except that every material change in business model from original application needs to submit to further review and approval.
So don't change the business model from the original application. Licensing IP from a foreign company is just one example of how companies already shift profits around internationally. maybe you need to go into the consulting business. |
|
|
|
I'm sure Circle plan to have an insurance reserve made up of bitcoin profits, the reserve requirements and risk profile will just change with profitability allowing them to keep there bitcoin profits.
Think of all the tricks companies use to make their profits show up in, for example Ireland, instead of the US. Lots of ways to do it, but the problem is that bringing the dollars back from Ireland can be tricky because those dollars need to be moved through the legacy banking system. Bitcoin doesn't have that problem. Suppose you have a business that's licenced in NY, but you want to keep all your profits in BTC. No problem - in addition to your US corporation, register a corporation in Bermuda (or other suitable jurisdiction) that holds or purports to hold some kind of IP. Have the US corporation license the IP from the foreign corporation, with the fees to be paid in BTC, at a rate that coincidentally means the US company is barely or negatively profitable (this is how Hollywood makes sure all its movies lose money no matter how successful they are). Foreign company accepts the license fees and pays them out to shareholders as dividends. No interaction with the legacy banking system is required. Tax avoidance FTW. except that every material change in business model from original application needs to submit to further review and approval. |
|
|
|
I still value the overstock story way higher, because that guy is really trying to trickle bitcoin acceptance down the supply chain. Now if dell did that... I'd be really excited. well, i get that but when Dell's revenues are 34x higher than Overstock's, sit up. |
|
|
|
"At this point, most of my friends are neutral or positive about Bitcoin... EXCEPT the academic economists. I think the fact that Bitcoin was not invented within the sphere of academic economics really bothers them (not that they would ever put it that way...)"
It probably pisses the academics off that even though bitcoin is based on some really complex math and technology, at a higher level, it brings back the concept of money (and gasp, economics) to very simple rules and concepts. And hence undermines economists' attempts to make it more seem complex than it really is.
when you have a predictable money supply, not dependent on corrupt human intervention, one can reason their way through what were previously deemed complex economic concepts. this is why logical, mathematically inclined ppl early on in Bitcoin's history were able to identify the key tenets behind what it represents. if you were willing to take a risk, this has paid off enormously. |
|
|
|
This is my new go-to video. Money as Memory is an absolutely critical concept to understand, for everything. Even for strategies in dealing with regulators. I'm pretty sick of the "bitcoins are digital tokens" line; it invites all kinds of needless objections and sounds immediately suspect to the slightest skeptic, even otherwise on-point people like the Austrian economists. Bitcoin is a ledger. It isn't a replacement for gold, it's a better system for doing exactly what people originally did and what gold was used to as a low-tech way of doing on a large scale: record who brought value to others within a community. A community that is growing at 10x per year. you're dealing in advanced Bitcoin Theory, ZB. even the most ardent of Bitcoin supporters can't understand this concept; look at all the dissers of this video in the Reddit thread. |
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin creating a daily green candle...
|
|
|
|
|
Dell 2013 rev: $57B
Expedia: $4.8B
Overstock: $1.7B
|
|
|
|
gold getting smacked again.
there's a clue in there.
What is the clue? what's the clue?: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. |
|
|
|
|
gold getting smacked again.
there's a clue in there.
|
|
|
|
|
there's alot of negativity running around about the NYDFS release yesterday. and rightly so, there is alot of overbearing, overreaching regs in there that could be abused and which set unrealistic expectations on startups as well as on transmitters. the big question is who is considered a transmitter? i've seen all sorts of extrapolations to Changetip and to blockchain.info. yes, it would be best if many of these regs weren't even in place to let innovation flourish and let the market figure it out. unfortunately, that's not what the regulators are going to allow.
the point i really want to make is that while many of you may be selling off from fear of these regulations permanently constricting Bitcoin, the big boys are doing the opposite. they are embracing the clarity and will be moving forward in the space no matter how the most ultra-Libertarian participants feel. and with that forward movement comes their money. to then be followed by waves of USD investors. actors like the Winklevii, Circle, SecondMarket are going to be unleashing their enterprise products very soon. the question is, do you want to be around when they hit the market? or would you rather get out now from fear that Bitcoin is being constricted? i, for one, will be sticking around to see what happens b/c it will be big. we're in a bull flag configuration, afaic, and the price is waiting to launch. the important thing to realize is that even in the most negative scenario where nothing gets modified in the NYDFS regs, Bitcoin will route around NY. you'd be blind to not see that given the uptake in Bitcoin all around the world in so many places not deemed possible in years past. yes, NY is important, but otoh who caused this whole mess in the first place? how fitting if they unintentionally quarantine themselves off from the greatest achievement in monetary science. i actually think Lawsky sees this but can't completely extricate himself conceptually from his role as Superintendent. he may in fact make a mistake, but don't you. hang in there b/c nothing has fundamentally changed and NY can't stop what is happening globally.
in the meantime, read that document carefully and submit your change proposals to try and make it right. that's what i'll be doing.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
