 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 »
|
It's that time of the year again!!! This time around, I will be giving away 2 brand-new Bitcoin books for free. 1. The international best-selling book "The Bitcoin Standard: The Decentralized Alternative to Central Banking" by Saifedean Ammous.
2. “Bitcoin: An Introduction to the Peer-to-Peer, Open Source, Censorship-Resistant, Immutable, Permissionless, Decentralized, Global, Digital Monetary Network of the 21st Century” by our very own law dean and former solicitor general, Florin Hilbay.These two great books here would convince you more of why we need Bitcoin. Beyond its rising price, there are much deeper reasons why everybody should be involved in this new technology. If you aren't particularly fond of books or of reading itself, a family, relative, friend, colleague, acquaintance, stranger, your economics teacher might be. You may share it. This is exclusive for local members. Each participant may choose 3 slots at most.
Slots are assigned on a first come first served basis.
Participants can only win once.
No alt accounts please. Let us give chance to others in this holiday season.
Participants should have made a post in the past 2 months, not including today.
When all slots are taken, I will be choosing a future Bitcoin block to determine the winner.
The last two numbers in the hash will be the winning slot.
Please pick now and good luck!
00- pinggoki
01- pinggoki
02- pinggoki
03-
04- angrybirdy
05- DabsPoorVersion
06- tech30338
07- bisdak40
08-
09-
10- arwin100
11- arwin100
12- benalexis12
13- lienfaye
14- bisdak40
15-
16-
17- tech30338
18- angrybirdy
19- cryptoaddictchie
20-
21- bisdak40
22- arwin100
23- DabsPoorVersion
24- cryptoaddictchie
25-
26- benalexis12
27- benalexis12
28- tech30338
29- DabsPoorVersion
30-
31- Text
32- Text
33-
34-
35- lienfaye
36- Text
37- lienfaye
38- inthelongrun
39-
40-
41-
42-
43-
44-
45-
46-
47- peter0425
48-
49-
50-
51-
52-
53-
54-
55- Peanutswar
56- Peanutswar
57- Peanutswar
58-
59-
60-
61-
62-
63-
64-
65-
66-
67- Asuspawer09
68- Asuspawer09
69- Asuspawer09
70-
71-
72-
73-
74- peter0425
75-
76-
77- peter0425
78-
79-
80-
81-
82-
83-
84- inthelongrun
85-
86-
87- robelneo
88- robelneo
89- robelneo
90-
91-
92-
93-
94-
95-
96- inthelongrun
97-
98- angrybirdy
99- cryptoaddictchie
Christmas is a season of giving. Have a merry and blessed Christmas, everyone!!! *This raffle is only for the nice, not for the naughty.**The books in the pics are my copies. |
|
|
|
After several years of operation, what was once the largest and most respected crypto exchange has announced that it is closing down. We could consider this an end of an era, even though Bittrex has already lost its prestigious spot in the crypto market years ago. Here's their tweet about it:  https://twitter.com/BittrexGlobal/status/1726652430673121310Here's the more detailed announcement from their website: https://bittrexglobal.com/. |
|
|
|
While this may not be as big of a deal as it seems, since this is the first time that the US supreme court rules on a case involving cryptocurrency, it's probably worth taking note. Coinbase winning a legal battle in no less than the supreme court and against the lower courts in California will have significant implications. For a brief backgrounder, Coinbase faced a couple of cases in California involving a user who lost money and "deceptive advertising." Coinbase, then, argued that the cases be dismissed because it's part of the signed user agreement that such complaints be settled through arbitration. The request for arbitration was denied. Coinbase then appealed and requested that while the appeal is in progress the case proceedings be stopped. Once again, California’s district courts decided against Coinbase. Coinbase ran to the supreme court. There, with a close 5-4 decision, Coinbase prevailed over the California district court's decisions.
Sources: 1. https://cointelegraph.com/news/us-supreme-court-halts-coinbase-cases-first-crypto-ruling2. https://blockworks.co/news/coinbase-supreme-court-victory |
|
|
|
When Voyager went bankrupt in July of 2022, FTX came to the rescue and offered a bail out. Months later, FTX itself filed for its own bankruptcy. The hopes of Voyager depositors were crushed. Binance, then, offered to buy the sinking FTX only to back out of the deal in the end. The hopes of FTX users were crushed. Binance, Binance US in particular, then, offered the purchase of Voyager at $1 billion, with a plan to give back to its users a significant portion of their funds. The SEC objected. The Texas State Securities Board objected. The US Federal Trade Commission objected. Binance fought for it. But just when the government agencies finally decided not to pursue challenging the deal in courts, Binance suddenly terminated the purchase agreement citing no specific reason, once again crushing the revived hopes of its users. The only reason mentioned is the usual hostile regulatory climate. Although that has some truth, why bring it up just as the legal contestations are withdrawn? Just when the agreement could finally be sealed and implemented? Considering that Binance won't really have to produce that $1 billion, is it just having fun messing around here, giving false hope to the beleaguered users?
1. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-04-25/binance-us-terminates-deal-to-buy-bankrupt-crypto-firm-voyager2. https://twitter.com/investvoyager/status/1650921887512272917 |
|
|
|
I stumbled upon this interesting tweet days ago.  https://twitter.com/SchrodingrsBrat/status/1622320014215856128?cxt=HHwWgIC-9aPd0YMtAAAAMany of the comments are equally interesting. They apply the idea to all kinds of things including the game Resident Evil. And then I thought perhaps this is also true in the economic aspect of life. Perhaps this aptly applies to those whose economic lives are like the desert and whose little money they have they keep tightly for the hardest of days. When I was studying in the university far from family and relatives or even family friends, I had a difficult time. Money is extremely scarce. Early mornings are usually for hot drinks-- coffee, chocolate, milk, tea, or whatever. I realized that what made those drinks important is that they are hot. So I learned to drink only a hot cup of water which I could easily ask for free from the eatery in front of where I stayed. Come meal time, I would also request that the serving be made in half. That's to save money. But I had the money. I always made sure I have some. Emergencies and unforeseen expenses may arise anytime. So I need to have money all the time, but I won't touch it. Ironically, it also gave me hunger, inconvenience, discomfort at times. My story is rather uninteresting, but let me know yours. Does this idea also apply to you? You could have the money to buy a new car to replace your old and broken one but you prefer not to touch it. Do you hold yourself from spending what you have to the point of depriving yourself of what you deserve? Do you keep significant savings for occasions that might only happen in your imagination? Or at what point would you allow yourself to be drained of your last penny? |
|
|
|
I know there's already a thread on Ordinals in the Development & Technical Discussion board but it's more on the technical side of things. I guess it's interesting to hear what others have to say on what this latest development fundamentally entails or implies. There have been opposing views on this even among Bitcoin developers. Some would say this kind of non-financial transaction isn't what Bitcoin is designed for. Surely, however, somebody could just brush this off somehow putting Satoshi's original idea seemingly subservient to what the community currently wants to make of it. Ordinals' Rodarmor himself asserted that Bitcoin has already "transcended the intentions of its creator." [1]While a core developer dismissed this controversy as a non-issue, another core developer went as far as calling this an attack on Bitcoin itself. While somebody doesn't understand the fuss over something which is dumb and should simply be forgotten, even Adam Back, perhaps out of frustration, had to call it a "fair-game for miners to censor the crap as a form of discouragement." Of course, he had to retract it in the name of Bitcoin being censorship-resistant and permission-less. But even Rodamor himself had to also censor, at least from Ordinals' site, a lewd image inscription. [2] The launch of the Ordinals protocol even put into question whether Bitcoin's base layer should be left alone or be kept open for anybody to tinker with and develop. Some would even call for Bitcoin's ossification to protect it from features that have possible negative repercussions. And then there's also the issue of fungibility considering that a Satoshi assigned with a unique inscription such as an image or even a video is no longer the same with the rest. What is your opinion on this? Are you in favor of this or not?
[1] https://www.coindesk.com/tech/2023/01/31/bitcoin-community-erupts-in-existential-debate-over-nft-project-ordinals/[2] https://cointelegraph.com/news/bitcoin-ordinals-creators-look-for-fix-after-first-instance-of-shock-porn |
|
|
|
When I first read Bitcoin's whitepaper, it immediately impressed upon me that Satoshi created a currency that does not intend to replace cash nor even serve as its alternative. I'm referring to cold cash. Satoshi's invention is an electronic system. Nowadays, however, you can easily notice how the emphasis on "electronic" is omitted. When you search Bitcoin, for example, Wikipedia would define it as a "protocol which implements a highly available, public, and decentralized ledger." [1] Bitcoin.org would have it as an "open source P2P money." Clicking on it would further define Bitcoin as "an innovative payment network and a new kind of money." [2] Furthermore, Investopedia would define Bitcoin as "a cryptocurrency, a virtual currency designed to act as money and a form of payment outside the control of any one person, group, or entity, thus removing the need for third-party involvement in financial transactions." [3]So, aside from the whitepaper, you can seldom encounter a definition which gives emphasis on "electronic." But Satoshi clearly designed it with "online payments" in mind. What was taken into primary consideration was E-commerce. [4]Is it, therefore, somehow a misplaced appreciation of Bitcoin when many are ecstatic every time it is accepted as a payment for a glass of lemonade or a piece of banana? My interpretation is that Satoshi believed that the cash system is a good system and that such kind of system should also exist online. Until then, there wasn't such a thing. E-commerce transactions were only possible with the participation of financial institutions as necessary third parties.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin[2] https://bitcoin.org/en/[3] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/bitcoin.asp[4] https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf |
|
|
|
This is definitely discussed elsewhere but I just want to specifically put it here as a warning for beginners. How many of us actually read the terms and conditions of any site we sign up for? They're usually kilometric. To those who read, how many of you actually understood the stipulations therein? To those who think they understood everything, did you consult a lawyer or any professional to make sure you got everything right? Celsius, to those who don't know, was one of the largest crypto lending platforms in the world. Aside from offering loans, users could also invest by depositing funds to the platform. No minimum required. They could earn as high as 18.63% APY which is paid on a weekly basis. Last July of 2022, however, it went bankrupt. It owed billions to its clients. Just a few days ago, the bankruptcy judge ruled that the money deposited by users are owned by Celsius and not by the depositors. Surprised? Unbelievable? Well, that's what each and every user agreed to when they signed up for the platform. By depositing, users are actually giving their money to Celsius. Deposit is like transferring ownership from the user to the platform. Of Celsius' hundreds of thousands of users, was there anybody who noticed this particular term? I doubt. So, what happens now? I guess the ruling could still be appealed, but for the meantime, it seems Celsius doesn't owe a Satoshi to its client. So, those who have lost their life savings in Celsius could probably say good bye to the hope of getting it back. Lessons? There's only one: keep your Bitcoin to yourself! No company will have any power over your funds. No possibility of bankruptcy, mismanagement, rug pull, and others. No sneaky terms and conditions. No unfair ruling. No frozen funds, locked accounts, whatever. Forget about passive income, yield, and the like. They're baits!
Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/01/05/celsius-crypto-bankruptcy-ruling/?isMobile=1 |
|
|
|
|
I wonder how ordinary people around the world felt the worsening economic situation in their respective countries. I know that although many are very much aware of the soaring inflation, nothing has changed much in their day to day lives. I can observe that in some families. They seem oblivious of how the prices of basic goods and services are rising in double digits.
From my household, however, we can literally taste the economic downturn. It feels odd and sad that we have to sacrifice taste in order to somehow cushion the impact of the economic problems my country is facing. Onion here is already hitting $12.57 a kilo. Depending on the size, that's about $0.63 apiece. Cooking an ordinary dish for a small family requires a bulb or two. During this holiday season especially, we normally need tens of onions. That's not affordable anymore. So we had to greatly reduce the use of onions and try not to care about how the dish would turn out. On ordinary days, onions are even removed from the ingredients.
I had to share this here because it feels like the economic situation has already affected the most basic need of everybody. It seems insignificant because it's only a spice, but I thought that if the economic situation is already affecting everybody's taste buds, it could mean things are getting pretty serious.
I wonder, especially in other countries, how drastic is the change in your daily life that's brought about by this economic downturn?
|
|
|
|
We all know Binance is now closing in on its competitors. CZ has recently succeeded in playing a critical role in the collapse of one of its biggest rivals, FTX. He, then, went on to prophesize a domino effect that would also see other crypto competitors crumbling down, all the while emphasizing Binance's stability and safety. After subtly hitting Crypto.com, Gate.io, and probably others after instigating competitors to also provide proof or reserves after Binance did, CZ is still apparently on the prowl. Just yesterday, he made an uninformed tweet, somehow putting into question its remaining biggest rival's finances.  https://cointelegraph.com/news/crypto-twitter-reacts-to-binance-ceo-s-deleted-tweet-about-coinbase-s-bitcoin-holdingsAfterward, he deleted it, saying in another tweet that the figures mentioned in the article he linked were false, and proceeded to mention about working together.  https://twitter.com/cz_binance/status/1595126765143617536But this came only after Coinbase's CEO, Brian Armstrong, created a Twitter thread warning of a FUD and reminding that the company is public as well as its finances.  https://twitter.com/brian_armstrong/status/1595126123439923200
This, to me, is the same cunning action by CZ that finally killed FTX. It just so happened that, unlike FTX, Coinbase has the real numbers to show. Otherwise, it could have dealt them the same fatal impact. Such an irresponsible public statement from an influential person who has millions of followers could cause massive trust and confidence issues and, therefore, a huge and sudden exchange run. Not only is this questionable because of the fake numbers and the failure of CZ to at least verify their veracity before publicly talking about it, this is also a question of his much-publicized intention to help the industry. If his intention were to truly help this industry, he could just reach out to crypto companies privately, point out some facts, and perhaps extend help. But he doesn't. He prefers to cast doubt on them. This, to me, is another proof that CZ is fake and is actually only after enlarging his empire and ensuring monopoly. |
|
|
|
Are you familiar with this? Or has anybody here been actually charged for having his/her crypto gambling account inactive for several months? The monthly charge could be as high as 15% of the remaining balance. Or, worse, the entire balance could be withheld by the platform itself. Although it could be for security's sake and be returned upon request, who knows what conditions or perhaps KYC information they would require just to have your money back? For the sake of discussion, let's set aside the fact that one shouldn't leave money in gambling account wallets. Do you think this policy is fair? This is similar to a bank policy that requires accounts to have transactions every now and then or be active or else dormancy fees could be charged. But this feels weird to a gambling platform. What happens to seasonal gamblers who don't mind leaving money in their account wallets? One could only be betting during annual work breaks or vacation or during annual sports championship events. Say, the NBA playoffs, The International, and others. Edit: As suggested, and probably for the interest of a better discussion, I'm quoting here a post of mine which mentioned a few crypto gambling platforms that are actually implementing certain policies pertaining to funds of inactive and dormant accounts.
Thanks for all your responses!
Honestly, I was surprised when I encountered this. Although I have been gambling for some time already, I have to admit I really wasn't familiar with this. So it isn't surprising either to find out that many of you, including old gamblers, are also surprised with this specific term.
But it's there in many crypto gambling platforms. Inactive accounts could be charged for being inactive. They could be permanently closed. Not only that, it could mean that all money left is permanently taken away. So if you frown that your inactive account is being charged for up to 15% monthly, you'd surely be aghast to know that other platforms could simply take everything away.
Roobet:
You acknowledge that the Company may close your account if you did not log into it for 365 days (one year), and all remaining Roollion (funds/money) in the Iron Pouch (wallet) will be permanently lost. (*red mine)Bitcasino:We reserve the right to close player accounts that have been inactive for more than 12 months. In case your account has deposited funds after the 12-month inactive period, we reserve the right to use the remaining deposited funds for administrative costs for closing the account. Sportsbet:If you do not use your account that has deposited funds for 3 months, you will receive a notice from us. If you do not use your deposits after our notice within 1 month, we reserve the right to deduct monthly administrative costs from your deposit remaining on your account. The administrative cost may be up to 15% from your deposited funds remaining on your account. After 180 days we may remove the balance from your account to increase security on the funds. CryptoGames:If you do not access your Account for any consecutive period of 180 days, we reserve the right to shut down such and retain any associated funds. These are just a few examples of crypto gambling platforms that implement what I'm talking about. Please note, though, that while some close accounts, others only suspend accounts, and they could then be reactivated upon request. In this regard, I'm also happy to share that I've encountered at least one platform that do not do this. Betfury:BetFury does not block or suspend Inactive accounts (an account that has not been used for a long period of time). I'm now interested to open another thread comparing top crypto gambling platforms' policies on dormant or inactive accounts, especially on how they would handle funds left in wallets. This might matter to some gamblers who are unfamiliar with these terms and, like me, seasonal bettors and have the tendency to leave a certain amount in their gambling wallets for easy betting anytime. This may also significantly matter to those who are comparing and considering which platform to use.[/size] |
|
|
|
General Bytes, the second largest Bitcoin ATM manufacturer in the world, has fallen victim to hackers. The hackers took advantage of a vulnerability which made them gain access to its server. The hackers, then, added themselves as default admins. As a result, the hackers were able to change certain settings of the server which directed all funds going into the ATMs to end up in their wallet address. General Bytes has 8,827 Bitcoin ATMs under its name. No figures were released yet as to the amount stolen and ATMs compromised. For now, server updates are urgently required. Until then, clients are advised to refrain from using General Bytes ATMs. In general, and for the purpose of discussion, Bitcoin ATMs are not really a safe and best way to buy or sell Bitcoin. Not only are you doing the transaction in open public, you are also most likely imposed with a high premium, and you are also exposing yourself to a number of both hardware and software vulnerabilities. Bitcoin ATMs could have a number of attack points that should make you consider safety over convenience.
Sources: 1. https://cointelegraph.com/news/hackers-exploit-zero-day-bug-to-steal-from-general-bytes-bitcoin-atms2. https://www.coindesk.com/learn/what-you-need-to-know-before-buying-bitcoin-at-an-atm/3. https://blog.kraken.com/post/11263/kraken-security-labs-identifies-vulnerabilities-in-commonly-used-bitcoin-atm/ |
|
|
|
There has been a growing pattern of falling bridges. It should bother everybody when that infrastructure that is supposed to connect, to move them across points, to move funds from one network to another, becomes the point of failure itself. We've just crossed mid-year and there are already a total of at least 7 hacks of blockchain bridges with at least $1.4 billion in damage. So much traffic, so much money involved, but so little security. - January 18, 2022: Multichain- $3 million stolen.
- January 27, 2022: Qubit- $80 million stolen.
- February 2, 2022: Wormhole- $320 million stolen.
- February 5, 2022: Meter- $4.4 million stolen.
- March 29, 2022: Ronin- $615 million stolen.
- June 23, 2022: Harmony Horizon- $100 million stolen.
- August 1, 2022: Nomad- $200 million stolen.
You know the drill! Avoid them!
1. https://www.cnbc.com/2022/08/10/hackers-have-stolen-1point4-billion-this-year-using-crypto-bridges.html?2. https://www.reuters.com/business/future-of-money/cryptoverse-blockchain-bridges-fall-into-troubled-waters-2022-08-09/3. https://www.coindesk.com/tech/2022/08/02/nomad-bridge-drained-of-nearly-200-million-in-exploit/4. https://www.protocol.com/fintech/crypto-bridge-wormhole-hack |
|
|
|
It's funny, worrisome, and mind-boggling how a centralized platform could have all kinds of reasons for freezing funds. Crypto exchange Hotbit suddenly froze its users' funds as well as the deposit, withdrawal, and trading functions of the platform. The reason? One of their former employees was suspected by law enforcement authorities of being involved in a questionable project. As a result, some senior managers were asked to cooperate in the investigation. Some funds of the exchange was also ordered frozen. But why include all of the users' funds? Why the sudden freeze of the rest of the users' trading and withdrawal functions? Moreover, orders were all canceled. And, worse, "all leveraged exchange-traded fund positions will be liquidated." Finally, there's "no timeframe for resumption" of all activities. All that's happening with centralized platforms recently makes me cringe. It chills me to the bone! If others are still trusting centralized platforms until now, it's time to rethink seriously.
1. https://cointelegraph.com/news/crypto-exchange-hotbit-says-it-froze-customer-funds-due-to-alleged-criminal-ties-of-formal-employee |
|
|
|
My country will have its presidential election a couple of days from now. It's gonna be on Monday, May 9. All the surveys are pointing at the son of the infamous dictator Ferdinand Marcos Sr. and Imelda Marcos as the potential winner. The result is more or less expected to be a landslide victory for the only boy of probably the most hated couple in Philippine history. Second in the surveys is the current vice president, but she's trailing too far behind. Things could have been easily acceptable since the voice of the people is the voice of god. However, it somehow causes anxiety and worry when the choice of the general populace is not the choice of investors, the sector that plays a very vital role in the country's economy. To make things worse, not only is the namesake of the old dictator not the choice of the sector that creates assets and employment, he is the least of the choices, together with the boxing legend, Manny Pacquiao. [1][2] So far, the country's currency has experienced a three-year low, partly due to election concerns. [3] The stock market is also going down. [4] And while there is the prospect of a nice ROI months after the elections, this one is a bit different. Not only are the investors wary of the next possible administration, there is also high inflation, a pandemic, and a war far away yet affecting the domestic economy. [5]N.B.: This isn't a political discussion.
[1] https://www.bworldonline.com/the-nation/2022/03/13/435503/investors-lukewarm-to-marcos-presidency/[2] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-03-13/marcos-nears-bottom-in-philippine-markets-poll-favoring-robredo[3] https://www.thestar.com.my/aseanplus/aseanplus-news/2022/05/04/philippine-peso-falls-to-three-year-low-on-fed-election-worries[4] https://tradingeconomics.com/philippines/stock-market[5] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-05-06/presidential-elections-spell-fat-philippine-stock-returns |
|
|
|
This news somehow puzzled me. It's ironic that just a few days after President Zelenskyy signed the crypto-friendly bill, On Virtual Assets, banks have now restricted clients from purchasing Bitcoin using the local currency. It seems the order is directly coming from the country's central bank, the National Bank of Ukraine, accordingly while martial law is in place. PrivatBank, Ukraine's largest commercial bank, is one of those that implements the restriction. Accordingly, PrivatBank is trying to "keep financial stability under martial law." I'm not sure how high the demand for crypto is in Ukraine, but is it a threat to Ukrainian hryvnia's stability? Is the demand that high that it could significantly pull hryvnia's value down? It somehow dawned on me that governments, which are basically built on fiat, couldn't serve two masters at the same time, fiat and crypto. By fully embracing crypto, it is very possible that people will ditch their local currencies in favor of Bitcoin. In this way, the value of the currency as well as the economy is affected. Is this the case with Ukraine?
1. https://cointelegraph.com/news/ukraine-s-largest-savings-bank-halts-bitcoin-buys-with-hryvnia-report |
|
|
|
It is being reported that the upcoming 94th Academy Awards will be having a new addition. One of which is the Top Fan-Voted Film. "Beginning this Monday, Twitter users will get to vote on their favorite films that were released in 2021 — regardless of if the film was nominated for an Oscar — using the hashtag #OscarsFanFavorite. The film that receives the most fan votes by March 3 will be recognized during the awards broadcast on March 27."[1]Furthermore, "for both the fan-favorite film and cheer moment campaigns, Twitter users will be able to tweet out their submissions up to 20 times a day."[Ibid.]I was thinking of the gambling implication of this. What if somebody places a huge bet, say, a million or two, on a particular film and then activates all kinds of bots and thousands of fake Twitter accounts that could spam the platform of votes 20 times a day every single day from the beginning of voting until the end? In other words, is this open for manipulation?
[1] https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/digital/oscars-twitter-2022-1235092124/ |
|
|
|
Hey folks, Bitcoin is coming down, hitting a certain price never before seen in probably 90 days. I know that's not really bothersome. We've been in countless similar situations in the past. But we know others are probably troubled when Bitcoin is losing almost 40% from its ATH price. The fear level has risen. As a matter of fact, extreme fear is being recorded for the last couple of days. [1] Perhaps a reminder from the mayor of New York City could help ease the fear. Take note that this is the man who promised to take his first 3 paychecks in Bitcoin as mayor. When asked if he had received his paycheck in Bitcoin already, and was told that the price of Bitcoin has come down, he simply laughed it off saying, "Well, you know what, sometimes the best time to buy is when things come down so when you go back up you've made a good profit..."[2]So, there you go, as simple as that; these are buying days, folks! Let's all enjoy the bargain sale!
[1] https://alternative.me/crypto/fear-and-greed-index/[2] https://twitter.com/SquawkCNBC/status/1479069915281870853 |
|
|
|
|
