Researchers Neil Gandal, JT Hamrick, Tyler Moore, and Tali Oberman have written a fascinating paper on Bitcoin price manipulation. Entitled “Price Manipulation in the Bitcoin Ecosystem” and appearing in the recent issue of the Journal of Monetary Economics the paper describes to what degree the Bitcoin ecosystem is controlled by bad actors. To many it’s been obvious that the Bitcoin markets are, at the very least, being manipulated by one or two big players. “This paper identifies and analyzes the impact of suspicious trading activity on the Mt. Gox Bitcoin currency exchange, in which approximately 600,000 bitcoins (BTC) valued at $188 million were fraudulently acquired,” the researchers wrote. “During both periods, the USD-BTC exchange rate rose by an average of four percent on days when suspicious trades took place, compared to a slight decline on days without suspicious activity. Based on rigorous analysis with extensive robustness checks, the paper demonstrates that the suspicious trading activity likely caused the unprecedented spike in the USD-BTC exchange rate in late 2013, when the rate jumped from around $150 to more than $1,000 in two months.” The team found that many instances of price manipulation happened simply because the market was very thin for various cryptocurrencies including early Bitcoin. “Despite the huge increase in market capitalization, similar to the bitcoin market in 2013 (the period examined), markets for these other cryptocurrencies are very thin. The number of cryptocurrencies has increased from approximately 80 during the period examined to 843 today! Many of these markets are thin and subject to price manipulation.” The manipulation happened primarily via two bots, Markus and Willy, that seemed to be performing valid trades but did not actually own the bitcoin they were using. During the Mt. Gox hack a number of these bots were able to create fake trades and make off with millions while manipulating the price of BTC. The publicly reported trading volume at Mt. Gox included the fraudulent transactions, thereby signaling to the market that heavy trading activity was taking place. Indeed, the paper later shows that even if the fraudulent activity is set aside, average trading volume on all major exchanges trading bitcoins and USD was much higher on days the bots were active. The associated increase in “non-bot” trading was, of course, profitable for Mt. Gox, since it collected transaction fees.
But the Willy Bot likely served another purpose as well. A theory, initially espoused in a Reddit post shortly after Mt. Gox’s collapse (Anonymous, 2014b), is that hackers stole a huge number (approximately 650,000) of bitcoins from Mt. Gox in June 2011 and that the exchange owner Mark Karpales took extraordinary steps to cover up the loss for several years. The bottom line is simple: if Bitcoin wants to be taken seriously it probably shouldn’t be this easy or legal to manipulate the markets. While decentralization is supposed to replace regulation it’s clear that there is still a way to go before it can be truly taken seriously. “As mainstream finance invests in cryptocurrency assets and as countries take steps toward legalizing bitcoin as a payment system (as Japan did in April 2017), it is important to understand how susceptible cryptocurrency markets are to manipulation. Our study provides a first examination,” write the researchers. https://techcrunch.com/2018/01/15/researchers-finds-that-one-person-likely-drove-bitcoin-from-150-to-1000/.... There is interesting exposition contained here. Some parts might sound bad but I think the honest truth is, far worse things happen in regulated markets. If you want background info on "suspicious activity" in regulated markets, one might look at goldman sachs deals involving greece which largely contributed to the poor state of their economy. There are many examples of corruption, fraud, money laundering for terrorists, drug cartels and organized crime which occur regularly in regulated markets. Unfortunately, those examples go unreported. These "reports" on bitcoin look more like smear campaigns with a generous amount of political spin applied than they do objective or independent analysis. Markets with low volume such as altcoins are manipulated as an industry standard simply because its the path of least resistance. That's something which happens around the world in currency markets, penny stocks and elsewhere. Its a normal and routine thing. Bitcoin is the only place where those practices are criticized, as far as I can tell, which would appear to create a double standard. |
|
|
|
Anyone interested in the Daniel Cormier vs. Volkan Oezdemir fight? I am going to bet on Volkan and I will skip the Miocic vs Ngannou fight. I have checked a few gambling sites, and many of them have under-rated Volkan. I watched his fights against Misha Cirkunov (UFC Fight Night 109) and Jimi Manuwa (UFC 214). He was completely awesome.
.... Volkan Oezdemir is a sparring partner of Anthony "Rumble" Johnson. Rumble says he hit Volkan with full power punches to the chin and Volkan eats them without issue. Rumble also said Volkan trains very hard. What makes it a tough match up to predict is we've never seen Volkan be tested against a great wrestler like Daniel Cormier. That said, Volkans hands are deadly weapons and a title fight is 5 rounds. He definitely has a "puncher's chance" or finding DC's chin and finishing the fight. DC has had issues making weight @ 205. There's a question mark as to whether he solved that problem. We might have seen DC's weight cutting issues in his last fight with Jon Jones. If you watch the fight, it looked like DC was kind of sleep walking in the cage. He wasn't fully there. That weight cutting deficit could be enough to give Vokan what he needs to win the fight. I might make a small parlay with Volkan and a few favorites. +400 or +500 is a decent play when it hits. |
|
|
|
How should I claim my initial coins to start day trading?
Should I claim them as they were gift from someone? or inherited from someone? or Should I just claim that I bought them expensive? .... It depends on what country or state you reside in. I can only comment if you're an american citizen living inside the USA. 1. Gift. Taxation on gifts has seen many new restrictions introduced over the years. I think it depends on the monetary amount. Quick google search says up to $14,000 go tax free on federal taxes. Quick search says conneticut and tennessee are the only two states in the USA with a state level gift tax. 2. Inheritance. In the USA there is something known as a "death tax" aka estate tax. I think it goes as high as 40% taxation. 3. Purchased. If it was purchased I think you'll be required to pay whatever profits were earned from the purchase date leading up to the day when your ICO's are exchanged for fiat. That's a quick overview of the pros versus cons. As far as america goes anyway. |
|
|
|
2) The relevance of the news and the ramifications on the psyche of a poor new investor, who possibly is looking forward to break the shackles of the conventional Banking system. .... There's a chance that the crypto ban is an attempt to keep capital inside south korea's borders. China's ban may have been motivated by the same reasons. Its possible the proposed ban has nothing to do with crypto and is merely their states attempt to keep investment money inside their borders, rather than have that funding withdrawn and taken into other countries, which has spelled doom for asian economies in the past. I like your point on #2. The plight of the poor investor is one well worth considering. It is known that china's 1 child per couple policy only pertains to the poor. The wealthy can have as much children as they like. The same might be said about crypto currency fines and bans. They only apply to the poor. The wealthy likely have ways of getting around them. Your point about "breaking the shackles of the conventional banking system" could be quite relevent here. |
|
|
|
...if they are to be used for REAL WORLD money transfer and usage!!! Simply the fact that they operate with a limited supply, makes it so... Do you know any fiat-currencies with a limited money supply? No, because that would be just too stupid, right? Well guess what, that's what 99% of the crypto"currencies" use. .... Remember there is something called a burden of proof that is important to science and logic. If someone wants to claim something is "stupid" they must provide evidence or some type of reasoning to support their views. You claim limited supply is "stupid". Well, what's "stupid" about it?  I would be very curious to hear your reasoning for this. On the flipside, one might say that currencies which can be printed without limit enable large deficits, wasteful and inefficient spending and poor budgeting practices. With unlimited supply, many governments assume if they make a mistake with the budget, they can simply print more money to fix whatever mistakes were made. Over the long term, this might explain how some nations have massive deficits which were accumulated through overprinting of fiat currencies, rather than fixing fundamental issues relating to inefficiencies, waste or fraud in state spending By contrast, a crypto currency with limited supply could force governments to make a better effort with spending responsibly and efficiently. There is less room for error when a government can't simply "print its way out of debt". I think those are the basic arguments. Somehow I doubt anyone will ever address or respond to them. Here's an interesting quote from your friend's piece: Assets or objects suitable for investment or speculation must by their nature contradict those conditions and is not fit to function as money in this context. I wonder if your friend realizes every fiat currency on earth is open to investment and speculation on forex markets? There'sa lot of money that can be made buying hyperinflated currencies like the zimbabwe dollar or venezuelan bolivar if they recover. |
|
|
|
Garbage is everywhere. Garbage can help the economic growth through recycling the garbages that can be recycled.
What if there is one place for all garbages in the whole earth to promote the one place of garbage for one big economic factor.?
.... Here's a theory for you, OP. #1 A high percentage of garbage is composed of plastic. #2 One of the main components of plastic is oil. #3 It is possible to recycle plastic garbage into gasoline, jet fuel and other hydrocarbon based fuels. Here is a youtube clip of a machine which recycles plastic waste products back into a form which can be utilized to make fuel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGGabrorRS8I haven't seen or heard of wide scale implementation of this process. But yes! Garbage could potentially help economic growth through recycling programs. "One big place for all garbage" may be too centralized an approach. Some type of decentralized format which utilizes free markets and competition to drive innnovation and bring down prices for consumers could be a better arrangement. |
|
|
|
|
The trouble with news stories like this is, they won't gain enough exposure to reach those who need to hear about this the most. This type of information will be classified as "conspiracy theories" and those who discuss this in the mainstream will be labeled "conspiracy theorists". There isn't any reliable avenue of disseminating information which can reach mainstream pop culture audiences who will only hear about bitcoin and crypto currencies being "ponzi schemes, scams, frauds, bubbles" and so on.
There's a dire and urgent need for independent mainstream media in society. (Sorry to be redundant and say the sky is blue and water is wet btw for everyone who already knows this stuff)
Capital One denying customers crypto purchases isn't that serious. What could be worse is the likely harsher and more stringent measures they have planned for the future.
|
|
|
|
I wish that all those people could buy cryptocurrencies with their bonuses,but with all the FUD from the media and heavier crypto regulations in the USA,i really doubt it.China as well is trying to implement corporate tax cuts,because they are afraid that the foreign investors will move to the USA.Tax competition between the big countries is good for the big corporations,but will the crypto industry benefit from it?
Greater consumer buying power could translate to greater collective sums of money thrown at crypto. When wages are hiked it usually means higher average spending across the board, as far as I know. It's just misdirection. Do you think a low wage earner getting a bonus of $1000 after 20 years compares to the huge bonuses that the managers will give themselves? It's all just a big scam, and you're falling for it.
Managers are too low on the corporate food chain to give themselves bonuses. Bonuses come from higher up the executive ladder. I am not able to understand, where is the fun if only people working for over 20 years are eligible for this bonus? And if Walmart is raising wages from $9 (?) to $11 but at the same time closing 63 Sam's Club stores. It looks like only good for the company but nothing for the workers.
Retail stores are being destroyed by walmart and amazon on the basis of them cutting middle men out of their supply to distribution chain and being able to undercut prices. Walmart and amazon's growth come at the expense of retail stores which are forced to close down. The wage hike and tax cuts have nothing to do with that, afaik. |
|
|
|
1. Bitcoin is going to be a topic of debate on the coming G20 summit, a meeting between the European Union and 19 of the wealthiest nations. .... I wonder how our fearless world leaders will discuss bitcoin when all of them are computer illiterate and know absolutely nothing about bitcoin, cryptography, decentralization or any of the relevent topics on hand? That could be the most interested thing about that meeting. Somehow I get a feeling people believe politicians are educated on computers or any of the relevent topics when it comes to subjects like bitcoin. That blind faith in strangers--people you don't know and have never met, can be very dangerous. :/ Would be nice to have a few more checks and balances as far as politics go. |
|
|
|
Now that governments have a competitor in terms of currencies, do you think that they will make an effort to make the economic system more transparent or will they just try to ban everything?
.... Transparency was never a real issue, in my humble opinion. Barack Obama had a website created to make government spending more transparent in his 1st Administration and no one cared enough to look at the numbers. The issue with transparency and people supporting the right policies involves them caring enough to educate and inform themselves on the issues. That's where reform of civilization breaks down. Most don't care enough to bother and feel entitled to simply repeat the last thing they saw on tv or in a newspaper. I expect the government to ban everything. Not because they want to, moreso as government isn't a real power. Politicians are merely puppets whose strings are pulled by others lurking in the shadows. That might sound too conspiracy theory'ish for some. But let's say that money equates to political influence. The top 1% own about 40% of the wealth in the world. That means they have at least 40% of the political influence, which gives them power over politicians and others who hold out their fingers to check which way the wind is blowing. Politicians know their survival depends on cooperating with those who finance their campaigns and lobby them with millions. The average person doesn't have much political influence in this era. They don't care enough to educate themselves or coordinate. That makes things hard, one might say impossible. |
|
|
|
In 2017, the United States built about 28.5GW of electricity generating infrastructure – 25GW of it utility-scale and about 3.5GW of distributed (<1MW) solar power. Wind and solar were 55.4% of the 28.5GW overall total, and about 49.2% of the utility-scale total (>1MW). When subtracting the 11.8GW of utility-scale fossil retirements tracked by the EIA, the net new volume of US generation was 16.7GW of generating capacity, with 94.7% of that coming from renewables. Along with this positive news, are projections that in 2017 the USA lowered its total CO2 emissions by approximately 1% versus 2016’s total. This number is lesser than the years from 2005-2016 when we saw emissions fall an average of 1.6%. The EIA measures all solar power generation capacity in AC values. Emissions are currently projected by the EIA to increase in 2018. Specifically focused on utility-scale new generating capacity – renewables totaled 12,321MW of 25,041MW of that new capacity. 6,759MW of the renewables being wind and 5,170MWAC of that solar, with 392MW of ‘other renewables.’ Those totals made renewables 49.2% of new utility-scale electricity generating capacity. In 2016, an amazing year for clean energy construction in the country, the US installed about 27GW of utility-scale capacity. 62% of that was renewables – 16.7GW. 7.8GW from wind and 7.7GW of solar power were built. The utility-scale renewable volume in 2016 was 35% higher than in 2017. 2016 was a record year for utility-scale solar power installations. With this net capacity being heavily pushed toward renewables – 16GW+ worth – it seemingly extends the USA’s net new electricity capacity being mostly renewables all the way back into 2003. In both 2016 and 2017, net fossil fuels were about zero on the utility-scale. For the month of March, 21% of utility-scale electricity came from renewables. A heavy snow pack melting on the west coast driving hydroelectricity, plus an annual wind production peak in March led this value. In the same month, wind plus solar electricity – for the first time – broke 10% of US electricity usage. When the eclipse hit on August 21st, California solar power output fell by 60% from its normal production. Of importance – these are total “capacities” built – not electricity generation. Solar and wind are run for much less per year than new gas plants. For example, the average solar “capacity factor” – % of time running – for new solar power is probably around 20-25%, wind probably around 40-43% and gas 55-60%. Electrek’s Take First off, this report isn’t perfect – solar power and wind are both down from their 2016 numbers. 2016 saw approximately 14.5GWDC of solar power installed. In 2017 – with residential and utility-scale down, we’ll probably see the US break 11GW of solar power – but not much further. On the other hand, when accounting for hardware dying off (mostly coal) – the USA hasn’t really built new fossil fuels since really close to the turn of the millennia. We’re down another 1% in 2017 emissions – from a 13% drop between 2015-2016 – so some progress made. We’re still adding a lot of CO2 to the atmosphere though…so its kinda like destroying our home 1% less than the immense amount of destruction last year. 2018 for solar power is a cloudy prediction still – as we don’t know how Suniva will come out – but January 26th is getting closer and closer. https://electrek.co/2018/01/12/94-percent-new-electricity-capacity-usa-from-renewables/.... This could be relevent to the discussion on bitcoin mining's power consumption. It appears power grids are increasingly abandoning coal and other energy sources which are notorious for being bad for the environment. Increasingly power grids are expanding into renewable sources of energy, which are better for climate change and the ecology, with fossil fuel based electrical production and emissions being diminished. This could fly in the face of claims bitcoin mining is bad for the environment due to its electricity being generated by coal and other harmful hydrocarbon based sources. |
|
|
|
|
Ngannou is credited with having an 83 inch reach and in his last fight he threw his punches from very low. The punch he KO'ed Alistair Overeem with came from below Overeem's line of sight, where he would have trouble seeing it coming. It was very similar to Derek Brunson's KO of Lyoto Machida. Ngannou is showing good evolution in his kickboxing game.
Stipe is very impressive in that he has a part time/full time job as a firefighter and doesn't train MMA full time. Probably the only UFC champion in history with a day job.
Ngannou has to be the favorite due to his ridiculous athleticism and high growth for how long he's been in the sport. I think Stipe could win if he finds Ngannou's chin. Ngannou has never really been tested in terms of him taking punches or strikes. There's a chance Stipe could land clean and not hurt him.
|
|
|
|
|
I see people complaining about transfer fees.
I think if bitcoin ever becomes truly regulated, there will be taxes stacked on top of transfer fees and it could make things worse.
For europeans their VAT could be stacked on top of bitcoin transfer fees, for americans a sales tax could be stacked, in cases where bitcoin is used to buy/sell. I would be very interested to hear about any proposed benefit people think they might gain from that. The implications of bitcoin being taxed appear negative. If someone could point me in the direction of positive tangible gains for bitcoin being taxed or regulated, I would be very interested in seeing those arguments.
|
|
|
|
|
Good post. I like the attention to detail.
I would guess the market cap of PKR is $50. There are 5 coins in circulation with the highest and most recent buy order priced @ $10. (The 5 unmined coins don't factor in, afaik.)
I think market cap is determined more by how much someone is willing to pay for something, rather than what the buy/sell order is listed @. To make this more of a real world example, PKR could be traded on exchanges where there are no buy/sell commissions to move the price upwards without incurring costs. That tendency could partly explain how some alts and market caps become overinflated over time.
Good topic for discussion.
|
|
|
|
Good find, OP. I don't think IRS tax policy has anything to do with tax reform. The IRS has shown a tendency to attack certain demographics for purely political reasons in the past. Here's a source providing exposition on the IRS targeting The Tea Party in past years. IRS Targeted Tea Party GroupsIn 2013, IRS official Lois Lerner revealed that conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status had been getting extra scrutiny, based on words such as "tea party" or "patriots" in their names. For conservatives, she confirmed their darkest suspicions. In the Tea Party heyday years of 2009 and 2010, hundreds of groups affiliated with the party had sought tax-exempt status as 501(c)(4) "social welfare" organizations. IRS demands for documents left many of them in bureaucratic limbo for a year or more. Now, in the third audit of how the tax-exempt application process went off the rails, the Treasury Department's inspector general overseeing the IRS has found the agency targeted not just conservatives but also scores of groups with words like "progressive" in their names. https://www.npr.org/2017/10/05/555975207/as-irs-targeted-tea-party-groups-it-went-after-progressives-too It makes sense for them to target crypto. They've targeted certain demographics for political reasons & they've shown they can get away with it with zero accountability, as no one cares. A case can also be made for the IRS protecting illegal immigrants by refusing to use tax data to track or identify, etc. Their stance is very political and they get away with bending or breaking the rules all of the time, afaik. |
|
|
|
Walmart is boosting starting wages, providing a one-time bonus for employees and expanding benefits, the company said on Thursday, citing the tax cuts signed into law by President Trump last year. The company is also closing 63 Sam's Club stores, it announced Thursday. Details: The bonus is based on length of service, with those who've worked 20 years eligible for $1,000. The company, which is the largest private employer in the U.S. and employs roughly 2.2 million people worldwide, is also raising its starting wage to $11 an hour. The current starting wage for store associates is $9 an hour. The company also said it plans to expand its maternity and paternity leave benefits. The plan benefits more than a million employees, the company told Axios. Several other large companies have also doled out bonuses and announced employee raises thanks to the new tax cuts: - Bank of America gave roughly 145,000 employees a year-end $1,000 bonus.
- AT&T also gave $1,000 bonuses to more than 200,000 U.S. employees.
- Fifth-Third Bancorp told Axios' Dan Primack that it will raise the minimum wage of its workforce to $15 per hour.
- Wells Fargo said it would increase its minimum wage to $15 an hour, and plans to allocate $400 million in donations to community and nonprofit organizations in 2018.
- Boeing committed $300 million for charitable giving, employee development programs and "workplace of the future" facilities and infrastructure enhancement.
- NBCUniversal said it would award $1,000 in bonuses to more than one hundred thousand eligible frontline and non-executive employees.
https://www.axios.com/walmart-boosting-1515675530-f1641dc4-c92c-4002-ab00-b2e8cf35d540.html.... I remember seeing a few threads posted in this section asking how corporate tax cuts might affect bitcoin & crypto in general. This article provides one scenario. It appears corporate tax cuts could trickle down to workers and lower income brackets in a way that is both tangible and visible. This positive precedent could once again go against the grain, as far as the mainstream media goes. The media has doom and gloomed proposed corporate tax cuts, labeling them undue privilege to the wealthy and elites. I think its important for people to recognize and comprehend these issues in some manner as it allows them to support the right policies which over the long term could benefit themselves, their friends and family. Would be nice if we could see more discussion & debate on this for sake of furthering our collective knowledge & education.  |
|
|
|
Another source for OP's story: Goldman Says Cryptocurrencies May Succeed as Form of Real MoneyBitcoin may seem like a solution in search of a problem in the U.S., where transaction costs are already low and the dollar stable. But in developing countries, digital currencies could succeed as a real form of money, Goldman Sachs Group Inc. says. Many currencies in sub-Saharan Africa have lost value due to high inflation and supply mismanagement. As a result, foreign money makes up more than 90 percent of deposits and loans in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Zimbabwe demonetized its currency in 2015. Bitcoin could also be useful in regions where governments impose strict rules on the use of traditional currencies from other countries. “In recent decades the U.S. dollar has served its purpose relatively well,” Goldman Sachs strategists Zach Pandl and Charles Himmelberg wrote in a report Wednesday. But “in those countries and corners of the financial system where the traditional services of money are inadequately supplied, Bitcoin (and cryptocurrencies more generally) may offer viable alternatives.” The report also warned that if digital coins become a widely used form of currency, investors shouldn’t expect the astronomical returns that have recently drawn unprecedented attention to the world of cryptocurrencies. “Our working assumption is that long-run cryptocurrency returns should be equal to (or slightly below) growth in global real output—a number in the low single digits,” the strategists said. “Thus, digital currencies should be thought of as low/zero return or hedge-like assets, akin to gold or certain other metals.” https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-10/goldman-says-viability-of-crypto-is-highest-in-developing-world .... Interesting statements by goldman sachs. Its nice to see something resembling an objective analysis. It contrasts with the "bitcoin is a bubble" doomsday predictions. Its possible goldman is invested in bitcoin and crypto and so they're taking a passive aggressive approach in attempting to say nice things about bitcoin, while not seeming like they have a vested interest one way or another. Goldman sachs comments @ the bottom of the article are also very interesting. They envision bitcoin as being similar to gold or precious metals. This could mean they expect bitcoin to flatline and not carry much volatility into the future. I might be interested to know how they factor bitcoin's growth into the equation. Perhaps they're expecting the transfer fee issue to never be solved and so they expect growth to not matter due to network congestion and fees overriding bitcoin's future growth potential? |
|
|
|
|
Excellent news.
Its almost like, japan is saying:
Japan: "South korea is preventing itself from making millions of dollars and creating jobs to strengthen its economy by banning crypto."
Japan: "Its ok, we don't mind the job and profit based opportunities crypto provides and will be glad to take all of south korea's crypto business."
It could be eye opening to see what effect the decision south korea made to cripple their own economy by banning bitcoin will have upon the future. And also what benefits japan might gain by embracing crypto.
In this era, it might be said those who embrace innovation and progress succeed, while those who shun innovation and progress get left behind. It could be interesting to see if that analogy holds true, here.
|
|
|
|
As you know, banks can lend more money than they have in deposits, however you currently cannot do that with cryptos. Do you think that it is a decisive advantage or it could be somehow countered?
.... It should be mentioned there can be massive disadvantages to banks utilizing leverage. One example of this are subprime mortgages which were leveraged and contributed towards the 2008 economic crisis. Leverage does carry an advantage of amplifying gains. The disadvantage is its tendency to also amplify losses. Nietzsche said women make the highs higher and the lows lower. Leverage could have a similar effect. Also the divide separating commercial banking from investment banking might appear to be an advantage. But carries many of the same implications which leverage does. Bank bailouts might be the fallout which occurs when leveraged investments go bad. Being able to invest more money than is currently on hand might appear to be an advantage. But it can also contribute heavily towards instability and unreliability over the long term. It sacrifices long term value for potential short term gains. |
|
|
|
|
I would buy the bolivar if venezuela looks like it could stabilize. The bolivar has hyperinflated so much, it should shoot back up in value if venezuela is liberated or its economic issues are reformed.
Litecoin, dash and other typical alts with limited supply which have withstood a test of time would be my picks.
Things I would stay away from are ethereum, bitcoincash & forked alts.
Real estate and stock market I would also avoid.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
