nonsense and that Wells Fargo had a right to deny the transactions. The goal was to get a temporary injunction to buy time. After Bitfinex/Tether lost banking, anytime someone asked about Tether ties to Bitfinex, Phil Potter denied a relationship. Paradise Papers proved there was. This is Phil Potter contradicting himself. Giancarlo Devasini, the Chief Financial Officer of Bitfinex/Tether admitting he seriously thought of pushing wash trades through the system, then says he totally didn’t. This was recorded before they lost banking and were desperate. The CEO of Bitfinex, is not really in charge. The Chief Financial Officer of Bitfinex admits that he is the primary decision maker, and that Phil Potter is his partner. I believe the CEO is simply a nominee CEO, like a nominee director for their shell/shelf corporations that they use for banking. Giancarlo Devasini, Chief Financial Officer of Bitfinex/Tether admits to some sketchy math they used to ‘repay’ the BFX tokens. Essentially, they told people they could get their money back quicker by converting to equity, then selling shares to another shareholder. This is called a ponzi scheme. Giancarlo Devasini, Chief Financial Officer of Bitfinex/Tether admits they trade on multiple exchanges, meaning they could be manipulating multiple books and not just Bitfinex. A whalepool ‘institutional’ customer claiming he buys Tethers for money, yet afraid to describe how the process works. Also forgets just because he bought Tethers with real money, doesn’t mean all Tethers are being bought with real money. Phil Potter, Bitfinex/Tether executive admits that wash trading is happening on Bitfinex. Makes no effort to establish if wash trading isn’t allowed, quite the contrary, claims there are reasons to ‘wash trade’. And lastly, Phil Potter admitting they will list coins even they consider to be scams. Because nothing says a legitimate exchange like the Chief Strategy Officer listing tokens which he considers to be scams in order to profit from the scams themselves. Save these recordings, because chances are they want them out of the limelight. It is irrefutable proof of fraudulent activity on their exchange. The source for all of these audio clips is from Whalepool’s Teamspeak channel. Whalepool is staffed by Bitfinex shareholders. They have repeatedly deleted videos from their channel that contain these type of audio clips and continue to chant that “YOU HAVE NO PROOF”. I have proof. I have their own voices admitting to fraudulent behavior. I’m not going to be silenced. Trade carefully. -Bitfinex’ed Bitcoin Bitfinex Fraud Financial -- More from Bitfinex’ed Blog for @Bitfinexed on Twitter. Exposing possible fraud by largest Bitcoin exchange, Bitfinex/Tether AboutHelpTermsPrivacy Get unlimited access Bitfinex’ed Bitfinex’ed 10.2K Followers Blog for @Bitfinexed on Twitter. Exposing possible fraud by largest Bitcoin exchange, Bitfinex/Tether Help Status Writers Blog Careers Privacy Terms About Text to speech

1 1