Show Posts
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 »
|
firstly in january trump says he isnt touching medicaid
so the Dems say they dont want to see trump mess with social security like medicaid trump again says he isnt touching medicaid
so the Dems then say the treasury needs to reduce the medicaid budget to sign on another 6 months of gov operations. so the Dems say if the medicaid budget is not reduced the Dems will purposefully shutdown all government meaning affecting people payments and other services
and then the Dems go on TV saying that trump is going to affect medicaid and he is messing with things he shouldnt
|
|
|
i continually keep being asked when the 2025 ATH might be and if we already missed it, based on any data, stat or knowledge i have and i keep saying this: the 2013 ATH happened 517 days after the 2012 halving the 2017 ATH happened 557 days after the 2016 halving the 2021 ATH happened 547 days after the 2020 halving
the average of these are: 540 (basically 1.5years (365+182=547)) 2024 halving april 19th + 540 = oct 11th 2025 (or 1.5yr=oct18th)
so the short answer is .. not yet
i add the caveat that 2021 had a "double hump" where the first trajectory to NEAR ATH was just 341 days after 2020 halving 2024 halving april 19th + 341 = march 26th 2025
so the short answer is .. not yet
long answer: probably any time between march and november 2025.. so, not yet
|
|
|
the milkman delivered daily produce on a electric van the milk was contained in glass bottled that were taken(recycled) when new milk bottles were dropped off at your door butter was cut in blocks and wrapped in paper or tinfoil
you bought fish and chips(chunky fries) wrapped in paper you went to local butchers who cut you fresh meat wrapped in grease paper you could heat a house a day for under 50p in a coin machine in your home
... not even 25 years later we have convenience food delivered by fossil fuel cars at a surcharge the milk is in plastic containers that not all places will accept for recycling butter is in plastic tubs
fish and chips are in plastic trays meats are in plastic shrink wrapped packaging you cant even heat a home for less than £5
and yet they say we need to be innovative and think of new idea's to change the current situation... .. i think we need to go back to old idea's.
anyone else think of old stuff that is better than modern?
|
|
|
after coming across a community of activists whom call themselves "1st,2nd,4th amendment auditors" / "public service conduct auditors" and similar groups, i found it interesting how the public perception of privacy differs to that of how these auditors are showing how much freedom they have to do things without permission/consent of others
this lead me down a rabbit hole of research, looking into american law and how court precedence have changed the perception of privacy
TL:DR; the constitutions 4th amendment "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated." is not as strong as it used to be
it seems americans dont de-facto have the right to privacy anywhere/everywhere they go, as much as they think they do
did you know hundreds of years ago just owning unmarked land allowed you to chase a stranger and defend your land even to the death of the stranger whom went onto your land.. however laws changed where it then required marked borders such as bushes or fencing to mark the borders to then define your property which can then be defended, where you were required to first give the stranger a chance to peacefully leave the land. this later changed whereby if the general public such as postmen, fastfood delivery, neighbours, friends were allowed to enter your land unscheduled/uninvited to knock on your door, then opened up your land to public access with the 'implied right of access', which then meant unsolicited strangers/authorities were also allowed to step onto your land and approach your front door without being de-facto trespassers
then with new laws of "plain view doctrine" anything that can be seen is then searchable, such as a open window or a low build boundary, whereby if a suspicious activity is seen it then gave implied right of access to then invade your property for search and seizure. such as if you left the blinds up or curtains open the authorities can walk upto your house and look into your window and look for evidence. where by if they find evidence of a crime and found a door or window unlocked, they had implied right of access to enter your house and take custody of that evidence (exigent circumstances)
this has also lead to societal changes whereby it used to be the case that if a creep was standing on the public sidewalk recording you through the window, that creep if caught was immediately charged with a crime, however these days due to the onus of you now being required to create your own privacy, unless you have a 6foot privacy fence, and have blinds/curtains,privacy glass in use, the creep now has the freedom to perve into your windows legally
this is because with the invention of security systems/alarms/locks, binds/curtains/privacy fence/windows. it raised the bar of what is considered asserting your right to privacy, meaning by not having the latest security systems/visual deterrents, it allows strangers/authorities access(within reason) without it being considered trespass/intrusion/perversion. this has even lead to cases where if someone entered your home through a unlocked door, you cant just harm them defending your home. you have to give them the opportunity to exit untouched and ensure that if they dont exit, they need to show intentions to threaten you first before you can defend your property eg if an intruder was seen in your property and you stabbed them in the back as they were fleeing, you would get charged with murder NOT defending your private property
changes due to technology also apply to other privacy matters century ago public telegraphy and phone booths had an expectation of privacy whereby it required permission from both caller and recipient to allow a call/telegram to be shared/recorded by third parties/authorities/service provider. however this got eroded too. and in todays technology with the expectation that people need to use vpn's/proxy/tor to create their own privacy, which has raised the bar of expectation of privacy on telephone cables/signals. where by clearnet and unencrypted messaging and calls these days can be intercepted lawfully and legally meaning you have no expectation of privacy on the public internet/telephone systems(your ISP, services your a customer of can gather all data)
with things like the google maps car, teslas, smartphones, selfies, etc. where by camera's in public is becoming normalised.. also with mainstream fearmongering of stranger danger and 'see it report it' people now no longer fight against authorities putting up cameras in public and instead want the security of more public cameras, whereby there is no longer an expectation of privacy in public
with things like AI/face recognition, more privacy is eroded whilst driving, the authorities previously needed to have witnessed a primary crime that can endanger others before they can then stop a car and investigate and find further secondary civil penalties.. however by changing laws, such as where tinted windows became a "security risk" the authorities can now use the plain view doctrine to look inside a cars window even with a camera at the roadside and enforce civil penalties on drivers for use of phones or not wearing a seatbelt while driving, without needing to have first found a primary crime to stop and detain a person to then ask a driver to lower their side window to then investigate other civil secondary penalties.
also there were laws whereby people needed to only show their ID only after the authorities had articulated a reasonable suspicion using facts that a crime was about to, in progress of, or had been committed.. however even these rights of privacy of not requiring to reveal ID have been eroded. authorities can now use 'wellbeing checks' to evade the need of a warrant to perform searches, of someones property and personal identity EG just mentioning they feel that the person is not acting right gives authorities the exigent circumstance to gather personal details or perform unwarranted searches/access of someones private life
i do adore these constitutional auditors mission to hold government accountable, however peeling away that mission, to then listen to their spiel/terms they normalise 'no expectation of privacy in public' and 'onus is on you to create your own privacy' it becomes interesting as to how society has changed over the last couple centuries since the constitution was first wrote. these constitution auditors do at many times use their mission to ensure authorities do not abuse their power, but many times it reveals how authorities powers have escalated and grew over time, even where it was considered unconstitutional compared to centuries ago
|
|
|
And, not that it's relevant to the topic in any way, franky1 is also a massive transphobe. Just an all-round piece of shit in general, really.
i am not anti-trans... i am anti-trends trans is not as you think it is.. (its not about social games of discourse of mindset, bickering of mindsets) analogy someone deciding when they are a kid they want to be a fire officer. does not mean they get to be a fire officer just by their say so.. without training or skill or passing a test.... other people should not be forced into saying he is a fireman just on his say so.. there is actually a process involved in transitioning from one job role to another... when kids do it, its cute, people play along(for a while) because they know its a game and a phase. but it does not make a kid a fire officer just on a kids say so when someone is just confused about something due to some silly social media game they seen on social media.. they are not truly transgender, they are just playing childish games of wanting to be something they seen in social trends of what they seen on a screen andrew chow is still andrew chow. even if he wants to claim he is something else. just looking at him you can tell he is still andrew. listening to his voice is obvious he is still andrew also it was his parents that named him andrew and doctors that had medical evidence that he is a guy(andrew) and they signed a birth certificate verifying gender and name and family members if he wants to say andrew is dead(usual social narrative of these types of people) then his parents should file a murder investigation if he is actually going through proper medical transition. then he should go through that process and complete it.... and not just playing social mind games to course discourse generated just to insult people that dont believe in his mindscape.. i have nothing against anyone that actually wishes to proceed the entire process of actual transitioning via all the lengthy medical procedures and surguries and medications and hormone therapies, if it leads to them living a life that fulfils their life.. however those just social trending a new trend of pronouns for social discourse because it sounds cool to put themselves into some label for some other reason of pretending they are a penguin, two spirit animal or helicopter or a different biology to their birth determined biology.. thats not the same thing
there is a process.. some people just have identity crisis. which can be worked out using therapy. EG they think they will get treated differently or get some compassion if they pretend to be something different.. however there is also others that after a process of therapy to actually diagnose them, they realise they actually are unequivocally better off as properly transitioning via hormones, medical interventions to change their gender (not just mind games/social drama trends) if andrew does not have realistic plans of genital surgery. he is not actually wanting to transition analogy if you are not committed to do the processes needed to become a fire officer and be that role. you are not a fireman. you are just play acting as one
|
|
|
so the sentencing is in.. and it seems he is getting 25 years. good(shoulda got longer) obviously he will try and appeal it. but atleast he isnt going to get to play CEO again any time soon (he was hoping to be allowed to be free to get back to business to 'make everyone whole' unpunished)
this might make a few other scammers realise trading in crypto does not alleviate them of the law, a scam is still a scam no matter what the asset/value/currency is
|
|
|
in many economic topics of this forum i see many people have misconceptions..
saving vs investing many quote how savings should be avoided and people should throw every penny into investing due to inflation.. where investing earns more let me clarify
saving is not a long term thing. not a wealth creation thing. saving is a temporary play to only save a small amount to literally SAVE people from incidents of rainy day, emergencies where they need quick access to money. to literally SAVE you from having to resort to selling investments at a loss or using debt in an emergency. you are not suppose to put all wealth into savings,
the gameplay is simple. if you income is say 2000units of any currency(denomination is not important its just a demo) and say housing was 800 (40%) groceries was 400 (20%) bills was 300(15%) leaves you with 500(25%) of excess
for 3 months save the 500 to get a rainy day savings pot to cover a month of bills and essentials then after that put 500 into investing. knowing if your salary doesnt arrive on time or you lose a job and takes you a month to find ANY other job/start getting social security(unemployment). you dont then need to extract investments or use credit cards/debt. because the savings will save you
as for the inflation concern. a 4% inflation devalue of 1500 is only 60. by which any time over the year you can add in 60 to top up savings to equate to next years rate of bills EG 5 a month of the 500 excess goes to savings to keep savings at a rate adjacent to rising bills cost. so you can still invest 495 until you get a salary pay rise that the counters the depletion so the fears and misquotes of people suggesting not to save at all and throw everything into investment are not as well guided as they seemed saving will save you from investing badly and save you from panicking in dire times to not need to sell investments at a loss, in short savings will save you
minimalism vs frugality alot of people think to save/invest requires being super frugal, live under a rock like a hermit and never spend. this is not the case instead develop a minimalist lifestyle. decide what actually important to your life. what things serve a purpose/function, gives lasting memories.. and spend wisely. do you need all the clutter of dozens of branded shoes, clothing, household luxuries/decorations. or can you find the minimalist unbranded options that serve a regular function to only need a couple items
develop it further. do you really need the lavish new luxury car, or just a minimal model that gets you from A to B do you really need to pay premium transport, carry 5 luggage bags charging extra at airport, containing every item of clothing and gadget your house had. and then sitting in first class on a plane... or can you just put a weeks worth of underwear and shirts/pants into one bag and sit in economy.
frugality of hermit crab living can be a short term aid. but at somepoint going super frugal fails itself because living on "survival" mode too long is a mental break that cant last. the stress of surviving and not living will become its own downfall which usually ends up with people splurging in excess to get that feel good feeling to regain sanity. so instead be wise about your spending. note wasteful. make purposeful decisions on things that make your life have good long term feelings/memories. and cut out on the wasteful stuff you usually dont care about a week after purchase
|
|
|
so lets show you how people think about money (example people are 20yo in 2020)
20yo female: "i want to have a $10k pair of high heels before im 24yo" 20yo male: "i want to have a $10k rolex before im 24yo"
20yo female: "i found a chinese knock-off heals for $2k, thats like 20% price, so i have $8k FREE money" 20yo male: "i invested $10k in crypto 2020"
21yo female: "i have $8k FREE i can get matching dress and purse and get my hair done and have a spa week(spends $5k) for FREE" 21yo male: "still hoarding crypto"
23yo female: "i have $3k FREE, oops shoes broke. oh inflation puts replacements at $3k, oh well still FREE" 23yo male: "still hoarding crypto"
24yo female: "i have $0k but i have my cheap out of fashion shoes and a smelly used dress i shouldnt wear again" 24yo male: "still hoarding crypto, i could buy 4 rolexes and still have money left"
|
|
|
very simple idea, the current forum url to get to meta https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=24.0have meta.bitcointalk.org aswell that redirects to board=24.0 for main bitcoin discussion https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=1.0have main.bitcointalk.org aswell that redirects to board=1.0 for for economics https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=7.0have economics.bitcointalk.org aswell that redirects to board=7.0 and for Development & Technical Discussion https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=6.0have ass-kiss-dev.bitcointalk.org aswell that redirects to board=6.0 last one was a sarcasm joke. but the point is it would make things easier to link to different sections using a easy to remember addresses im not suggesting redoing the whole set-up nor changing the board numbering system. its not about editing or changing SMF software/database im suggesting adding extra url re-directs to the domain management
|
|
|
just a random fun fact about money/currency/economics
in old money 1bit was a single 'pieces of 8' of a dollar coin in crypto 1bit is 100sat
when bitcoin is $125k/btc 1bit(100sat) is worth 1bit(8th of a dollar)
enjoy that thought when the time comes
|
|
|
so i see many people talk about their low incomes and their expenses and how to economise to either support a nice lifestyle or to maximise investments.. and so here is 2 scenarios of people on $15/hour and $20/hour and a basic breakdown of expected expense.. things like putting 15% into pension before tax. then after tax putting ~10% into savings/personal choice investments 30% into housing. and so on  so lets see people views on how they would tweak the numbers of expenses to their personal preference to still cover essentials but maximise either a nicer lifestyle or more investing its not a marked exam, its a fun experiment to make it easy you can copy below to then adjust in your own post $15/h total 1990 || $20/h total 2514 || invest[$200] housing[$600] || invest[$250] housing[$755] bills[$400] transport[$200] || bills[$505] transport[$250] groceries[$400] clothing[$90 ] || groceries[$504] clothing[$125] repairs[$40] hobbies[$20] || repairs[$50] hobbies[$25] entertainment[$20] luxuries[$20] || entertainment[$25] luxuries[$25] maybe explain your choices too
|
|
|
so i have been starting to plan out some finances ready for the run upto the 2025 ATH and the correction after. so thought its time to rearrange some bank accounts
i have not visited a bank branch in 15 years so my previous experience(though great) is outdated i decided id actually step inside a bank branch and see what advice they give(seeing if they will pitch me some investment plans that are better than standard bank interest(you know up-selling their product range))
i was expecting a greeter at the entrance asking what service ill need to work out if i need a sit down adviser, or go to the cashiers desk or book a consultation.. ..upon entering. no one
i walk around the corner to see what would be the greeter hiding away to the side playing on their personal phone.
i approached and got the greeters attention and got the greeting where they asked how they can help i told them i want to possibly close some account, open other accounts and shuffle some money around
their first response was "you can do it online" and my first response was "but my feet are standing right infront of you"
i think they got the hint and asked me to sit down as they walked off to get their corporate tablet. they accessed my account and i started describing how i was looking for good interest rate accounts.
they with excitement and enthusiasm told me the accounts i was interested in changing were great interest rates (under 2% and under 1%) i informed them that its 2023 and there are interest rates on offer by their own company of 4-5% which they should be promoting to me
they informed me i could go online and see what best accounts are on offer. and i repeated i am now sitting in a bank branch which i took the effort to visit specifically for the personal service of doing it in branch.
they reluctantly started explaining the accounts. how the 5% AER(annual) was variable. and i said i dont mind about future years as long as its 5% this year. meaning 100k now= 105k this time next year. they explained no it doesnt work like that, its variable per month. to which i explained. no the A of AER is ANNUAL.., its simple math 5% annual equivalent rate is £100k in = 105k after interest in 12 months.
they didnt want to debate, so instead told me i can go online to find out more, and then moved the conversation to discuss a 4% that was "fixed for 1 year" i said fine ill take it... set it up for me and then we can move some money into it straight away
and here is the kicker the bank branch adviser said they do not open accounts in branch i would have to go online..
and so i made a great suggestion. they should resign if they cant do a banking job, they should close their doors and put a sign up in the window that says "go online" as thats really all the advice they want to give/offer.
.. i think the banking sector is ready for a downsize and to go fully online soon anyways. i couldnt believe it, 2023 and a bank branch cant even open an account for someone standing right infront of them and in the space of 7 minutes told me to go online 4 times
(i have no problem doing it all online but i wanted to see what the personal face to face experience was) (i wasnt actually interested in 4-5% interest as most fiat would have been pushed into investments of better interest yield/deflationary assets)
|
|
|
if you run a business which you registered to a PO Box or virtual office or accountant to hide real information.. be warned, the Fed has made it law from january 2024 that businesses need to file real information on the business owner www.fincen.gov/boiIn 2021, Congress enacted the Corporate Transparency Act. This law creates a beneficial ownership information reporting requirement as part of the U.S. government’s efforts to make it harder for bad actors to hide or benefit from their ill-gotten gains through shell companies or other opaque ownership structures
Beginning on January 1, 2024, many companies in the United States will have to report information about their beneficial owners, i.e., the individuals who ultimately own or control the company. They will have to report the information to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN). FinCEN is a bureau of the U.S. Department of the Treasury.
When Do I Report? Reports will be accepted starting on January 1, 2024. • If your company was created or registered prior to January 1, 2024, you will have until January 1, 2025 to report BOI. • If your company is created or registered on or after January 1, 2024, you must report BOI within 30 days of notice of creation or registration. • Any updates or corrections to beneficial ownership information that you previously filed with FinCEN must be submitted within 30 days. FinCEN cannot accept reports before January 1, 2024 this means real names of company owner and a real residency address
|
|
|
ok so i done some math
i done some mortgage calculators of a £100k property from 2003 to 2023(20year mortgage 6%) and also checked the average house price increase over 20 years to calculate how much a sell value for a 2003 £100k house would be today
well a £100k house mortgage ends up needing £168k of money handed over($68k interest), over 20years the £100k in 2003 house would resell for £195k this year
leaving a £27k profit which after paying in £168k means only 16%profit over 20 years or 0.8% a year
now for inflation 2003 £168k = 840k walmart baked beans (20p each) 2023 £195k = 696k walmart baked beans (28p each)
if someone bought baked beans instead of a house in 2003 they would have bought more beans than they would if they bought a house, sold a house in 2023 and then bought beans
so yes real estate is a bad investment over the last 20 years it didnt hedge inflation
|
|
|
many who follow my posts know that my opinion of the economic limits of market speculation are based on the whole planet value vs premium of mining costs.. whereby the lowest cost on planet fixes a support that no one wants to sell below because no one can acquire for less.. and sellers wont sell for a loss and shorters know they cant acquire for less. so sell orders run out below the limit..
and if everyone on the planet can mine for less then a premium then no one wants to buy, and instead people want to sell for profit causing a resistance.. basically no buyers lots of sellers, price falls again
for me this has been proven by calculating min and max mining costs over time and then looking at the market speculation price and seeing the price ALWAYS sat inbetween the value premium limits. there was reasons it maxed out at 20k in 2017, 70k in 2021 and bottomed out at $17k in 2022 (testing the premium premium value respectively)
but here is the thing.. when a ETF is approved and a 'sponsor'(trust manager) wants to recruit new broker/agents to buy up baskets of bitcoin to use as custodianised collateral to create shares in the sponsors platform.. these ETF agent/brokers will buy and change the markets natural premium economics if they need to rush to purchase bitcoin.. or as the fiat guys would say "raise the roof" of whats deemed 'premium'/resistance of the world market of bitcoin
i was harshly denying the possibility of bitcoin raising the roof to "$1m/btc soon" due to the natural premium limits where well embedded bitcoiners would switch from buying to mining-selling once nearing the natural economic premium.. but these fiat brokers wanting to get shares priced in fiat but pegged to btc.. will break the natural paradigm(emphasis should there be a much needed ulk purchase at premium)
but i still cant see a $1m in 2024. but more than $150k premium is possible.. just how much more then $150k premium roof raise is a question for speculation board. .. its upto the market of possible ETF agents buying baskets.. and also naturally pushed up higher over the next year due to mining cost and halving.. pushing the natural premium roof higher
so a safe assumption is that if hashrate does not tank. the post halving will see a natural premium roof of $300k which could be raised higher if there are many basket purchases by fiat guys not understanding the bitcoin ecosystem of value-premium and just extreme FOMO'ing it
now with that said if greyscale gets approved they already have many baskets(630k btc locked) and wont want to recruit extra agents to add more shares to then sell on their platform. as thats competing agaisnt the shares grayscale will be offering themselves at first, they wont want to saturate the share market, so they wont be pushing for extra baskets for months.. however if ark(share21) which only has just 150btc yep just 150. they will definitely be recruiting agents to buy baskets of btc to lock up straight away as for the rest inbetween. well thats another speculative board type of conversation
|
|
|
when the rich say 'ill give 95% of my billion away over my lifetime' they do not mean if they have $1b today they will be at $50m at death. what they actually mean is:
they have $1b in a bank account at 6% interest meaning it earns $60m a year. they give just $50m yearly interest away for the next 19 years ... (totalling the $950m pledge) yet keeping the $1b lump plus earning $10m of personal spending per year
also the % interest is usually more than 6% but they only give 5% to meet their humanitarian/altruistic hustle pledge
enjoy that thought next time the rich try to make it sound like they are going to give up their wealth for humanity.. because reality is they are not.
|
|
|
OK so over the years i have read many regulations and CBDC whitepapers and policies where i was under the implied impression that payment services had a data protection policy and regulation, in which with regards to other regulations and policies suggested that payment services only had to report information of customers to specific authorities if customers breached certain suspicion thresholds or value thresholds. where by depending on the event only that threshold event(not all records) is forwarded on to the specific authority dealing with that particular event. EG value amount thresholds go to the tax office and suspicion of criminal behaviour goes to the financial crimes department. where those departments investigate to see if it warrants a deeper look to then get a court order to then and only then gain access to that customers full records/data held by the payment services(bank) however many people in this forum were talking about CBDC how they will surveill and sanction people for stupid reasons.. and until this week i thought that was tin foil myth stuff.. because the whitepapers and policies WERE like the current due process mentioned first paragraph. yep even the likes of china's CBDC had payment services keeping the data and authorities only requesting full data with court order however reading this: (about UK government and people in receipt of social security (unemployment/disability/pensions)) https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/dwp-propose-investigators-look-at-where-people-spend-their-money-to-stop-benefit-fraud/ar-AA1jnkOY?ocid=finance-verthp-feeds&cvid=2f3bbc2212ad4f89e9402ec193b72501&ei=11The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) is looking at potential legislative measures to help reduce levels of fraud, error and debt in the benefits system, as set out in the May 2022 policy paper, 'Fighting Fraud in the Welfare System'. The potential legislative measures include providing greater third-party access to data, which could see trained investigators collecting information from banks on where claimants are spending money. Trained investigators would also be able to execute search and seizure orders and make arrests,
this got me thinking. UK government want full access to every spending habit of people on social security purely to find odd spending habits they can use to stop paying vulnerable claiming people i get it there are lots of fraudsters.. but if someone is privately working but pretending to be housebound the tax authorities can simply request a report on anyone in receipt of more then just social security. if this new access policy was to be activated and if UK were to make a CBDC giving out some "universal basic income"(replacing social security) they would want to see how people are spending it(so the tin foil hatters were not so insane after all) for instance the easy ones, if you say you are disabled and unable to walk 100m. if they spot a "card present" transaction in a supermarket. knowing these stores are long aisle of walking and card present means its someone physically in the store. they can claim you are not disabled because you were able to go shopping.. and your social security income/CBDC universal income stops yes i can understand that someone genuinely housebound-disabled wouldnt be able to shop around a large supermarket. but their carer could. whereby someones payments are stopped until the disabled person can (months later) defend their case to explain the carer had the card in question. to re-initialise the payments this can also be for instance if you have an add-on payment due to level of support needed. EG pay for a carer to cook for you. but they see instead of paying a care provider you are shown to have just ordered via uber-eats. this can have implications that you do not need a carer and that add-on stops.. again your unable to cook for yourself so order ubereats as a convenience compared to hiring a personal chef.. but that can only be defended at a later date appeal .. before this i had the (false sense of trust) mindset that payment processors only had policies/legislation to reveal vague accounting information to central authority in a SARS report IF the payment processor found possible suspicions of crimes(laundering and such). where a court order was needed for full access data.. however just being in receipt of central government social security will soon allow the social security department to read ALL of your income and spending habits to then see if they can find a crime/suspicion so again. it seems the dystopia of CBDC conspiracy is actually a possibility
|
|
|
yesterday the jury decided. guilty on all 7 charges. with sentencing to be decided next march(28th) 2024 also the feds have another 5 or so other charges it didnt push this year, but may press charges against him before or after next march, to add extra possible time to his sentencing hope this teaches other dodgy CEX's a large lesson Sam Bankman-Fried, once hailed as a genius in cryptocurrency, was found guilty Thursday of all fraud counts against him, a year after his exchange, FTX, imploded and practically wiped out thousands of customers.
The verdict was reached around 7:40 p.m. ET, about four hours after the federal jury in Manhattan began deliberations.
Bankman-Fried “perpetrated one of the biggest financial frauds in American history,” Damian Williams, the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, said after the verdict.
Bankman-Fried faces up to 110 years in prison. His sentencing is scheduled for March 28
|
|
|
which would you prefer to receive? a. $480,000 lottery win as payments spread over 96months(8 years) of $5k a month b. $480,000 lottery win as payment lumpsum $480k c. $480,000 of bitcoin at(~$24k/btc buy price recent months allocated to the donator) 20btc d. $480,000 value house e. $480,000 value business f. $480,000 of gold at(~$1.8k/ounce buy price recent months allocated to the donator) 266ounce
pick one and explain your rationale.. if you pick bitcoin as first choice. also pick another and explain rationale of second choice (im mainly looking to see people opinions/rationale on choices that are made about not option C and compared to C)
|
|
|
|