- cypherpunks - lists.cpunks.org

Re: [tor-relays] PSA: Tor 0.4.5 reaches end of life (EOL) on 2023-02-15
by grarpamp 23 May '23

23 May '23

On 1/23/23, Georg Koppen <gk(a)torproject.org> wrote: > the 0.4.5 series is going EOL There are multiple good reasons NOT to do this arbitrary thing. Is the Tor Project Incorporated (TPI) ever going to unbrick all its comms channels so that users and everyone else can freely see and talk about such tor things and more, or will TPI continue to mass censor tor threads, including this one, off all its fora. "Tor Stinks -- NSA, vulns known since before 2012" Fuck your cowardly censorship. And stop putting tor users at risk.

2 2

RE-RANKING THE FINTECH LOGOS
by Gunnar Larson 22 May '23

22 May '23

Check out this link for a cool ranking of 'fintech' logos! https://workweek.com/2023/05/22/re-ranking-the-fintech-logos/ 22 MAY 2023 | FINTECH RE-RANKING THE FINTECH LOGOS BY ALEX JOHNSON Last summer, I published a ranking of the 25 best fintech logos. I was on vacation that week, and I was just looking for something light and fun to run while I was out. Little did I know that the rankings would generate more controversy, by far, than anything I’ve ever published. Founders and marketers with logos that were ranked low (or not at all) got MAD. Founders and marketers with logos that were ranked highly acted like they’d won an Academy Award. It was honestly bizarre. And I learned two things – rankings evoke strong feelings (regardless of how silly or obviously subjective they are), and logos are founders’ babies (and implying that anyone’s baby isn’t perfectly beautiful is a dangerous thing to do). I’m out on vacation again (well, not vacation precisely, but you get what I mean), so we’re doing this once more, but with a twist. I have asked my Workweek colleague Ari Murray to re-rank the fintech logos. If you don’t know who Ari is, you’re missing out. She is the VP of Growth at Sharma Brands and the author of the fabulous newsletter Go-To-Millions. She has extensive experience as a GTM operator, launching and growing some of the biggest brands in the world. She has great taste. And, perhaps most importantly, she has a healthy indifference towards fintech. She’s the perfect person for this job. A couple of quick reminders before I hand it over to Ari: This list is silly and entirely subjective. It is not meant to be taken seriously. Don’t get mad! We truly believe, here at Fintech Takes, that every baby is beautiful. This ranking is not a commentary on the companies themselves. Terrible companies can have magnificent logos and vice versa. This is mostly a re-ranking of the 30 logos I originally ranked (the 25 best + 5 honorable mentions). There are a few newcomers and a few logos that got bumped. Don’t read anything into this. For each logo, I asked Ari to guess what the company does, based solely on the logo. She knew a few of them, but mostly she guessed, and her guesses are hilarious. OK, deep breath, here we go! Honorable Mentions #32: Chime What do you think? I f’ing hate this logo. My least favorite thing on this planet is when a company uses the trademark icon within every lock up of their logo. Chime, with peace and love, we’re not ripping you off, and you do not need to protect this logo with such vigilance. What do they do? Based on the logo, chime sends investment reminders. IDK. I can’t tell at all – probably distracted by the weird m and the trademark. #31: Lili What do you think? The blue is hurting my eyes. Holy HEX CODE. It also looks like a free Adobe Font or the logo of a suburban boutique. What do they do? Based on the logo, Lili is for the investing novice. Investing made uncomplicated. #30: MoneyLion What do you think? TwoWord logos with no spaces and a capitalized first letter are never going to rank highly with me. Also, minus points for the trademark symbol. I do like the little lion. And I like the colors. Still not happy with this. What do they do? Based on the logo, I think this is international market tracking? #29: Plaid What do you think? Ouch, my eyes. I look at the symbol lockup more than I read the name of the company. That’s dumb. PLAID is too small. The symbol is too big. There are too many lines. And I have no idea what this company does – the name and the symbol really aren’t helping. What do they do? Based on the logo, PLAID is a Fintech company, lol? #28: Spinwheel What do you think? 1 too many colors. There is entirely too much going on, don’t you think? What do they do? Based on the logo, I think this is somehow on the blockchain – the NFT side lol. #27: Remitly What do you think? Could this be any less fun? The handshake feels more like a grip than a shake. I absolutely hate this. Like the blue though. What do they do? Based on the logo, this is refinancing but somehow modernized? #26: Alloy What do you think? Powerful font. Powerful use of ALL CAPS. The extra lines in the icon are slightly overwhelming (but I’m easily overwhelmed, so take that with a grain of salt). What do they do? Based on the logo, this is HR related. Cool HR. The Top 25 #25: Moov What do you think? This logo reminds me of Oatly. I am sure that is NOT what they were going for. I also read it as moo-v. Like I just moo’d as I said that. What do they do? Based on the logo, this is a VC that invests in ranching. #24: Zeta What do you think? Not to be mean, but this looks pre-rebrand. The colors are nice, as is the name, but the symbol triggers WordArt memories for me. What do they do? Based on the logo, I’m going to guess retirement planning is somehow involved. #23: Sardine What do you think? This couldn’t be more literal. Sardines are also polarizing. So, bold choice. The fish symbol leans into the whole schtick a little too hard, no? What do they do? Based on the logo, this is related to the food industry in some way which I don’t know how that ties into Fintech, but why is this so fish-oriented otherwise? #22: Current What do you think? Feels fancy, but somehow I know it isn’t. It’s trying hard. I hope it is called current – I’m reading it as current, but parts of the letters have been hacked away, so hard to say. What do they do? Based on the logo, this is somehow tracking the stock market in real time? #21: Public.com What do you think? .com is always hard for me. I use public.com – but I use their mobile app. So, I absolutely hate the name and therefore hate the logo because I don’t use the .com version, and so it feels stupid. The font is clean, but the symbol makes no sense to me – 2 circles. I also use this, and it makes no sense. What do they do? public.com is easy (fool-proof) investing for the newbie (me). #20: Aspiration What do you think? This is trying too hard. Every letter except for the s is working overtime. I like the i’s, though. What do they do? Based on the logo, this is somehow at the intersection of fintech and the medical industry. #19: Copilot What do you think? Clean. Predictable. Pleasant. We’re not winning any design competitions, but we’re not losing any fans, either. What do they do? Based on the logo, I’d guess we were a fund of some sort. #18: SoFi What do you think? I do not like such a muted grey with such a bright blue – I’d prefer a black instead of the grey. The font is again a little skinny, I’d like to give it a snack. What do they do? SoFi is combined finances, so you can just use one app. #17: Sundae What do you think? Marching to its own drum! LOVE LOVE LOVE THE FONT. Really different than all 32 other options. A happy logo. That said, no idea what this is – no indication that this is related to fintech, and doesn’t feel “serious” enough. What do they do? Based on the logo, this is tied into design in some way – I have no idea. UGH. THIS IS HARD!!! #16: Hummingbird What do you think? I can’t think of one thing bad to say. Or one thing nice. I feel entirely neutral. Maybe the bird could look a little more friendly? I think if it were chunkier, I’d feel better about it. What do they do? Based on the logo, I’d guess this was a high-yield savings account. #15: Wise What do you think? (Editor’s note – Wise changed their logo fairly recently, so Ari got to compare the previous version to the new one. She moved it up 8 spots!) I still have absolutely no idea what they do. I really love the chance they made to the S. The color helps big time, but the S absolutely SINGS. The previous S was snake inspired, which can’t be good for $. What do they do? Based on the logo, this is long-term retirement planning related. #14: Column Tax What do you think? I want to delete out like 10 pixels between these words + the symbol. Column Tax would be so much more lovely than Column Tax. What do they do? Based on the logo, this is tax related. I know I’m supposed to guess these in more detail, but I genuinely have zero idea, which I’m sure you can tell. Sigh. #13: AngelList What do you think? The best name, but could use a space in-between the words, but can’t go back and rename the company, now can we? The peace sign feels random – if we’re going for a cheesy symbol, use angel wings? What do they do? AngelList is angel investing – a place for deal sheets, wired money, quarterly updates, tax forms, and tracking your portfolio. I know I clearly don’t know a ton about fintech, but I do know a lot about tech tech and am a proud angel! #12: Albert What do you think? THIS HAS TO BE AI RELATED. The little bow tie to make Albert seem like a real (non-robot) type of thing. What do they do? Based on the logo, this is AI-powered investing. #11: Pinwheel What do you think? I like this more than I should. It’s pretty simple – but that blue HEX is somehow friendly. The name is also fab. I genuinely have ZERO IDEA WHAT THIS DOES THOUGH. The logo and the name aren’t teaching me, but that’s okay because look at that BLUE! 😍 What do they do? Based on the logo, I think this is a high-yield savings account. #10: Human Interest What do you think? Love the navy instead of black. the little play on the i is fun (for fintech, lol). What do they do? Based on the logo, I think this is 401K / HR vibes. #9: Nova Credit What do you think? The colors work nicely together. Grey and navy aren’t coupled enough. The ALL CAPS are also nice. The font is too skinny for me, but hey, I’m picky. What do they do? Based on the logo, I’d guess this was cloud-based home loans (whatever that means). #8: Square What do you think? The name is perfect. The logo makes sense. Are we rocking the boat? No. Is it crisp and clean, and do I use it daily? Yes. I’m an ecomm girl – you can’t sneak Square past me! Minus points for no use of color. What do they do? I know what this is; it’s invoicing meets POS meets a small business’s best friend. #7: Ramp What do you think? BEST FONT OF THE DAY. The symbol is a touch too literal, but better than the other way around. I love the font – have I mentioned that? What do they do? This is a business credit card. #6: Acorns What do you think? what a font!!! what a cute little acorn! i like the color, but can’t stare at it for too long. notice the lowercase i’m using? trying to respect their taste! What do they do? based on the logo, i think this is a venture fund. #5: Robinhood What do you think? I LOVE THE SYMBOL. The feature reminds me of the Robin Hood we all grew up with – who steals from the rich. This doesn’t feel rich, which maybe is the point? The shade of green is hard to look at – but that feels unpretentious somehow, so I get it. What do they do? Robinhood is easy-to-use investing – the cooler public.com. #4: Jeeves What do you think? I AM IN LOVE WITH THE FONT. Feels very different than everything else and stands out in a powerful way. Really happy with this. ZERO IDEA WHAT IT IS. BUT I LIKE. What do they do? Based on the logo, this is international investing, where you hold multiple currencies. #3: Block What do you think? This is fun! Big sucker for an animation over here. I absolutely love the colors. I don’t have any complaints. Shocking, I know, lol. What do they do? Based on the logo, this is fancy investment insurance that protects your investments. LOOKS RICH. #2: Klarna What do you think? I LOVE IT. But not for the reasons you might think (this isn’t my shade of pink, thank you very much). I love it because, on a PDP (product detail page) on websites, this sticks out in a GREAT WAY. It’s a badge that is super easy to spot, and split-payment options are so important for conversion. The period at the end is a little try-hard, but again, I’m a big fan. What do they do? Klarna is split-payment and has cornered a lot of the ecomm fashion market. #1: Petal What do you think? CUTE!!! 5 colors, and I’m not overwhelmed. All are so pleasant. I am also thrilled that the P in Petal is capitalized – we’re not trying too hard, and it shows! What do they do? Based on the logo, this is a crypto wallet.

1 0

Bored Ape Yacht Club Unregistered Trade Marks Effective Against Copycat NFTs In Californian Summary Judgment - Trademark - UK
by Gunnar Larson 22 May '23

22 May '23

https://www.mondaq.com/uk/trademark/1316138/bored-ape-yacht-club-unregister… In a significant decision for NFT content owners worldwide, the producers of the Bored Aped Yacht Club NFT collection, Yuga, have successfully used unregistered trade mark rights and claims of false designation of origin under the US Lanham Act (as well as domain name squatting claims) to obtain a summary judgment against individual defendants who had created an NFT collection pointing to, that is, reusing, Yuga's Bored Ape Yacht Club (BAYC) images (Yuga Labs, Inc. -v- Ripps, et al. 21 April 2023, CV 22-4355-JFW(JEMx), US District Court, Central District of California). This case follows the recent decision of the New York court (in the Meta-Birkin case) and the Rome court (in the Juventus case) to allow the use of registered trade mark rights to prevent others using brand names in relation to NFTs. Read more about these decisions and NFTs in general in our series The IP in NFTs. Background Yuga is the creator of BAYC, one of the world's most well-known and successful Non-Fungible Token (NFT) collections. Yuga states that BAYC NFTs often resell for upwards of hundreds of thousands of dollars, and that prominent celebrities are holders of BAYC NFTs. Yuga maintains that much of the BAYC NFT collection's value arises from their rarity because only 10,000 BAYC NFTs exist and each is entirely unique. Yuga noted that it owns no registered trade marks covering the BAYC collection, but claimed that it owns several unregistered trade marks, including "BORED APE YACHT CLUB," "BAYC," "BORED APE," the BAYC Logo, the BAYC BORED APE YACHT CLUB Logo, and the Ape Skull Logo (BAYC trade marks). Yuga said that it has used these marks since around April 2021 in connection with advertising, marketing, and promotion of its products and services nationwide and internationally through multiple platforms, including the BAYC website, NFT markets such as OpenSea, and social media platforms, such as Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter. The first defendant Ripps is a visual artist and creative designer whose works comment on what is described as the boundaries between art, the internet and commerce. From around November 2021, Ripps began criticising Yuga and the BAYC collection through his Twitter and Instagram profiles, podcasts, and cooperation with investigative journalists. Fundamental to this case, in around May 2022, Ripps, along with another, created their own NFT collection, known as the Ryder Ripps Bored Ape Yacht (RR/BAYC). The defendants' NFT collection was being promoted under the branding "Ryder Ripps Bored Ape Yacht Club" and pointed to the same online digital images as Yuga's BAYC NFT collection but used verifiably unique entries on the Ethereum blockchain. The defendants contended that this RR/BAYC collection served several purposes, including bringing attention to their criticisms of Yuga, creating social pressure demanding that Yuga take responsibility for its actions, and educating the public about the technical nature and utility of NFTs. False designation of origin and trade mark use and infringement Yuga succeeded in claims of "false designation of origin" under the Lanham Act which "prohibits the use of false designations of origin, false descriptions, and false representations in the advertising and sale of goods and services" as well as in its claims of infringement of its unregistered trade mark rights. In order to succeed under false designation of origin under the Lanham Act, "a claimant must demonstrate that: (1) it has a protectable ownership interest in the mark; and (2) the defendant's use of the mark is likely to cause consumer confusion." The defendants argued that Yuga did not own any trade mark rights in the BAYC trade marks because NFTs are intangible and as a result are ineligible for trade mark protection (not being "goods" as such). However, the California court agreed with the New York court's conclusions in the Hermes v Rothschild (Meta-Birkin) case earlier this year (see our report here) quoting the court in that case and confirming that "goods [need not] be tangible for the Lanham Act to attach". The defendants also argued that even if the NFTs were "tangible goods", Yuga could not fulfil the requirement for the marks to be used in commerce to have trade mark status. The court concluded that Yuga had used the marks "in commerce", at least because it sold 10,000 BAYC NFTs. Indeed the defendants' stated aim of producing their NFT collection, to draw attention to their perceived criticisms of Yuga, would not have been necessary had Yuga not already established significant brand recognition and goodwill from the use of the BAYC marks in commerce. The court also found that the purported licence given by Yuga to holders of its BAYC NFTs was a copyright licence only, and did not purport to confer any rights in the unregistered trade marks. Accordingly, the defendants' argument that Yuga had transferred or abandoned their trade mark rights could not succeed. Finally, the Court found that the defendants' use was likely to cause confusion. The court agreed that the Yuga marks were conceptually and commercially strong and therefore it was more likely for there to be confusion when they were used by the defendants, and in any case the marks being used by the defendants were almost identical as were the goods in relation to which the marks were being used. There was also actual evidence of confusion presented but the court felt it was not necessary to consider it, as the other factors weighed so heavily towards a finding of confusion. The damages to be awarded will be decided at trial. Defences In defence, the defendants' argued that their RR/BAYC collection is an expressive work protected under the First Amendment (the Rogers test) and/or that the affirmative defence of nominative fair use applied, because the collection was intended to be a commentary on BAYC and Yuga. The court swiftly dismissed these arguments, finding that the defendants' sale of RR/BAYC is "no more artistic than the sale of a counterfeit handbag" and so the Rogers test did not apply – in addition, fair use was not applicable because the defendants used the BAYC marks to sell and promote their own product, RR/BAYC, and not to critique the BAYC marks themselves. Cyber-squatting Yuga also raised a cause of action under cyber-squatting. The defendants had registered and used the domain names https://rrbayc.com/ and https://apemarket.com/. To succeed in the cyber-squatting claim, Yuga needed to establish that the domain names were identical or confusingly similar to their trade marks and had been registered with a bad faith intent to profit from their use of Yuga's marks. The court concluded that incorporating Yuga's marks into the domain name established this – rrbayc.com incorporating the BAYC mark and, perhaps more generously, apemarket.com incorporating Yuga's BORED APE mark and "other APE-based marks and merely adds the descriptive word market". The defendants were also found to have registered domain names in bad faith with an intent to profit. Accordingly, Yuga's claim under this ground succeeded. The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

1 0

Software Unfiltered: The Shifting Burdens In Computer Software Copyrightability
by Gunnar Larson 22 May '23

22 May '23

Software Unfiltered: The Shifting Burdens In Computer Software Copyrightability https://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/patent/1316176/software-unfiltered-the-… The Federal Circuit weighed in on the test, and burdens, for showing copyrightability of "nonliteral elements" of computer software in its SAS Inst. v. World Programming Ltd decision.1 The Court affirmed a lower court ruling that SAS failed to establish copyrightability of its computer software's claimed elements after World Programing Limited ("WPL") successfully established that a substantial portion of the allegedly infringed elements are not protectable by copyright, shifting the burden back to SAS. The decision, authored by Judge Reyna with a dissent from Judge Newman, further held that, after this burden shift, SAS failed to provide evidence that individual elements of its software programming could survive an abstraction-filtration-comparison analysis as adopted in the Second, Fifth, and Tenth Circuits. I. The District Court: SAS Failed to Address the Abstraction-Filtration-Comparison Test After WPL Successfully Shifted the Burden The lower court decision arose from the Eastern District of Texas, where SAS accused WPL of infringing the copyright in the "nonliteral elements" of its software, as well as other claims that were not relevant on appeal. "Nonliteral elements" are those elements that are not written in code, including for example the "program architecture, structure, sequence and organization, operational modules, and user interface." After both parties moved for summary judgment on the nonliteral copyright infringement claims, the district court held a "copyrightability hearing" to allow the parties to argue the issue of copyrightability with supplemental briefing. The district court applied the abstraction-filtration-comparison analysis of copyrightability. Under this framework, a court first breaks down a work to its various sub-elements to individually determine the copyrightability of those elements ("abstraction"). It then removes any sub-elements that it determines are not eligible for copyright protection ("filtration"). The remaining, protected, elements are compared against the allegedly infringing software ("comparison") to make an infringement determination. Here, the district court ruled that SAS failed to provide, during the filtration step, evidence of the copyrightability of any individual element of its software. Noting that there was no clear guidance in the Fifth Circuit as to the burden of proof for the "filtration" step, the district court adopted the Eleventh Circuit's burden shifting framework. Under this framework, once the copyright holder satisfies its initial burden of copyrightability (such as through presentation of valid copyright registrations), the burden first shifts to the alleged infringer to identify and substantiate the "species of unprotectability" as to why the work is not subject to copyright protection. Then, if met, the burden shifts back to the copyright holder to establish what precise portions of the work are copyrightable. Here, the district court ruled that SAS met its initial threshold burden, and that WPL, the alleged infringer, met its prima facie burden of showing multiple sub-elements should not be eligible for copyright protection. It then concluded that SAS had not met its shifted burden to establish what specific portions were eligible. Specifically, rather than engage with the filtration analysis, SAS relied on its copyright registration (the evidence for its initial threshold burden), and arguments that the SAS system was "creative." The court ruled that this reliance on "creativity" of the arrangement of the system failed to meaningfully engage with the test or show the individual copyrightability of any elements of the SAS system. II. The Majority Opinion: The Federal Circuit Accepts the Shifting Framework and that SAS Failed to Engage with It On appeal, SAS challenged the burden shifting abstraction-filtration-analysis framework. The Federal Circuit, however, upheld it as keeping with established precedent. The Federal Circuit noted that evidence of a valid registration does not mean that every element of the work (such as the non-literal elements at issue here) is protectable. Rather, the registration creates a "rebuttable" presumption of copyrightability. The Federal Circuit found the framework adopted by the district court correctly required the copyright holder to respond to proof of uncopyrightability advanced by the defendant by identifying what specific elements of its own work are entitled to copyright. That SAS either "failed or refused to do so" proved dispositive. III. The Dissent: Judge Newman Contends the Majority Decision Rejects the Copyrightability of Nonliteral Elements. Judge Newman, in dissent, offered an alternative interpretation of the case. By her reasoning, precedent already protects the claims made by SAS for copyrightability. Specifically, this case originated in the Fifth Circuit, and in Eng'g Dynamics, Inc. v. Structural Software, Inc., 26 F.3d 1335, 1341 (5th Cir. 1994) the Fifth Circuit had opined on the copyrightability of "nonliteral" elements of computer software programs generally. Judge Newman contended this previous ruling should have categorically answered the "copyrightability" question for SAS's claim without further analysis. Judge Newman argued that, rather than simply finding SAS failed to meet its burden, the majority reached an extension on the Supreme Court's decision in Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc., 141 S. Ct. 1183 (2021), which ruled that Google's use of Oracle's Java API naming conventions constituted fair use of Oracle's copyrighted materials. There, the Supreme Court did not reach the copyrightability question, leaving open the baseline question of whether the Java API naming conventions were copyrightable in the first place. Judge Newman contends that the SAS decision incorrectly says they are not. According to Judge Newman, "[t]he existence of possible infringement defenses based on the extent of copying does not negate copyrightability of the work." Her analysis suggests the burden-shifting paradigm used by the majority where a copyright holder must prove the copyrightability of individual elements rather than relying on the selection or arrangement of elements, analogous to the precedential Supreme Court ruling in Feist, is inappropriate. This dissent would require that copyrightability and infringement be separate analyses, and the framework used by the majority calls that approach into question. Under Judge Newman's dissent, SAS would seemingly have proven copyrightability when it showed a valid copyright for its software under a selection and arrangement of literal and non-literal elements. The majority addressed Judge Newman's dissent in its opinion, specifically finding "a key step prior to engaging in an infringement analysis is to determine which elements of the asserted material are copyrightable," also citing Eng'g Dynamics, Inc. v. Structural Software, Inc. which held "[t]o establish copyright infringement, a plaintiff must prove ownership of a valid copyright and copying of constituent elements of the work that are copyrightable.". Under the majority's formulation of copyrightability analysis, a copyrightability analysis for claims of non-literal software infringement is not a one-step process, and instead involves an extra step to prove not only whether a copyright is held, but whether the underlying work is entitled to copyright protection. IV. Future Implications: The Shifting Burdens of Shifting Burdens An open question is the applicability of this decision on future software copyright infringement actions involving claims of non-literal copying. It is possible the decision will represent primarily a procedural ruling that centers on the district court's use of a "Copyrightability Hearing" during pre-trial procedure and the evidence proffered by a plaintiff's expert for copyrightability. But the majority's decision in this case will likely reinforce a burden-shifting scheme in copyright infringement actions, where a copyright holder should be prepared to substantiate the copyrightability of specific elements of its copyright. The case is SAS Inst. v. World Programming Ltd., — F.4th — (Fed. Cir. 2023). Footnote 1. Typically, copyright actions are appealed to the regional circuit court of appeals, here the Fifth Circuit. This decision was appealed to the Federal Circuit instead because the plaintiff included patent infringement claims in its complaint. Even though the plaintiff appealed on only copyright issues, this granted jurisdiction to the Federal Circuit under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).

1 0

A Slice of History: Celebrating Bitcoin Pizza Day
by Gunnar Larson 22 May '23

22 May '23

Happy Bitcoin Pizza Day! ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Bitcoin.com Marketing <marketing(a)bitcoin.com> Date: Mon, May 22, 2023, 11:22 AM Subject: A Slice of History: Celebrating Bitcoin Pizza Day To: <g(a)xny.io> Preview: Discover the story of the 10,000 Bitcoin pizza, today worth over $269 million ‌ ‌ ‌ [image: Bitcoin.com Logo] <https://email.bitcoin.com/e/c/eyJlbWFpbF9pZCI6ImRnVHM1d1VEQUlpbmFZZW5hUUdJU…> On this day in 2010, two Papa John’s pizzas were unknowingly swapped for a fortune. Today, we commemorate that unique transaction as Bitcoin Pizza Day, a pivotal moment in the history of cryptocurrencies, and a testament to the remarkable potential of Bitcoin. Hungry for pizza and curious to test his Bitcoins, a programmer named Laszlo Hanyecz decided to make an unusual offer. He would pay 10,000 BTC for two large pizzas, about $41 at the time, effectively putting a price tag of less than half a cent on each Bitcoin. A fellow enthusiast in England accepted the offer, ordered the pizzas for Hanyecz, and the rest, as they say, is history. Fast forward thirteen years, and the current value of Bitcoin stands at $26,900. To put that into perspective, the 10,000 Bitcoins spent on those two pizzas would now be worth a staggering $269 million! If there’s an obvious takeaway from the Bitcoin pizza story, it’s this: the Bitcoin you purchase today, while it may not seem like a lot, could someday transform into a fortune. This isn’t a guarantee, of course — cryptocurrencies are volatile and investing always comes with risk — but it’s certainly a possibility. If the past growth of Bitcoin is any indicator of its future, your slice of the Bitcoin pie could be worth a lot more someday. Yet, the power of Bitcoin extends beyond its potential for long-term gains. >From preserving wealth across generations, to being a resilient form of currency amid increasing global authoritarianism, Bitcoin offers a unique value proposition. It’s more than a digital asset — it’s a tool of financial empowerment. In a world where getting involved in a civil protest may see you cut off from traditional banking and payments, Bitcoin offers a universally accessible financial system. It empowers individuals to have full control over their wealth, independent of any government or organization. When viewed from this perspective, Hanyecz’s pizza purchase symbolizes much more than an expensive meal. It stands as the first real-world application of decentralized money, marking the birth of an era where financial sovereignty is not just a dream, but an achievable reality for anyone with internet access. So as we celebrate Bitcoin Pizza Day, let’s remember what it represents: a groundbreaking moment that paved the way for massive innovation in the decentralized finance space. But also, let’s use this day as a reminder of the power that lies in simply holding an asset like Bitcoin for over a decade. Who knows? The Bitcoin you buy today might be the key to a fortune tomorrow. Or perhaps, to just a really, really expensive pizza. Either way, here’s to many more slices of history, and to the exciting future of Bitcoin. Happy Bitcoin Pizza Day! *Buy Bitcoin now* <https://email.bitcoin.com/e/c/eyJlbWFpbF9pZCI6ImRnVHM1d1VEQUlpbmFZZW5hUUdJU…> [image: Bitcoin.com Logo] <https://email.bitcoin.com/e/c/eyJlbWFpbF9pZCI6ImRnVHM1d1VEQUlpbmFZZW5hUUdJU…> [image: Facebook] <https://email.bitcoin.com/e/c/eyJlbWFpbF9pZCI6ImRnVHM1d1VEQUlpbmFZZW5hUUdJU…> [image: Twitter] <https://email.bitcoin.com/e/c/eyJlbWFpbF9pZCI6ImRnVHM1d1VEQUlpbmFZZW5hUUdJU…> [image: Instagram] <https://email.bitcoin.com/e/c/eyJlbWFpbF9pZCI6ImRnVHM1d1VEQUlpbmFZZW5hUUdJU…> [image: LinkedIn] <https://email.bitcoin.com/e/c/eyJlbWFpbF9pZCI6ImRnVHM1d1VEQUlpbmFZZW5hUUdJU…> [image: Medium] <https://email.bitcoin.com/e/c/eyJlbWFpbF9pZCI6ImRnVHM1d1VEQUlpbmFZZW5hUUdJU…> [image: YouTube] <https://email.bitcoin.com/e/c/eyJlbWFpbF9pZCI6ImRnVHM1d1VEQUlpbmFZZW5hUUdJU…> [image: Telegram] <https://email.bitcoin.com/e/c/eyJlbWFpbF9pZCI6ImRnVHM1d1VEQUlpbmFZZW5hUUdJU…> [image: Discord] <https://email.bitcoin.com/e/c/eyJlbWFpbF9pZCI6ImRnVHM1d1VEQUlpbmFZZW5hUUdJU…> @2023 Saint Bitts, LLC 858 Zenway Blvd, P.O. Box 1830, Frigate Bay, Saint Kitts and Nevis This email was sent to g(a)xny.io. To unsubscribe or manage your subscriptions click here. <https://www.bitcoin.com/manage-email-subscription/?uid=90e5d428-ead9-42c7-a…> Have feedback for us? Submit here. <https://email.bitcoin.com/e/c/eyJlbWFpbF9pZCI6ImRnVHM1d1VEQUlpbmFZZW5hUUdJU…>

1 0

The Banking Crisis for the Biggest U.S. Banks Began in April 2022; By December 14 They Had Shed $457 Billion of Deposits
by Gunnar Larson 22 May '23

22 May '23

https://wallstreetonparade.com/2023/05/the-banking-crisis-for-the-biggest-u… By Pam Martens and Russ Martens: May 22, 2023 ~ Pretty much everything the average American has read about the banking crisis is wrong. And there is at least a prima facie case that could be made that Big Media is responsible for that misinformation. Let’s start with the dozens of mainstream media reports that small banks were bleeding deposits and these deposits were flooding into the biggest banks in the U.S. as a safe haven. Those reports gave the distinct impression that the mega banks on Wall Street are viewed by Americans as a safe place to stash money, never mind that they blew up the U.S. financial system in 2008 and still have more than $200 trillion in derivatives lurking in the shadows. According to FRED data compiled by the St. Louis Fed (see chart above), bank deposits at the 25 largest U.S.-chartered commercial banks peaked at $11.556 trillion on April 13, 2022, then went into a persistent downtrend that erased $457 billion of deposits by December 12, 2022. Meanwhile, the more than 4,000 small U.S. banks, on the other hand, produced a $25 billion gain in deposits in the same time span. It was not until all of those news articles appeared in March and April saying that small banks were losing deposits that the small banks actually saw a sharp drop in their deposits. On March 13 the Financial Times ran this headline: “Large US banks inundated with new depositors as smaller lenders face turmoil.” The subhead was even more questionable, reading: “Failure of Silicon Valley Bank prompts flight to likes of JPMorgan and Citi.” (JPMorgan Chase has been charged with an unprecedented five felony counts by the U.S. Department of Justice over the past nine years. See JPMorgan’s Board Made Jamie Dimon a Billionaire as the Bank Rigged Markets, Laundered Money, and Admitted to Five Felony Counts.) Citigroup’s stock has been a basket case since the financial collapse in 2008. Citi did a 1-for-10 reverse stock split in 2011 to window dress its stock price. On April 28, the Bloomberg columnist, John Authers, wrote a column that was syndicated to the Washington Post. Authers included this misleading information about the four largest U.S. banks: JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Wells Fargo and Citigroup’s Citibank. “This summary from the Canadian firm Palos Management explains neatly why the bigger banks are still OK: “The first quarter’s performance of the big four was consistent with a broad consensus that the big banks have capitalized on massive depositor inflows, clearly related to the well-documented liquidity stresses facing their smaller, regionally based brethren. This should come as no surprise. The panic-fueled depositor exodus from the smaller banks to the larger ‘too big to fail’ banks is simply a rational decision. Protection of capital rules.” As we reported on May 8, the actual reality is this: Deposits at JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America and Wells Fargo Shrank by $465 Billion Y-O-Y; More than Twice the Total of 4,000 Small Banks. In that article, we provided granular details as follows: “The deposit losses at JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America and Wells Fargo are more than twice what the 4,000 small banks lost in total during the same period. Their combined loss in deposits was just $210 billion… “Bank of America and Wells Fargo not only lost those large deposit sums on a year-over-year basis, but both banks saw deposits fall during the past five quarters, including the quarter ending March 31, 2023 when headlines were declaring that they were seeing big inflows of deposits as a result of the banking crisis. JPMorgan Chase lost deposits in each of the quarters in 2022 and then saw a small increase in deposits in the first quarter of this year – likely from all of those misleading headlines. (This information is easily obtained from the financial statements the firms file publicly with the SEC.)” Over this past weekend, the Wall Street Journal ran a big article on how the banking crisis has “only made JPMorgan stronger.” (Paywall.) Reporter David Benoit writes as follows about JPMorgan Chase’s purchase of the collapsed bank, First Republic: “Yet JPMorgan’s show of strength, for many, exposed a weakness in the U.S. financial system. The bank and its largest rivals have become so big, their reach so extensive, that the government would almost surely step in to prevent their failure. That implicit guarantee encourages people and businesses to move their money to them in times of stress creating a feedback loop that makes big banks bigger at the expense of their smaller peers.” The only feedback loop we’re seeing is the echo chamber of the mainstream business press. What is not in dispute about JPMorgan Chase’s grab of First Republic Bank is the following: JPMorgan Chase was first called First Republic’s “rescuer” by the media. Then JPMorgan Chase became First Republic’s “advisor” to find strategic options for its survival. Then JPMorgan Chase put at least 800 of its employees to work on doing due diligence in order to buy First Republic for itself and get a sweetheart deal from the FDIC. The sweetheart terms of the deal include the FDIC eating 80 percent of any losses on single-family residential mortgages for 7 years and 80 percent of any losses on commercial loans, including commercial real estate, for five years. The FDIC also, bizarrely, handed JPMorgan Chase a $50 billion, five-year fixed-rate loan at an undisclosed interest rate. All of this raises the question, who got the bailout: uninsured depositors at First Republic Bank or JPMorgan Chase?

1 0

NAACP issues travel advisory alleging, Florida 'hostile to African Americans'
by Gunnar Larson 22 May '23

22 May '23

What does this mean for NYCCoin and MIA Coin? https://abcnews.go.com/US/naacp-issues-travel-advisory-alleging-florida-hos… The national NAACP Board of Directors has issued a formal advisory against traveling to Florida, alleging the state has become "hostile toward African Americans" under the leadership of Gov. Ron DeSantis.

1 0

Wells-Fargo | Violation Tracker
by Gunnar Larson 22 May '23

22 May '23

$8B at FTX and $25B at Wells Fargo. How is FTX one of the biggest scandals in digital assets today? The BitLicense could be one of the biggest opportunities for innovation out of New York State. ---- https://violationtracker.goodjobsfirst.org/parent/wells-fargo Violation Tracker Current Parent Company Summary Current Parent Company Name: Wells Fargo Ownership Structure: publicly traded (ticker symbol WFC) Headquartered in: California Major Industry: financial services Specific Industry: banking Penalty total since 2000: $25,943,801,143 Number of records: 236

1 0

FTX 'One of the Biggest Financial Frauds in American History': Prosecutor Damian Williams - Decrypt
by Gunnar Larson 22 May '23

22 May '23

https://decrypt.co/117156/ftx-one-of-biggest-financial-frauds-american-hist… FTX 'One of the Biggest Financial Frauds in American History': Prosecutor Damian Williams The U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York gave insight today into the charges levied against Sam Bankman-Fried. A lawsuit against Bankman-Fried was also announced today by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission today over alleged violations of commodities law. Gretchen Lowe, acting director of the division of enforcement at the CFTC said it has identified $8 billion in customer losses as of today.

1 0

UN chief backs reform of Security Council, global financial system – POLITICO
by Gunnar Larson 22 May '23

22 May '23

“The global financial architecture is outdated, dysfunctional and unfair,” Guterres said. ---- https://www.politico.eu/article/united-nations-secretary-general-antonio-gu… United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres backed the reform of the U.N. Security Council and the international financial system to align them with the “realities of today's world.” Both the U.N. body and the financial architecture reflect the power relations of 1945 and need to be updated, Guterres told a press conference Sunday on the margins of the G7 summit in Hiroshima, Japan, according to Reuters. “The global financial architecture is outdated, dysfunctional and unfair,” Guterres said. “In the face of the economic shocks from the COVID-19 pandemic and the Russian invasion of Ukraine, it has failed to fulfill its core function as a global safety net.” Guterres made the same point on Saturday, writing in a tweet that it was “time to think seriously about the reform” of the international financial architecture. The U.N. Security Council came under fire in April when Russia assumed the rotating presidency of the 15-member body despite the fact that 141 countries condemned its aggression on Ukraine. Experts have claimed that Russia’s veto in the Security Council undermines the U.N.’s effectiveness on the international stage.

1 0