I just had a really bad day gambling today with Roma losing a ticket for me and their odd was 1.20 and they were playing against the last place of Italian Serie A. I thought a bad day and move on and played another ticket this time I choose Brondby as they were playing at home against a team they had beaten almost always and the odd was 1.35. This was even worse as Brondby lost 2-4 at home to a team quoted from the bookies at 8.5 1.10 to around 1.20 are normal odds for when a big favorite team is expected to win. When odds drift lower to around 1.35 it sometimes means an underdog team has a better chance to win than normal. I do not follow soccer(football in europe). What you describe often happens in american team sports NBA, NFL, MLB. Books and oddsmakers have contacts which feed them inside information. If teams are having drama issues or personality clashes behind the scenes. Or if they're simply being lazy and not taking games seriously, oddsmakers are aware of it and it can be reflected in the opening odds rising or decreasing. I think it is possible to win in gambling but a person may have to spend time analyzing odds and conditions which lead to teams winning/losing to make accurate predictions from available data. Sometimes it could come down an underdog team that wants to win very badly going up against a favorite team that doesn't care if they win or lose and simply wanting it more could make the difference. |
|
|
|
Around 95 percent of all ransomware payments were laundered through Vinnik's BTC-e platformThe Supreme Court in Greece has ruled today that the owner of a shady Bitcoin exchange platform through which ransomware operators laundered cyber-crime money will be extradited to Russia, instead of the US or France, countries which also requested the hacker's extradition.
The suspect at the center of this tug-of-war is Alexander Vinnik, also known under the nickname of "Mr. Bitcoin," and the owner of the BTC-e.com cryptocurrency exchange.US authorities shut down BTC-e in July 2017. Vinnik was arrested the same month by Greek police while vacationing in a seaside resort in the country's northern Halkidiki region. The US requested Vinnik's extradition on a case involving 21 charges related to money laundering and the operation of an unlicensed money exchange. Vinnik faced a combined maximum sentence of up to 35 years in prison, along with various fines, in the US case alone. As soon as Vinnik's arrest became public, Russia filed an extradition claim of their own. Russian authorities said Vinnik was also a suspected in an investigation in Russia in relation to a €9,500 ($11,000) fraud charge. Details about the case remained murky. France filed its own extradition claim in June 2018, for involvement in "cybercrime, money laundering, and membership in a criminal organization and extortion." Greek judges waivered in the case at every turn and with every appeal. They initially agreed to extradite Vinnik to the US, then to France over the summer, then to Russia at the start of September.
The case eventually reached Greece's Supreme Court, and today, it was decided that Vinnik should face charges in Russia, the suspect's native country, and where he expressed his desire to be trialed, mainly because of the thinner charges brought against him.
On the same day Greek authorities were arresting Vinnik, a team of researchers that also included Google staffers, presented findings at the Black Hat USA 2017 security conference, revealing that 95 percent of all ransomware ransom payments were cashed out and converted into fiat currency through Vinnik's BTC-e portal.
Also on the same day, a group of Bitcoin security specialists calling themselves WizSec published the results of an investigation that linked Vinnik's Bitcoin accounts to laundering funds stolen from the Mt. Gox exchange.
Researchers said that Vinnik was also involved in laundering funds stolen from other cryptocurrency exchanges, such as Bitcoinica, Bitfloor, and other platforms they did not name at the time.
US authorities said in an indictment that Vinnik's platform helped launder over $4 billion in illegal funds. BTC-e's website, before it went down, claimed to have handled over $7 billion during its lifetime.Vinnik extradition to Russia is now in the hands of the Greek Justice Minister. The Minister can decline to sign, although, state officials rarely overrule justice systems on these decisions. https://www.zdnet.com/article/us-loses-extradition-battle-with-russia-for-bitcoin-kingpin/ .... First update on BTC-E or Alexander Vinnik I've seen in awhile. Seems he will be extradited to russia to face charges although both the USA and france want him badly. Its still difficult for me to believe $7 billion were laundered through BTC-E. Both media and legal suits have a tendency to exaggerate the dollar amount of damage inflicted, the way people sometimes exaggerate things over the internet. There are many allegations made in the crypto world lacking evidence. The story of tether being a criminal plot to artificially prop up the value of bitcoin for one. I hope someday we have a forthcoming body of evidence regarding the crimes Alexander Vinnik allegedly committed. $7 billion is a lot of money. If he laundered even a fraction of that it would be ranked as one of the biggest heists in history & should receive much more media exposure than it currently is. I have a feeling this story is being ignored by the media and swept under a rug due to BTC-E and Vinnik's actual laundered amounts being far lower than $7 billion. Its like the tether story. They have little or no evidence to support their criminal claims and so they hope people will forget. |
|
|
|
IF i had the chance to managed a certain government i would really apply blockchain technology and give their budget in a form of cryptocurrency or digital currency that could be used as a form of payment and could even trade to fiat money. In this way we could eradicate the corruption Obama built a website to monitor budget spending in his 1st term. Almost no one bothered to look or keep track of it, afaik. People sometimes adhere to the view that government exists to prevent them from caring or thinking about issues. This may not be a realistic approach. For society to function and thrive could require a basic standard of knowledge and competency from the public. People must support the right policies and have the education and information to recognize which stances are best for them. There isn't necessarily a substitute for this. Often the media will convince the public to support things which are the worst for them. Blockchain can reduce the trust factor present in transactions. It has not yet engineered to be viable in removing the trust factor from deciding economic, financial or regulatory policy. And so while I like the optimism, I think blockchain may not yet be poised to eliminate corruption in the real world. |
|
|
|
How can this controversy affect the upcoming Manny vs Money 2? Boxing is a dying sport. Vladimir Klitschko is making far less today than Mike Tyson made in the 1980s and 1990s without adjusting for decades of inflation. Boxing promoters like Oscar De La Hoya are beginning to creep into mixed martial arts promoting due to the lack of stars in boxing. AFAIK Don King, Bob Arum and other big name historical boxing promoters don't even bother with the sport anymore. I could easily see Manny vs Money 2 being like another GGG vs Canelo. Vegas judges have robbed Manny in the past vs Timothy Bradley. Vegas also shows a considerable amount of favortism towards Floyd Mayweather whenever he fights. |
|
|
|
--Mark Hunt may also be a lock. He's 44 years old. If he were a few years younger and his opponent didn't have such an unorthodox fighting style I would definitely bet him here. As things are, I'm leaning towards Hunt but wouldn't bet too heavy on him in case he goes to sleep one day a competitive athlete and wakes up the next a little past his prime.
These would be my picks, although it helps to read the fine print.
-Ankalaev
-Devashvili
-Taisumov
-Hunt
-Arlovski
3/5 picks correct for 60% accuracy. A poor result for me. Then GGG didn't get the decision from the judges.  Not the best night for gambling. Both Mark Hunt and Andrei Arlovski both looked terrible in comparison to their previous fights. Jan Blachowicz exposed Nikita Krylovs lack of ground game. Jin Soo Son got fight of the night but was ineligible to receive the $50,000 bonus due to him missing weight. Every favorite on the card hit except for Mark Hunt and Nikita Krylov. There is Bellator 205 on september 21st. A. J. McKee vs. John Macapá John Salter vs. Rafael Lovato Jr. Veta Arteaga vs. Denise Kielholtz Patricky Freire vs. Roger Huerta Next UFC event is Jimi Manuwa vs Thiago Santos in sao paulo brazil on september 22nd. |
|
|
|
The link you posted explicitly states "85% of sweden's population has access to electronic banking". This means: 15% of sweden's unbanked demographic will suffer if a cashless society is implemented. I would be curious to know, what part of this is a "conspiracy".  Imagine there is an island city with two bridges. One bridge can be utilized by anyone as the cash/paper money bridge. The other bridge requires a bank account or access to electronic transactions to use. The owners of the electronic transaction bridge want to shut down the cash/paper money bridge so everyone is forced to use the bridge they themselves own & have control over. This would grant them a monopoly or centralized market which they could then leverage for their own gain. It is a good move for the owners of the single bridge, for everyone else is it likely a bad arrangement. When in human history has a monopoly or single option ever been preferable to having multiple options? From this precedent alone it might be derived that having less options translates to increased suffering due to the higher potential for abuse and exploitation. That appears the rational and natural precedent which can be projected from known circumstances. Feel free to share your own conclusions. |
|
|
|
I like the direction OP is heading. Small communities and countries adopting their own crypto currency is an ongoing thing dating back to at least 2014(if I'm remembering right). Iceland unleashed its auroracoin crypto currency around that time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AuroracoinAround the same time auroracoin was unleashed around 2014, I remember reading a news story about native american communities Native American tribes adopt Bitcoin-like currency, prepare to battle US governmentMazaCoin could be what the Lakota people need to boost them out of longstanding poverty, but is it legal?The programmer and Native American activist Payu Harris raised a gavel Monday night and vigorously banged the bell to open trading at The Bitcoin Center, a meeting space for virtual currency geeks that looks like an empty art gallery in the middle of New York’s Financial District. Harris was there to promote MazaCoin, a cousin of Bitcoin that is now the official currency of the seven bands that make up the Lakota nation. After an hour of questions, Harris thanked the small crowd and was promptly accosted by a tall man and a woman in red who wanted to buy some MazaCoin, which Harris was selling for 10 cents apiece. The two trailed him around the room as he hunted for a printer so he could issue the digital currency on paper. MazaCoin is a month-old cryptocurrency based on the same proof-of-work algorithm as Bitcoin, the virtual currency that approximates cash on the internet — but no one in the room was equipped to make a digital trade. There have been a slew of copycats since the rise of Bitcoin in 2009. The first wave attempted to improve on the basic Bitcoin protocol. The second wave, which includes the meme-based Dogecoin and the Icelandic Auroracoin, are catering to specific groups. MazaCoin was developed by an anonymous cryptographer who had built a new implementation of the Bitcoin protocol and was looking for a good cause to associate it with, Harris says. Anyone can buy or sell the currency, but the Lakota are keeping half of it in reserve in order to prevent the wild speculation that has caused Bitcoin such price volatility. Harris has also had inquiries from other tribes that want to use the currency or start their own. Currencies knit communities together. Having one’s own currency is empowering; the Latvian 5-lat coin, nicknamed "Milda" for the woman in traditional clothing depicted on it, became a symbol of Latvian independence during the Soviet occupation. A dedicated currency also boosts economic activity within a community, the impetus behind the (questionably legal) hyperlocal currency movement that has produced alternative monies such as BerkShares, IthacaHours, and the Brooklyn Torch. Tribes using MazaCoin automatically make it easier to spend money at the local reservation general store than changing it into dollars to spend at Walmart, for example. But perhaps more than that, it will give the Lakota people a sense of unity and independence. "Our tribe has an idea of what sovereignty is, but not at a level like the Ukrainians," Harris says, referring to the fierce battle for democracy taking place there. "There is no sense of national identity." That fragmentation contributes to the tribes’ crippling dependency on the US government. Half the tribal members on Harris’s reservation, the Oglala Lakota Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota, live in poverty. It’s a problem that afflicts tribes across the country as Native Americans have grown dependent on federal welfare after being ghettoized on reservations. Roughly $220 million flows through the reservation every year, through the Prairie Wind casino and other venues, according to Harris. But he estimates less than $45 million of that stays in the local economy. With MazaCoin, he hopes to stop that money from flowing back to Rapid City and out of the state. "We’re building a new economic foundation for the reservation," he says. The US Treasury Department has indicated that Bitcoin is legal but carries certain bookkeeping requirements related to money transmission. At the same time, some politicians are calling for a ban on the currency. Harris is hoping to avoid all that with MazaCoin. Federal laws granting Native Americans special legal status provide an argument for a currency totally independent of the US dollar. Native American sovereignty is legally defined over a patchwork of treaties, laws, and precedent. "We're on sovereign soil so we have the right to have Bitcoin, Litecoin, MazaCoin," Harris says. But Chase Iron Eyes, South Dakota legal counsel for the Lakota, believes the federal government will push back if MazaCoin succeeds. "There hasn’t been a tribal nation that has declared its own currency and has mandated that that currency is used within its borders," Iron Eyes says. "But it’s because of this pervasive, ever-present asserted dominion of the United States. They’ll try to shut us down, try to cite us with law violations." While the leadership of the Lakota nation has signed off on adopting MazaCoin as a national currency, there is resistance within the ranks. Digital currencies are not always an easy sell, especially to older generations who are not accustomed to using apps constantly throughout the day. A further complication is that not all tribal members have internet access or smartphones, which means Harris has to develop a paper wallet system where members’ MazaCoins are held in cold storage at a central location like a bank. In theory members can walk into the bank, get their MazaCoins in a paper wallet that can be processed by reservation businesses, then return the balance to digital storage at the bank before driving home. There is also a fear of letting go of the US dollar, which holds the implicit threat of letting go of the federal subsidies denominated in it. Iron Eyes believes the legal battle and the public perception battle are worth fighting. "We’ve gone through 100 years of imposed poverty. That’s the fight we’re having," he says. "What we’re trying to do with MazaCoin is just spark something to get us out of this cycle of victimhood." https://www.theverge.com/2014/3/5/5469510/native-americans-assert-their-independence-through-cryptocurrency-mazacoin I haven't seen updates for mazacoin since 2014. It is possible it is still actively in use. Many still demand socialism despite it perhaps not being the best of systems. I hope if these small community based efforts at creating crypto currencies fail people won't be too deterred. Perhaps some were a little ahead of their time. Unveiled before the public was ready to accept them. New trends such as consuming fruit to deter scurvy can take decades to manifest. And so if some of these early attempts result in failure, we shouldn't be too discouraged by them. |
|
|
|
|
I think there's a misconception present where people assume a cashless society is a natural and inevitable progression. Eliminating paper money in favor of cashless electronic transactions further centralizes currencies leaving consumers, businesses and individuals with fewer options. This reduction in options is correlated with reduced financial efficiency and reduced effectiveness in terms of spending. Over the long term this results in decreased GDP, reduced economic growth and other negative trends.
Some in the financial world push for a cashless society as it would centralize currency transactions in their favor. Eliminating competition between electronic transactions and paper transactions would create something further resembling a monopoly which would make it easier to exploit and take advantage of consumers. I think its safe to say a cashless society would only benefit less than 1% of the population. Everyone else would suffer as a result of cashlessness.
And so there's no reason to support it.
|
|
|
|
.... I have nothing against Jeff Bezos or amazon. They've innovated and improved markets for consumers with their revolutionary free shipping program. Their future proposals in the form of drone deliveries, fresh food and plants being purchasable from their website have potential to further enrich consumers and provide new ways of thinking about how business can be done and what a good online shopping experience is. There are distinct postives as far as Jeff Bezos and amazon go. That said, when I read stories like this I tend to assume Jeff Bezos is donating $2 billion to the homeless as it is cheaper than giving amazon's workers a raise. At points in past history, the term philanthropy may have meant making a legitimate effort to help the poor. Today being a "philanthropist" may simply mean donating less than 0.5% of your net worth to the poor, as it is cheaper than net alternatives. Pursuing the same type of cost effective spending extends far into politics. Many corporations are aware of it being cheaper to spend millions lobbying politicians to create tax loopholes than it is spending billions paying taxes. Suffice it to say we could have an interesting dilemma developing here. |
|
|
|
How is an ICO giving an opportunity to somebody who is out of money, in debt and with a bad credit history?
You have said "who are unable to afford the minimum balance of a bank account", what can those invest?
20 cents? And 20 cents in what, this is the main problem!
A sovereign currency..which will use a currency that could be mined by everybody...highly secure /s
A currency issued by a country which without any foreign help will be bankrupt in less than a year
A currency issued by the Islands' government but it is aimed at 90% at foreign investor.....
I see so many red flags I have a deja-vu from the URSS times, no wonder the IMF is also against their plain as is just to sell some coins and hope the money will pour like magic. Island nations tend to be dependent lacking the ability to produce natural resources and aspects of modern life on their own. They often depend upon foreign powers for import of oil, minerals, metals, food, equipment and other things. This dependency status could be magnified by having a single bank in the region which amounts to something resembling a centralized monopoly. In regions like africa where financial institutions have forms of centralized control. It is often accompanied by high rates, poor service, high taxes and other liabilities which are terribly inefficient and largely sabotage the theory behind them existing in the first place. We witnessed this in africa last year where many africans were willing to pay upwards of $24,000 for a bitcoin. Africans are generally always willing to pay more for btc than anyone else as the fines, taxes and restrictions in their country are always far, far, worse than the peak of high bitcoin transaction fees. People living in that type of dependent atmosphere perhaps always strive to find ways to become more independent. Maybe it will succeed or maybe it will fail. Independence could represent a type of necessity under those conditions. They do not have to use this path, they can continue with their currency that by the way is the US dollar and can regulate bitcoin and altcoins that already exist and that the Americans also use without problems. they are totally dependent on the US, both economically and both at the level of security and the IMF is an organization that explores the poor countries and dictates the rules in all the poor countries that depend on them. It would not be too smart to face the IMF because they have a very cruel way of destroying other countries with their austerity measures. After the 2008 economic crisis, there were many nations dependent on bailouts who were in debt and forced to live under the authority of the IMF. Eventually, some nations like iceland and hungary kicked the IMF out of their respective countries after paying off their 2008 debts. It might be worth noting, some have managed to become independent from the IMF and its rules/restrictions. Although, if you've ever heard the false rumor about iceland giving free land to immigrants due to having a shortage of men, that could be retaliation on the IMF's part. |
|
|
|
Two misses on the undercards:
Jin Soo Son - 137 pounds
Mairbek Taisumov - 161 pounds Mairbek Taisumov reportedly had trouble obtaining a travel visa. I think he had issues finding a place to cut weight properly, getting his training in. He might also have had issues finding a hotel with a sauna or hot water which MMA fighters typically use to cut weight. Normally when someone misses weight its often attributable to injury or improper training/preparation. In Taisumov's case difficulty in obtaining his visa could be @ fault. Hunt is a fat bastard  He looks so unfit but he’s a bit of a machine with a really powerful punch & an aggressive style. I actually think he’ll win by TKO. Its not fat. Samoans and other polynesians spent literally generations living on islands, punching each other in the face. As a result they may have a higher bone density than normal as well as other evolutionary adaptations which give them slight advantages in hand-to-hand fighting. Hunt is one of the heavier heavyweights, as well as being possibly the shortest in the weight division. Having a higher bone density could explain that. The same could apply to Robert Whittaker (who is half maori) etc. |
|
|
|
This is the ideal solution for most clients of asset management companies who want to get exposure to bitcoin but do not want to go into direct purchase and storage of cryptocurrencies. That is the preferred format for some. Although there could be conditions where it may not be ideal(of course). Insurance is a concern. Many banks in the US have FDIC insurance which covers up to around $100,000 per account. If the investment firm holding your bitcoins is ever robbed, compromised or hacked as is becoming increasingly common these days--that insurance could be a major concern. The second concern is stability and reliability. People generally think of banks and investment firms as being immune to bankruptcy. However it might be worth noting that should the bank or investment firm holding your BTC ever go bankrupt it could greatly decrease your chances of recovering your holdings. And so liquidity and stability of those holding your assets may be worth taking note of. |
|
|
|
No, at least in the sense of machine learning which is behind all the latest AI advancements. I'll just quote this answer https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-artificial-intelligence-and-algorithms as I find it accurate: An algorithm is a structured method. A step-by-step instruction guide. A recipe in a cook book is an algorithm, for example. Computers run algorithms, since they are very good at following clear instructions, and doing exactly what they are told.
Artificial Intelligence is a research field in Computer Science. It investigates how to construct specific algorithms which behave in a way which can be deemed intelligent in some way or other. For example, an algorithm which implements a model that gets refined with experience or which parses a data set to build a model is essential for Machine Learning, a subfield of AI that deals with systems which adapt in a way which is not unlike the human concept of learning. There are many other subfields of AI: planning, reasoning, knowledge representation, ...
When people think of artificial intelligence, one of the first things that comes to mind is IBM's "Deep Blue" which defeated Gary Kasparov in chess. On its wikipedia page, we see reasons why technically it may not be considered AI at all, even though the general public and many with tech backgrounds believe it to represent the pinnacle of AI development for its time. DesignDeep Blue employed custom VLSI chips to execute the alpha-beta search algorithm in parallel,[13] an example of GOFAI (Good Old-Fashioned Artificial Intelligence) rather than of deep learning which would come a decade later. It was a brute force approach, and one of its developers even disclaimed that it was artificial intelligence at all.[14] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Blue_(chess_computer)#Design Likewise, many consider self driving cars to represent artificial intelligence. However it can be said that many "autonomous cars" on the road today do not fall under the definition of AI you posted from quora. They do not contain deep learning, neural nets or any of those fundamental AI design principles. Yet the media often labels them "artificial intelligence". Anyways the sad truth here may be the media inaccurately labels many things "artificial intelligence" which are not. When the media does this, it could open the door to bitcoin's supply algorithm being labeled artificial intelligence. Due to diminishing of standards. |
|
|
|
The state of california recently replaced their entire bail process with a computer algorithm. California just replaced cash bail with algorithmsInstead of leaving cash as collateral for freedom before a trial in court, those accused of crimes in California will be graded by an algorithm, starting in October 2019. A county official will then take that grade and use it to recommend whether the accused should be released or remain in jail. https://qz.com/1375820/california-just-replaced-cash-bail-with-algorithms/ All around the world, corporations and governments are replacing human jobs with algorithms or artificial intelligence. The distinction between an algorithm and artificial intelligence is not well defined. There are chess programs which brute force every possible move, not unlike a password cracker that attempts every possible password. These chess programs are labeled "artificial intelligence". Some might contend some programs and algorithms labeled "AI" are inaccurately categorized. There may be scant intelligence behind a password breaker which attempts 400 billion passwords. It might be argued there likewise may not be much intelligence behind a chess program which calculates 400 billion chess moves and selects one weighted move out of the group. The intent here is to show how relatively simple algorithms can be categorized under an "AI" heading. With the state of california replacing their bail process with an algorithm, some might view this as representing progress or innovation. This could represent part of the "artificial intelligence revolution" the media loves to glorify. My question to you: can bitcoin's algorithm which alters mining difficulty to guarantee the last bitcoin is mined on may 7th, 2140 be considered a form of artificial intelligence? With california replacing the bail process with an algorithm, perhaps this justifies bitcoin replacing economists and financial analysts with what might loosely be considered artificial intelligence? Could this news article be considered acknowledgement algorithms or AI can do important jobs better than people. And so perhaps bitcoin represents a large leap forward in innovation due to its supply being determined via algorithm/AI rather than humans? |
|
|
|
How will a crypto cater to those with bad credit ratings?
Actually...how do you even get credits with a crypto without somebody lending you money?
Seriously, we're on a forum where asking for a loan with collateral equals red trust and you talk about bad credit history? .... Have you ever wondered how founders of an ICO who are in debt and have bad credit histories can raise millions of dollars of funding in support of their start up venture? The history of ICOs contains many real world examples of those who would be denied business or personal loans from banks, raising large sums to finance their plans. Perhaps one reason so many ICOs fail involves lack of background checks, lack of credit rating and other metrics utilized by banks to gauge how reliable applications for loans are. So you see, unless you're completely unfamiliar with the most basic aspects of ICO--its exceedingly strange that you're even asking this question. A large part of bitcoin and crypto's success is catering to poorer demographics ignored by banks and financial institutions. There is a segment of the population known as the "unbanked" who are unable to afford the minimum balance of a bank account. Bitcoin and crypto have no such restrictions and so this defines part of both ICO and crypto's success--their willingness to give those who are in debt and have bad credit history opportunities which banks and conventional finance normally would not afford them. |
|
|
|
The goal of technology was for everyone to have easier lives and work less. Well todays generations have it much tougher. They are working for much lower wages and longer hours. Its next to impossible for millenials to purchase a house on their own. Technology makes it easier to organize and coordinate. The trouble with that is, the only people who actually use it for that purpose are governments and corporations. The public almost never uses it to inform themselves, organize unions or boycotts or do anything useful. In this sense, technology gives elites a distinct advantage while not doing as much to empower average or ordinary people. Something here itsn't right, Capitalism? The only reason to #BlameCapitalism is if you're unhappy with making your own decisions / owning property & want the government to own and control everything. Blame capitalism is pro totalitarianism. When you eliminate capitalism, totalitarianism and government control is all you have left. The reason people in cuba build rafts to immigrate into america is so that they might have the freedom to start their own business, own their own property and have basic rights which capitalism grants them. Countries like cuba, north korea and venezuela are where people who hate capitalism should live. Maybe then they might appreciate and be thankful for what they have & not be so quick to support throwing it away. |
|
|
|
The Republic of the Marshall Islands has been warned against adopting a digital currency as a second form of legal tender. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) said the country, which consists of hundreds of islands in the Pacific Ocean, should "seriously reconsider". Currently, only the US dollar counts as legal tender in the islands. A law to adopt a digital currency named "Sovereign" alongside the dollar was passed in February.
The first virtual coins are due to be issued to members of the public via an initial coin offering (ICO) later this year.However, IMF directors said the potential benefits of the move were much smaller than the potential costs of "economic, reputational and governance risks". "[Marshall Island] authorities should seriously reconsider the issuance of the digital currency as legal tender," wrote the directors in their report, which was first spotted by cryptocurrency news site Coindesk. There is just one domestic commercial bank in the country and it is at risk of losing its only correspondent banking relationship with another bank in the US.That relationship allows the Islands to transfer dollars in and out of the country. It highlighted the Marshall Islands' dependence on foreign aid, and the fact that the country is vulnerable to natural disasters as well as sea level rise linked to climate change. Adopting a digital currency as an official form of legal tender would threaten both financial integrity and the nation's key relationship with the US bank. The result could be disruption to foreign aid, according to the IMF.The global financial organisation was expressing concern because it was aware of traditional banks' wariness around digital currencies, said David Gerard, author of Attack of the 50 foot Blockchain. Those banks may, for example, associate crypto or digital currencies with criminal activity, including money-laundering, because the digital currency networks have been designed to move coins or tokens around at great speed."You just can't control the stuff," Mr Gerard told the BBC. "Tokens are really, really liquid, that's the whole point." This could give the US correspondent bank cause to rethink its relationship with the Marshall Islands, he explained. "The IMF is not strong-arming the Marshalls, what they're doing is describing what will obviously happen if they proceed - the large correspondent bank will be quite worried," he added.https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-45485685.... Short article for once. Details aren't 100% provided here. It appears the Marshall Islands are planning to adopt their own crypto currency named "Sovereign". As mentioned there aren't many details but it is plausible their economic situation is similar to that of samoa. They appear to have a single bank in their region and that sometimes means citizens have issues obtaining loans and engaging in other basic financial transactions which many take for granted. It is possible they could see economic benefits in embracing crypto as it caters more towards those with poorer credit ratings and demographics who might typically have trouble finding support from banks for things like business, home or car loans. Ceasing foreign aid to the Islands has also been mentioned as a potential repurcussion if the Islands choose not to follow the IMF's recommendations, here. And so we see perhaps a far cry from what happens when venezuela attempts to create its own crypto currency. There could be interesting angles, present. I wonder what peoples thoughts on this are? |
|
|
|
A mania for mobile payments is leaving the poor behind.As payment by phone accelerates in China, the reach of the biggest digital corporations are making its banking regulators uneasy. In Chinese cities, paying via the ubiquitous WeChat platform is now so common that vendors often have trouble making change for cash, or sometimes refuse to take it altogether. That’s prompted pushback from the state-owned banks. Anhui province’s branch of the People’s Bank of China (PBOC), recently began a working group to tackle the problem. Wang Yazhou, a senior banking official in Hefei, the province’s capital, commented a thorough cleanup was needed because refusing cash payments would be likely to have a very negative impact. Regulators like Wang are right to be concerned. The growing “cashlessness” of Chinese cities threatens to expose underlying issues of economic instability. Mobile payments are carving out lines between young and old, and between the prosperous urban middle class and those left behind by the boom times. Mismanaged moves to mobile payments by municipalities could also lock the elderly and the poor out of the consumption economy—just when the Chinese government needs as many spenders as possible to drive forward the country’s economic transformation. The policy question being debated is whether mobile payments can legally substitute for the renminbi, China’s currency. Specifically, regulators are looking to see if “cashless city” initiatives and the like violate China’s Renminbi Management Regulations. This law contains a clause that distinctly defines the renminbi as “the legal currency of the People’s Republic of China” and says that “within China’s national borders, the usage of renminbi for transactions by work units or individuals cannot be revoked.” At the same time, the numbers suggest that cashlessness is rising and here to stay. January 2017 data reported by the Cyberspace Administration of China showed that 469 million users were registered on a mobile payment platform, and found an increase of 31.2 percent in total registered users compared to 2016 numbers. The China Internet Network Administration Center, another government bureau that collects usage data, indicated that the proportion of mobile payment usage in transactions rose from 57.7 percent to 67.5 percent from the end of 2016 to the end of 2017. In the cities, vendors ranging from brand-name stores to street food stalls have slapped colorful QR Code stickers from Alipay and Tencent—China’s two giant internet firms, which dominate online payments—near cash registers. Bolstered by these promising numbers, the mega-corporations that run the cashless transactions applications are ramping up promotional events and municipal lobbying initiatives. In the early 2010s, online vendors pioneered “shopping holidays,” events such as Singles’ Day (Nov. 11—four lonely ones in a row) when purchases peaked thanks to deep discounts. The new events build on those, further normalizing cashless payments. In August 2017, Alibaba, Alipay’s parent company, rolled out “Cashless City Week” events in its home city of Hangzhou, as well as in Wuhan, Fuzhou, and Tianjin. Tencent’s WeChat Pay followed suit with a similar promotion that played off the auspicious date of Aug. 8, naming it an annual “Cashless Day.” However, bowing to pressure from Wuhan’s PBOC branch, wording for these promotions were later changed to “better respect consumer choice” in payment platform availability. In many cities, cashlessness is so common that panhandlers and street musicians use WeChat and Alipay QR codes to ask for change. But these anecdotal cases obscure some of the class-related issues that cashlessness can’t fix, and may worsen. The 2017 World Bank Global Findex database, which measures financial inclusion, estimated that some 200 million Chinese rural citizens remain unbanked, or outside of the formal financial system. Cashless payment systems by design require formal enrollment in banks, which are then tied to the mobile payment platforms that WeChat and Alibaba host. When apps are built on the assumption that residents of a specific community are formally enrolled in a bank or financial institution, the unenrolled are simply locked out of being able to pay. As a 2017 report from the Consultative Group to Assist the Poor indicates, close to 70 percent of rural Chinese remain offline and require a compelling reason to acquire the smartphone and bank account needed to utilize mobile payments. As these digital platforms attempt to become the default form of payment, China is facing a critical challenge to get its unbanked citizens caught up to financial inclusion standards. The question of how accessible cashless payments truly are within China is an active, vibrant debate within domestic policy circles. A 2017 op-ed series in the Beijing News raised concerns that shifting invoicing systems to cashless ones without consulting rural communities or individuals would introduce risks: In communities that are cash-only, if individuals find themselves shut out of the financial system, they will be unable to conduct economic transactions related to agricultural equipment, seeds, and other purchases for farming. Even as regulators and finance analysts worry about these gaps, Alibaba and Tencent remain determined to push cashlessness further into everyday life. Chinese firms are borrowing from the tactics and lingo of Silicon Valley CEOs determined to sell their products as socially valuable. In rural areas, both companies are investing resources and relying on their platforms’ unique characteristics to try to capture potential market shares of rural users of mobile banking products. Alibaba, which grew its revenues via the Taobao shopping site and supply chains, is in the tail end of a 2014 to 2019 10 billion renminbi spending spree to build e-commerce service centers in rural China. Tencent, on the other hand, relies on WeChat’s role connecting migrant workers to family members in rural areas to get more mobile payment users onboard. Older users are another critical demographic targeted in cashless platform promotion campaigns. Because older users tend to struggle learning to use mobile devices, for example, Alibaba takes advantage of filial piety to encourage children to recruit parents and elders into getting on the apps. In a recent campaign to get more elderly users up to speed on using Alipay, Alibaba mimicked the language of a heartfelt child-to-parent note as an introduction to a tutorial on setting up mobile payments. Alibaba and Tencent can issue lofty mission statements about bringing more users into the fold. But to them, the size of coverage disparities aren’t an overall problem as long as urban users keep the money flowing through their respective apps. They lose nothing substantial when lower-income, lower-technology, or unbanked users struggle to participate, because mobile transactions are still a massively growing sector. However, PBOC branches do, because lower spending and renminbi circulation reflects poorly on different provinces’ economic numbers—and, eventually, on the economic health of the whole country. When corporate needs and government objectives clash in China, however, the government tends to win. Yet the attraction of investment and the glamor of tech may give the payment firms the leverage they need to keep reaching for revenue opportunities. How Chinese individuals, businesses, and communities can adapt to the prevalence of ubiquitous cashlessness will determine survival in a burgeoning but unequal digital economy. If China goes cashless without widening the opportunities to participate, the end result may exacerbate economic inequality in China even further—and leave rural provinces frustrated even as the country’s biggest corporations thrive. https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/09/11/china-cant-afford-a-cashless-society/ .... This piece attempts to blame cash and paper money shortages in china on 3rd party payment apps like Wechat, Alipay and Tencent. When people hear the term "paper money shortage" what comes to mind? Is this something that is likely to be the fault of private sector enterprise: corporations which build and implement electronic payment networks? Or is it more likely to be the fault of governments who produce and distribute paper money? I would be interested to know peoples feelings on this topic. Would also be curious to know if anyone that reads this piece feels as if there is "anti-capitalist" sentiment present. Perhaps similar to the anti-capitalist sentiment pushed by venezuela which led to the severe deterioration of its private sector. Followed by loss of jobs, heavily reduced production via corporations in the country, etcetera. No mention of bitcoin or crypto currencies, here. Should they also be considered in "cashless society" discussions? What are peoples thoughts on this? |
|
|
|
|
Notes.
--This will be the 1st UFC event in russia. It should be mentioned that being in russia many russian fighters could be fighting in their home country in front of their families and friends. It could mean russian fighters will train harder to win than they normally would. Sometimes there is also home country judging where those fighting in their home towns receive preferential treatment from judges. An example of this could be Fedor Emelianenko being awarded a winning decision over Fabio Maldonado.
--Mairbek Taisumov is reportedly having difficulty obtaining a travel visa. If he can't acquire a visa he can't fight.
--Magomed Ankalaev is a very good wrestler and fighter. Former dagestan greco wrestling champion, etcetera. He might be a lock here(hence the low odds on him).
--Merab Devashvili is also a good and well rounded fighter. Might also be a betting lock with low odds.
--It is possible Andrei Arlovski should be the betting favorite over Shamil Abdurakhimov. Arlovski moved from Jackson-Wink to American Top Team awhile ago and has looked much better since making the move.
--Mairbek Taisumov might also be a lock if he is granted a travel visa to fight.
--Not many notes here, I don't recognise many names fighting @ this event.
--Being in russia, it is possible this event will air much earlier or later due to timezone differences.
--Mark Hunt may also be a lock. He's 44 years old. If he were a few years younger and his opponent didn't have such an unorthodox fighting style I would definitely bet him here. As things are, I'm leaning towards Hunt but wouldn't bet too heavy on him in case he goes to sleep one day a competitive athlete and wakes up the next a little past his prime.
These would be my picks, although it helps to read the fine print.
-Ankalaev
-Devashvili
-Taisumov
-Hunt
-Arlovski
|
|
|
|
|
I haven't watched the entire 1st fight or paid much attention to either of their careers.
Offhand I have GGG. I don't think Canelo can match GGG's pace. Whatever happens, GGG should throw a significantly higher volume of punches in comparison to what Canelo can match with his limited cardio. Punch stat numbers alone should put Canelo at a distinct disadvantage.
Canelo doesn't appear to have power in his punches enough to turn the tide of the fight. We saw this in Canelo's fight with Julio Chavez Jr. Canelo landed many clean punches without hurting Chavez Jr. The same might be said of GGG. Over, decision or the fight going the distance could be worthwhile props to play. Although like I said I haven't paid much attention to either guy.
If Canelo is using steroids, his cardio could suffer for it over the long term as PED's are often known to damage the body's organs in a way which reduces cardio capacity. This can be seen in the unfortunate history of many WWE/WWF pro wrestlers who suffer premature heart failures from steroids damaging their heart and cardiovascular systems.
Adelaide Byrd and the judging panel may be the last major factor determining how events will play out. Manny Pacquiao and many others have been mis-scored in Vegas before in poor judging decisions. GGG being denied victory in the 1st fight sadly isn't the lone exception.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
