|
Religious restrictions when it comes to crypto or finance are like all other kinds of religious restrictions- always arbitrary and usually stupid.
Also, the quote from this guy makes no sense. He doesn't seem to understand what intrinsic value is for one, and secondly, his argument for why crypto has "intrinsic value" (because it costs something to produce it) is exactly the same for fiat money- it costs something to produce it. In neither case is the actual cost of production a case of intrinsic value nor should it be expected to be tied to the practical value of the currency.
|
|
|
|
I couldn't agree more with the statement that Don't give cash assistance to poor people because it only adds to poverty in their brains, but provide them with livelihood assistance and ways to make money to support their lives. Because between giving fish or fishing rods to poor fishermen will be very much different but there are many mistakes that occur in the government, they only focus on providing cash assistance to the community just to cover up the bad government behind the assistance such as corruption in their institutional.
Nowadays I am seeing governments around the world trying this approach, by distributing welfare payments. In the US, Biden government has proposed giving out financial assistance based on the number of children in the family. So in case a family produce 10-12 children, then they will receive a payment of around $3,000 per month from the government. I find these sort of measures very short sighted. In the long term, people will just sit at home and produce children without doing any productive activity. And those who work hard will find a large majority of their salaries taken away in the form of taxes. They're not payments, they're tax credits which offset taxes owed, which means you only get them if you have income in the first place and they reduce the amount of tax you pay. You can't have 0 income and just get money for having kids under the program. Also, the US under taxes to such an extent that nobody has a "large majority" of their salaries taken away in the form of taxes. You have to be an extremely high income earner to even approach 50% tax rate and live in an area with multiple levels of high tax rates. In other words, you built a strawman argument of a situation that exists very infrequently in reality, and in the specific case of people paying a "large majority" of their income in taxes, not at all. |
|
|
|
This part is interesting: One of the most significant challenges for policymakers implementing climate plans is what to do about carbon “leakage,” or pollution associated with imported goods and services. A border carbon adjustment is essentially a tariff levied against that pollution. In its initial incarnation, the EU’s proposed Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism would cover a short list of products, including cement, iron and steel, aluminum, and fertilizers. I don't understand the necessity of raising taxes on cement, iron, steel, aluminum and fertilizers. There are no low carbon footprint, environmentally friendly, alternatives to these items. To punish these industries for not being more green seems pointless, in the absence of planet friendly options. As much as 50% of the cost of an airline travel ticket in the united states is composed of taxes and regulatory fees. When Donald Trump proposed raising tariffs on chinese goods, many complained the cost of the tax would be passed on to consumers. I wonder who will pay the cost for these additional tariffs and tax hikes the EU is proposing? It's basic economics. You make something more expensive and less of it is consumed and produced. It's obvious who pays these taxes, the consumer. That's exactly the point. The point is exactly to make things that create a lot of carbon more expensive so that less of it is created because consumer demand drops with rising prices. This is not a complex idea and it's a law that repeatedly bears out every time an extra tax is put on something and it drops consumption of that item. However, in the US, carbon taxes are usually proposed with a 1:1 "green" dividend payments to tax payers so that the taxes generate a net $0 of revenue for the government. All tax revenue from carbon taxes are paid out to tax payers so that the only motivation for the tax is reducing carbon emissions and not raising revenue. I particularly like that idea. |
|
|
|
Inflation of 3% over the next several years compared with the extreme volatility of bitcoin isn't even a question. The dollar wins hands down. Your bitcoin could be worth $40,000 next month or $20,000. That's not protection from inflation. To actually protect against inflation, you need something that holds a steady and predictable value. Not that I think people shouldn't own bitcoin, but they definitely need to not delude themselves into thinking they're protecting themselves from what is ultimately still a low inflation rate by doing so. |
|
|
|
That also means that if the shares were transferred without Bill Gates ever selling them, then they were never income and never subject to income tax. And because they're now owned by a charity, Bill Gates doesn't have that as part of his personal wealth anymore. So there's literally nothing wrong with the example you used yourself.
I don't agree 100%. The ownership change is only nominal. Previously Bill Gates was owning these shares in his personal account (i.e direct ownership). Now he owns these shares indirectly. BMGF owns these shares and BMGF is under the control of Bill & Melinda Gates. The revenue from the sale of these shares are still being spent as per the preference of Bill Gates. If he hadn't moved them to BMGF, then these shares would have got taxed at the time of his death (he is 65 years old now). It's not a nominal change, it's a legal distinction. Bill Gates does not own indirectly the shares after he donates them because he does not own the charity. Controlling a the charity is not the same as ownership, and he cannot do whatever he wants with the shares as a principal of the charity because charities are regulated and have to fulfill a charitable mission to keep their tax-exempt status. So it is 100% wrong to say that Bill Gates indirectly owns the shares or that he can do whatever he wants with them. So we're back to Bill Gates never realizing any income from the shares, hence no reason for him ever to pay taxes on them. It's shady no matter how it may sound because it only looks like they are looking for a way to avoid paying the tax. Foundation had been the way to be doing this by the big corporations. This is just for the press to show the people like they are giving back the achievement they got through the people, helping the cancer patients, the poor by the charity works but in reality, they are just as crooks as robbers. They could have just told the truth like Trump who actually admits to doing it at least we know he isn't a bad liar. It doesn't look that way at all and it only appears shady to you because you're determined to view it only as a conspiracy. Contrast the people you keep ripping on for running actual charities with trump who was forced to shut his charity down because he actually was committing fraud through the charity. Gates actually has something to show for the charity initiatives of his foundation, which is all the advancement in vaccinations in Africa. |
|
|
|
And what sort of definition are they giving for a bubble?
I'd actually say that amateur traders a lot of times can support rational price discovery. BTC is a prime example of this. Was there any investment bank that was willing to back BTC at the beginning, if not for a few 'amateur' bagholders who stuck it out? Probably not.
Sure, you could argue that bubbles could form. But given the amount of bubbles that institutions have been a part of (real estate, dotcom bubble, etc.), amateur/retail investors can hardly be given the blame for the consequences.
BTC price has never been rational because it's not based on anything other than speculation, so that's not a convincing argument that amateur traders support price discovery and actually works directly against the notion. And institutional involvement in anything is guaranteed once a certain critical mass is reached, that also says nothing about the price being supportable and less than purely speculative. The definition of bubble is self-evident; unsupported price appreciation that's not tied to fundamental value. Amateur traders were directly responsible for the dotcom bubble and the real estate bubble because they FOMOed into assets that had no technical basis to be as high as they were. The crypto bubbles that sprout and pop are just another in a long line of data points supporting the original thesis. |
|
|
|
|
It'll be more interesting to see how many employees actually take this up. The thing about your job is that you need the pay to live your life, you can't afford to take your salary in a method that is unusable as a currency because you can't pay your rent or or mortgage or buy groceries with it. I also wouldn't take my salary in bitcoin because there's no telling what it will be worth tomorrow, let alone a week or month from now, so you run a very high risk of losing 10% or more of your pay because the currency devalues. So I'll be interested to see who actually does this. My expectation is this was just something the mayor did for headlines, but it has to real-world applicability.
|
|
|
|
This is not correct. No Binance entity is permitted to engage in any activities regulated by the FCA. It doesn't matter where a company is based, you cannot operate in the UK in regulated activities without a regulatory license. Neither binance.com nor any other Binance entity can engage in derivatives, market-making or other regulated activities. Further, the ban has caused several large banks to suspend payments to binance.com for regular crypto purchases. And even further, the FCA has a deadline of March 31, 2022 by which crypto asset businesses must register in order to continue trading in the UK.
I actually have a different understanding of this. Binance is not allowed to engage in any regulated activities within the UK. It doesn't mean it cannot offer products and services from an entity operating elsewhere outside the UK's jurisdiction. As a matter of fact, trading cryptocurrency is not directly regulated in the country, although derivatives are allowed only with FCA authorization. However, problems arise with local third parties which are FCA-regulated such as banks, payment processors, payment systems, and so on, the ones which are bridging the Brits and the platform based outside the ambit of FCA regulations. "British citizens will still be able to access Binance's services in other jurisdictions."[1]"The FCA UK notice has no direct impact on the services provided on Binance.com."[2]"...Binance is technically allowed to continue offering crypto trading to Brits..."[3][1] https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/financial-watchdog-orders-crypto-exchange-binance-stop-regulated-activities-uk-2021-06-27/[2] https://edition.cnn.com/2021/06/27/business/binance-uk-ban/index.html[3] https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/08/binance-uk-crackdown-boosts-rival-cryptocurrency-exchanges.htmlWe're largely saying the same thing. I think I just needed to be explicit in saying that binance.com purchases and sales aren't regulated by the FCA, since I just kept referring only to regulated activities. However, no entity is allowed to offer regulated services in the UK without FCA approval, whether or not they're based there or not. Being based elsewhere doesn't give you an out to following the laws where you operate, so that's not why purchases and sales are allowed on binance.com. For what it's worth, I do expect that to change in the future as well. |
|
|
|
people nowadays tend to use digital currency ? what is it used for? I don't find people using digital currency except for digital assets only. even though today's technological developments are growing rapidly there are still few people who know digital currency.
Digital Currency is used for a wide variety of conveniences, either to avail or to pay for something. It could also be liquidated and be invested. I think you misunderstood cause cryptos is one kind of Digital Assets the same thing as any Digital Product used to reach people and earn a result. Bitcoin might not be mainstream, but the cashless transaction is relevant today. I think people use Digital Currency more than before. Relative to the number of people who own crypto, the amount of people using it as a currency is practically immeasurable. It's because the vast majority of people who bought into it because of they hype did so because they were trying to get rich. That means holding it for price appreciation, not spending it. |
|
|
|
Poor people mentality is when they have money, they spend it on relaxation and luxury. Unlike middle class, they spend their money wisely. With poor people, they lack enough knowledge on handling their finances and where to put it. They also rely on other people and support from the government unlike middle class, they value their hard earned money. They adopt what they learned in school. They are eager to be wealthy and be comfortable in their lives.
That is not the case on all the occasions. But it is understandable. When someone works really hard to earn money, he will think twice before wasting it. When I was a student, my parents were providing me with financial support. Back then, I used to spend a lot of money on unnecessary things. But now, I have a full time job and I know how hard is it to earn money. Same is the case with the poor people. When they get freebies and handouts from the government, they are careless with those. But when they work hard and earn, they don't waste much of the earnings. If this was true universally then there would be no such industries as gambling and alcohol because these vices are clearly destructive and disproportionately affect the lower classes. "Working for money makes you more judicious about where you spend it" is more false than it is true, as evidenced by how many bad decisions about finances people make across all strata of the socioeconomic ladder. |
|
|
|
If the country is run by a good government that is far from corruption, then inflation rates are not supposed to reach insane levels or constitute a crisis between individuals.
The inflation crisis shows the strength of the government's financial position. Unfortunately, the poor are the ones who pay the cost because they do not have sufficient financial tools to fight inflation.
The solution to this problem lies in obtaining more tools to fight inflation, Bitcoin may be one of those tools.
In developed nations, corruption has nothing to do with it. In poorer nations, corruption is probably not the cause of inflation either. There is a correlation between corrupt leaders in developing nations and high rates of inflation, but not because of the corruption itself. The cause of inflation is the monetary policy, full stop. |
|
|
|
BTC: 45.1%
ETH: 17.9%
I'm thinking Ethereum will grow at faster speed than Bitcoin will grow in 2021. Can Bitcoin increase its market share above 50% again in 2021 or will Ethereum gather more momentum to occupy larger shares? Ethereum's now starting to increase the market share which makes Bitcoin dominance shrink.
Neither is very useful as a currency, so the "market share" of their marketcap dominance is not very useful because it doesn't actually give any indication of which coin is being used as a currency. Without significant changes to scalability, both are going to continue to be horrible currencies with transaction costs that are far too high. But as far as utility, Ethereum's value is as a platform for other projects, not a currency itself, and Bitcoin has no answer to that. So a "flippening" is possible, but don't expect it to happen so quickly. |
|
|
|
You are right to compare the cryptocurrency world with revolution, because that's what this is, only not violent, but peaceful, yet not meaningless. Come to think of it, what happened is remarkable.
Everything started just some 12 years ago and it all began as a joke, as something interesting and original, and now Bitcoin had gained such a great impact that it is constantly discussed on the governmental level, many are afraid and see it as a treat, everyone takes this matter seriously now.
It is a new history indeed, and all of us contributed to that. No matter how much you buy Bitcoin and how often do you use it, just being a part of this world already makes a big difference.
Bitcoin was never started as or intended to be a joke. It was a response to massive government bailouts of banks and quantitative easing that "Satoshi" (whoever he/they are) thought would devalue fiat currencies, as evidenced by the headline he coded into the genesis block. It was always very much intended to be a revolution. |
|
|
|
|
In all likelihood, China is going to be the first with a digital currency, and it's about nothing more than exerting unimaginable control over the economy and political opposition. Imagine a tool like a digital currency in the hands of a totalitarian state like China, where the Communist Party can instantly delete the savings of political opponents to cripple them. The threat of such a tool would be used to keep future opposition from speaking out against the party as well. It's absolutely terrifying.
|
|
|
|
It's a cheeky move, but nothing more than an avenue for people to register their disapproval of his massive accumulation of wealth. I don't necessarily have a problem with his wealth, except I think the tax system does need to be overhauled and wealth in the multi billions needs to be taxed. I reckon a lot of the signers of that petition feel the same way.
Tax system needs a massive overhaul and there is no doubt about it. MacKenzie Scott received $60 billion worth of AMZN shares from Jeff Bezos as a part of the divorce package and not a penny of it was taxed. This loophole, which allows the transfer of shares from one individual to other without any tax liability needs to be overhauled. When someone transfers his shares to a different individual using the stock exchange, he is taxed for that. So I don't understand why direct transfers doesn't come under taxation. One thing is sure. These loopholes are mostly being used by the super-rich. Divorce proceeds aren't taxed because it's not income. When you're married, you jointly own the assets, so the divorce is just splitting the assets you jointly own into individual assets. There would be no reason to tax this because you already owned those assets, you just now have less of them and own them entirely instead of jointly. |
|
|
|
What Happened: Steve Wozniak’s blockchain venture Efforce listed its cryptocurrency token on the HBTC exchange on Dec. 3. It reached “$950M in the first 13 minutes, 10 times the listing price,” according to a company press release. The company says investors had given it a valuation of $80 million valuation in private sales. Why It Matters: Wozniak first mentioned Efforce in July 2019 at the Delta Summit in Malta, according to news publication The Malta Independent. The company’s goal is to use blockchain to “improve the way we use energy and lower energy consumption without changing our habits,” Wozniak said at the summit. Efforce plans to become a marketplace to help fund energy efficiency projects using blockchain. The projects will be able to get funded, getting crowd contributions from investors using Efforce's token WOZX. The company is registered in Malta because the Apple co-founder said he had long wanted to invest in the region. "It has been on my mind for decades. Like no other place in the world," he said. https://www.benzinga.com/markets/cryptocurrency/20/12/18665855/steve-wozniaks-blockchain-venture-lists-cryptocurrency-token-reaches-950m-in-13-minutes .... Steve Wozniak founded a crypto coin to address climate change. Details yet to be announced. From press releases it sounds like a crowd funding campaign crossed with an altcoin. Offhand I don't remember anyone trying this before. For those who don't know who Wozniak is. He cofounded apple with Steve Jobs. Wozniak wrote the original apple PC operating system. Then designed and built the hardware. Steve Jobs was the sales, organizer and PR guy. A crypto coin reaching near to $1 billion in market cap on day 1 could be a record. I don't know if this received much publicity. I think it could have potential. I'm not really sure what this project has going for it other than Wozniak's affiliation. The press release is just a hodgepodge of buzzwords with no substance. It seems pretty clear that people assume this is going to be big just because he's associated with it. We're 7 months out from the announcement at this point and still apparently to substantiate the project, and I should point out the coin has fallen sharply since the initial enthusiasm of the announcement has worn off. |
|
|
|
Most people in the world do not get the chance of doing anything remarkable in their lives. Many may do things that are significant for them, but usually, chances of doing something that will change humanity, its culture and its way of thinking are remote. People involved in the French Revolution, artists in the Renaissance, philosophers in ancient Athens, ... they did things that left the world changed.
Most of us have some bitcoin. A few have a lot of bitcoin. Just think that for any reason, in 5 years or 10 years, something happened that dropped bitcoin value or made the network unusable or whatever event or combination of events made it impossible to use it any longer. As far as I am concerned, I can say "I was there and, at least, it was something great and I was part of it". When bitcoin fades, the way people think about currency, self-governance, trust in a system will have changed forever. And you will have been part of it and be able to say "I did something great and it changed the world".
Can't say I agree. If bitcoin busts or the network became unusable, then it will just be a failed idea like so many others. The only thing great about it is that it actually works as a trustless decentralized medium of exchange. Once that's gone, there's nothing left, and having a small period of time of relevancy is not enough to make it great in retrospect. It has to work and it has to work forever, otherwise it's nothing. |
|
|
|
I would be interested to see these "smart" people who believe that just mechanical printing of empty money will make everyone rich and well-off  It's just that such thoughts are usually inherent in people who do not understand the essence of the issue or do not want to understand it for some reason. People who are fans of simple solutions and simply do not represent the consequences of such simple decisions. People who believe that the experience of previous generations is worthless and everything is done and done wrong. Money is not such a simple thing and does not forgive a frivolous attitude towards oneself. Any person who disregards inflation while calculating, even on default and off the top of their head without thinking through, like even on the surface, is an idiot. However, know the fact that there are enough money in the world to redistribute and give everyone a million dollars, that part is very true. So why should we do it? Well I don't have a million dollars and some other guy have a lot, top 400 of the world has 3.2 trillion dollars, distribute that alone and you got yourself over 3 million people covered, just with the richest 400 people, think about all the nations and governments and treasury and every single person who has more than one million dollars and take that and give it to everyone who has less than a million dollars. I am not saying doing this is a good idea, it is not, but it is possible and suddenly you literally created equality. There are about 7.9 billion people in the world. Giving everyone 1 million dollars would take 7.9 quadrillion dollars. There is not more than 7.9 quadrillion dollars in the world, therefore your assumption that there is enough to redistribute $1 million to everyone in the world is wrong. There is an estimated 360 trillion dollars of wealth in the entire world, which is nowhere near 7.9 quadrillion. |
|
|
|
Who really cares about these "regulators"? Gone are the days when the governments could dictate each and every aspect of our lives. Whether someone should invest in cryptocurrency or not, is entirely up to him. The so called "regulators" are worried because their shitty fiat currencies are becoming worthless and no one want to invest in assets denominated in fiat. Nowadays the regimes are especially worried, because taking advantage of the pandemic situation they have resorted to unlimited printing of fiat cash.
I suppose more people than not care what regulators say, that's why it's always big news when they comment on something. Also, they didn't ban anything; they issued a warning to be careful. No reasonable person has a problem with a regulator telling people to be careful and exercise caution about something but ultimately leaves it up to the individual to make their own decisions. |
|
|
|
Every person the virus is passed on to gives the virus the change to mutate and become harder to control. The Delta variant is already far more transmissible than the Alpha variant, which was far more transmissible than the original strain. The virus is being given the opportunity to mutate because of the people who continue to downplay the severity of the pandemic, and those are almost exclusively conservatives in every country.
The viruses and its variant might always come and go, we cannot really prevent these by shutting down markets and closing out shops. I hope by now the governments have learned that the solution is not lockdowns but following protocols and moving to work can lead to better results. As far as the virus pushing the world towards digitalization is concerned, I think there is no doubt that we have been forced to do a lot of things digitally which earlier we were doing manually or offline. Not sure how people will react after the virus completely vanishes, will they turn back to the traditional methods or get a knack of these online transactions. It is indisputable that the virus does not have the ability to mutate if it cannot be passed on, and it cannot be passed on if everyone takes the proper precautions. At this point, the virus is not likely to vanish or be defeated. This is very likely something that exists in the human population for the rest of our time on Earth, like influenza. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
