You are probably right. Fidelity holds very little crypto on behalf of their customers, when compared to other holders. Although this does conform with an ongoing problem with major investment fund companies (such as BlackRock) that try to use their holdings of their customer's shares in order to advance their own political/social agenda. The problem in this case is that no investment company has the influence over bitcoin's development that investment companies have over most public corporations.

I suspect that the next step in this campaign is to trying to get congress to implement regulations over mining.

Knowing the current president, and his crazy policies, I can very much believe this.

Mining bitcoin requires stable electricity. Even if "renewable" energy is used, "traditional" electric sources will need to be on hand to serve as a backup when the "renewable" energy sources go offline (for example when it gets dark, or when the wind stops blowing).

Further, electricity is fungible, so electricity consumed via solar panels means that this electricity cannot be consumed by others.

Bitcoin mining does use less electricity than many other things, including many that provide less utility.

ESG is a scam. This is really posturing by the administration to make it look like they are trying to address "climate change"

The change will be that all mining revenue will come from transaction fees, as opposed to a percentage of revenue under the status quo. As oeleo discusses above, it is likely that the majority of mining revenue will come from transaction fees in the next several halvings, and nearly all revenue will come from fees well before the block subsidy goes to zero.

I suspect that transaction fees on a per block basis will likely rise over time (up until a point at which the market will no longer support higher tx fees) as adoption of bitcoin increases. The specific timing when transaction fees will make up the majority of revenue can be debated, but I think most would agree that this will happen sometime in the next few decades.

You really don't know what Clinton, or Obama took because their houses weren't raided by their political opponents.

The specific location the documents were stored in was the same location that classified documents were stored in when Trump was President. The entire compound is under 24/7 secret service protection, and the location in question is likely more secure than many SCIFs, including the one in Hilary Clinton's closet. There was no urgency in getting the documents back. There is no reason why the government couldn't have sought to enforce the subpoena.

Regardless of one's opinion of LoyceV, I reviewed the thread in question, and I believe that his "guide" generally conforms with the intended use of the trust system. It is not perfect, and there are a few revisions I might suggest if I had editorial authority over the post (which I don't), but I think it should generally help forum members who are unfamiliar with the trust system.

I understand that Celsius gave incentives for their deposit holders to receive interest on their deposits in the form of CEL tokens versus the type of coin they had on deposit. I would think that Celsius would purchase CEL tokens on the open market in order to have sufficient CEL tokens to be able to credit their customers' accounts. So Celsius had a legitimate business reason to be buying CEL tokens (this is true even if the practice of paying interest in CEL is non-optimal). I can only speculate as to why Celsius was buying up all that CEL as described in the declaration referenced in an above post, however I think it is likely that Celsius' customers tried various means to try to get money out of their accounts around when Celsius halted withdrawals.

I would also note that, according to the sources I cited in an above post, that Mashinsky made many purchases and sales of CEL over many months. In public companies, it is possible for some employees/executives with access to insider information to have written trading plans to buy or sell stock in their company at specific amounts and intervals that are made ahead of the actual trades. It is possible that Mashinsky employed a similar strategy in his trading of CEL tokens. It is also possible that Mashinsky was comingling his CEL holdings with that of Celsius, which although would create a whole separate set of issues, but would not amount to insider trading.
Holding coin on a centralized exchange carries risks, and the person/entity considering to do this should be sure they are being compensated for these risks before deciding to hold their coin on an centralized platform. A trader who frequently trades on a centraized exchange might be compensated by their ability to ~instantly trade when they need their trade executed in fractions of a second. In the case of Celsius, the compensation was interest payments (even if in this specific case, deposit-holders are going to see net losses once the bankruptcy case is resolved), and in the case of CEL, the compensation is additional interest.

My issue with CEL tokens is that I understand it has no real utility. I suspect that Celsius purchased CEL on the open market, and their deposit holders would receive the CEL as interest, and presumably would sell the CEL they received. The price of CEL might increase if some deposit holders haven't (yet) received enough CEL to make it worth transferring to an exchange to sell it for a stablecoin or BTC, or if some deposit holders haven't sold the CEL for some other reason. Also, interest payments are made in batches, so Celsius would need to purchase CEL over time, which would likely cause the price to increase, and at the time interest is due to be paid, would transfer the CEL to their customers at the then-current market price.

It is normal for a company in Chapter 11 bankruptcy to continue paying employees. Celsius has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, which means they are continuing operations. Companies in Chapter 11 bankruptcy will continue to pay employees for wages incurred after the bankruptcy filing.

The filing referenced in the article you cited can be found here. I don't see any reference to the proceeds being used to pay employee salaries or to fund its ongoing operational expenses. From what I can tell, Celsius is asking to convert its stablecoin holdings into fiat currency. This is something that will marginally the reduce the risk to Celsius' customers, as it will remove the risk that any of the stablecoins they are holding will implode.

If you ask me, this guy is a troll. I don't think he actually wants to get people to believe he is satoshi. I think he is looking for attention. I suggest that you not give him any attention.

I gave my opinion almost three years ago. I haven't seen anything that would change my mind. At this time, it would make the most sense to allow you to create a new account and to agree that doing so would not violate the ban evasion rule.

Given the lack of action and the length of time since you opened this thread, I think it is unlikely that you will have your ban lifted.

Unfortunately, the admins and global moderators rarely comment on these types of threads, so I doubt you will get a response. The ban evasion rule is rarely enforced anyway, especially when the person is not causing major problems.

There are some banks, even those that pay interest to deposit holders that are not profitable for a variety of reasons. Being unprofitable does not mean that a company is a scam/ponzi. Most startups are not profitable in their early years.

Even without collateral, a loan is still a valuable asset. It was also likely that it was very unusual for Celsius to make loans collateralized by the same token/coin the loan is denominated in (for example a BTC loan may be secured by USDT).
That is possible, but I think it is more likely that their customers wanted to withdraw their various stablecoins in order to liquidate them/exchange them for bitcoin. At the time of Celsius' implosion, there was a lack of confidence in ~all stablecoins, and many stablecoin issuers were facing massive redemption requests.

https://assets.website-files.com/6296255d9030be506dc09bb7/62c85dacbd454a181c369259_Arkham%20Report%20on%20the%20Celsius%20Network%20(FINAL).pdf
https://dirtybubblemedia.substack.com/p/are-the-mashinskys-celling-out

I would not consider either of the above sources to be especially credible, however, it appears that Mashinsky may have sold CEL tokens over a period of several months. There were also some purchases of CEL tokens, and it is not clear if the amounts cited are net sales, or gross sales.

To me, this looks like it could be something closer to insider trading, rather than the operator of a ponzi enriching himself from new investor money. These sales would have been possible if Celsius was operationally profitable.

The specific allegation is that CEL tokens were purchased by the company in a way such that the value of the CEL tokens on Celsius' balance sheet were inflated, making them look like they had more assets than might have been realistic. I don't think there is an allegation that Celsius dumped any CEL tokens at inflated prices (although their employees may have).

As noted above, the sales by Mashinsky may have amounted to insider trading, and the CEL purchases may have violated other securities laws. I still believe that it was the intent of Celsius to operate profitably on a long-term basis, even if they were not profitable in the past.

---

As someone who may consider investing in a company similar to Celsius, the CEL token concept is something that would turn me off, and I think is a generally bad idea. But I don't think in the case of Celsius, that it makes them a ponzi/scam.

It appears a new feature has recently been implemented in the forum.

When someone creates a thread, they are the Ooriginal Poster, or "OP". Now whenever someone creates a post in a thread in which they are the OP, the letters "OP" will appear next to their forum handle.

It appears there is a tooltip when you hover over the "OP" next to a person's name, which tells you that this person created the thread.

This is a cool, useful feature. When following up on a thread you have previously read and/or posted in, this will allow you to quickly know which posts belong to the OP of that thread.

It is the business model of Celsius (and with mainstream banks) to operate as a fractional reserve, however, to also operate as a solvent enterprise (that is that their net assets exceed their net liabilities). So celsius might have 0.1BTC in their reserves for every 1BTC they have in customer deposits, but they also have 0.9x+BTC in other assets, such as BTC that is owed to them (that is net of any loans that are unlikely to be repaid). As long as the bank properly manages risk in making their loans (and pricing their loans and deposit interest rates), there is little risk of loss to their deposit holders.

According to the filing you cited, Celsius had financial setbacks in 2020 and 2021, which caused them to become insolvent. Piggybacking on my previous example, Celsius might have had 0.1BTC and less than 0.9BTC in other assets for every 1BTC they owed to deposit holders. It is not clear what these setbacks were, or how large they were.

The root cause of Celsius' unprofitability could have been caused by three things:
1 - Celsius may pay more in interest to deposit holders than it receives in interest payments from loans they make, even though the interest rate they charge borrowers is greater than the interest they pay to deposit holders. This can be solved by increasing the volume of loans they make, or reducing the interest they pay to deposit holders.
2 - Celsius may collect more in interest from borrowers than it pays out to deposit holders, but this net interest income may not be enough to cover the operating expenses (such as employee salaries, office rent, marketing, etc) of running their business.
3 - Celsius collects less in interest than it pays out to deposit holders after accounting for loan losses.

1 and 2 are very similar. Both can be solved by increasing loan volume and/or reducing interest paid to depositholders. Both would mean that Celsius had mispriced their interest rates. I think it is most likely that the market for crypto loans is not particularly big, and the market for crypto deposits is especially big, so the most likely solution would be to reduce interest rates paid to deposit holders. Lowering interest rates means that some deposit holders would withdraw, and if Celsius was insolvent, this is not a desired outcome. 3 would mean that Celsius has poor risk management with regards to making loans, and this would need to be improved.

I think either 1 or 2 is probably most likely. If you look at the financial statement you previously posted, you will see $720 million in mining assets. I think I remember reading about Celsius lending itself (the loan may have been to a related entity) money in order to buy mining equipment. I suspect that this was an effort to increase lending volumes.

The owners of Celsius are well known and are subject to the jurisdiction of American courts. This is often not the case with other crypto scams. To my knowledge, the operators were not being paid exorbitant amounts of money. The business model of Celsius, if priced correctly, is something that should be profitable for its operators if run correctly. Celsius was in fact making loans.

You make a fair point in that if CM was in fact operated by a law enforcement agency, it would likely be discovered by now, as it is likely that some of the coin they mix is associated with criminal activity. I might counter this argument by saying that law enforcement could know that Alice is engaging in something illegal after tracing money flows through CM, and would then look at Alice specifically to try to find other evidence linking her to crimes. It is also possible that CM is being run by an intelligence agency that doesn't care about most crimes, and is trying to track money flows to/from enemy states, such as North Korea, Iran, Russia, etc.

On net, after considering your point, I think it is unlikely that CM was created by a law enforcement agency. Although there is always the potential that CM was taken over by a law enforcement agency "yesterday".

I am willing to speculate that most people who value their privacy are in a similar situation as what you describe and use CM (and other mixers/mixing technology) accordingly. In fact, some people may not even have substantial amounts of money to hide from criminals/beggars, but do not want to tip off said criminals if they were to become more successful and start using mixing technology.

I wont discuss the merits of renewable energy (or the lack thereof) in this thread, as doing so would be off-topic. However, at this time, Europe is dependent on natural gas from Russia, and Russia is not providing said gas. This is a problem.

Without gas from Russia, Europe is not going to have sufficient energy to meet the increased demand associated with the cold winter months. The timing of the shutoff means that Europe will not have time to make alternate arrangements to get gas from alternative sources.

The answer to this question should answer most of your other questions.

Your "phrases" (actually your seed) is how your private keys are derived. As long as no one has access to your seed, it is not possible to ever steal your coin (to "hack" your "wallet"). Obviously, if your phone were to become infected with malware, or if it were to otherwise become compromised, there is a risk that someone can steal your money.

I would also point out that (trying to) memorize your seed is a bad idea. You should keep backups of your seed in a medium of storage that is less fragile than your memory (brain).

r/bitcoin has always been pretty strict in its moderation. I understand that posts need to be strictly about bitcoin (not altcoins).

I would also point out that online forms are typically privately owned (including those on reddit, and this forum).

If you don't mind, why don't you post exactly what you wrote? Perhaps people can judge for themselves.

Chicago is somewhat of a financial center (for example is home to the CBOE, and various futures exchanges). I suspect that a greater percentage of people working in finance in Chicago live in IL compared to the percentage of people working in finance in NYC living in NY (they often live in NJ). Further, there is a lot of infrastructure located in NJ for people located in NJ, so some may appear to be in NJ when they are actually in NY. 

Yes, this is exactly the point of shutting off the pipeline. Although Russia is profiting from the war due to the Biden administration energy policies (the ability to sell their gas at a higher price, even if the price they sell is a discount to the market price), the western sanctions are hampering Russia's ability to continue to wage war. As a result, Russia needs the sanctions lifted, and their goal is to put political pressure on Western European governments via high gas prices, and gas shortages just in time for winter when gas is needed most. There is a reason why the pipeline was not shut down at the beginning of the war, or during the summer -- doing so would have allowed Eurpoe to make adjustments in time for the cold winter.

Pretty much this.

Further, much of the UN is in "bed" with China, and looks after China's interests, even if doing so means violating large groups of people's human rights.

I am not sure what your source for this claim is, but it is not accurate. Russia is in fact a prominent member of the UN security council (source). Sure, it may be possible that some of the paperwork was not completed properly, however, if this is the case, this is the first I have heard of it. Regardless, I would refer to you BADecker's quote at the beginning of my post.

I would not call anyone using CM a criminal, but I would say that using any mixing service is going to involve the risk that the "added" privacy is just an illusion. I have no evidence to support this, but there is always the potential that CM is being run by a government in order to track the flow of coin. Even if this is not the case, there is always the potential that the government will take over CM (by using force), and will not make this public, at least at first.

---

To answer the OP's question, I think it is very likely that CM is profitable on an operating basis. Their required operating expenses are likely to be low in relation to the volume they are mixing, and they can trivially change their "discretionary" operating expenses, such as promotions and advertising. Further, there is little incentive to keep coin on their platform for an extended period of time -- even if you "withdraw" a chip via a private key, but do not spend the coin on the private key, CM cannot reasonably use that coin because the customer who withdrew the chip would know their coin was randomly transferred.

To my knowledge, it is not possible to "yield farm" on bitcoin "proper". I understand it is only possible to "yield farm" using various altcoins, such as ETH (I presume there are others). I also understand that any yield farming involving "bitcoin" is actually a "wrapped" bitcoin that is very similar to an IOU.

As a result of the above, discussions related to "yield farming" are not talking about anything that you can do with bitcoin and should be in the altcoin section.

Although, there is an argument that certain altcoin subjects belong in the newbie section, although opening up this can of worms similar to what I discussed here.