Humans are capable of handling their own finances. We all have this ability. Government are incapable handling its finances.

Government is an entity that isn't self sufficient, and the elected members of that entity have a vested interested in ensuring its survival and continuation. When they begin to control monetary and fiscal activity within its borders, it becomes an unsustainable balancing act where the cards eventually come tumbling down. Whether it be due to overregulation and centralization of authority, (think consolidation of economic matters away from the constituency and into the hands of bureaucrats/government agencies), corruption, money printing, etc, it isn't possible for the government to manage monetary/fiscal activity without disrupting economic growth.

The amount of "man made recessions" I've seen countries go through, with no fault of their own citizens, is palpable. I suppose in a democratic republic, the voters are they themselves to blame. After all, they elected the government body! But I like to give more credit than might be due because while people understand basic economics, they don't understand governance and bureaucracy.

The exact lawsuit is alleging fraud by Binance in addition to operating as an unregistered securities exchange. So they're dragging Changpeng Zhao through the mud even if it's only about altcoins. This isn't even counting the Coinbase lawsuit either, filed at the same time.

Knowing how these federal agencies operate, if these were really about shitcoins, the U.S. government would've been more adamant about clarifying the regulatory framework on crypto instead of throwing out lawsuits to every exchange in their jurisdiction. Perhaps their intentions truly are to protect the consumers, but a lot of nefarious initiatives starts off with good intent.

OPEC has too much power and they got stronger when Russian energy imports were ceased.

If the U.S. wants a winning strategy that does not involve sanctions while decentralizing OPEC, they have the opportunity to flood the market with cheap energy. Not emptying the oil reserves, but increase drilling production and capacity of oil and natural gas. It'd strengthen the dollar too.

If you really want to see how stringent the regulations got, see what was passed after the housing market crash in 2008. You would be surprised at how much banks are able to get away with knowing they have federal regulators that will jump in if they need liquidity. As of March of 2020, U.S. banks literally can loan/invest 100% of depositor funds through the fractional reserve banking system -- they don't need to keep a single cent of client funds on hand. Doesn't sound like they're highly regulated with that type of freedom.

Be specific, what exact regulations are you suggesting? Establishment of an FDIC type insurance program?

"Great idea; wrong species" - American biologist E. O. Wilson.

Wealth distribution sounds great until it applies to humans who are incapable of working in perfect unison with respect to wealth generation. The amount of work someone does must be proportional to the wealth someone generates -- with communism it's easy for someone's work to be disproportionate to the wealth generated. Now, if you're an ant on a farm -- and all your programed to do is work in unison, communism looks feasible. Not even during the hunter gatherer era was there equality, such a concept didn't exist.

Majority of businesses fail within five years. For tech related firms it isn't a flaw that most of them fail, it's part of the inherent design.

These companies secure investors and get through initial rounds of funding to produce something tangible -- they develop a profitable business model and hope to gain enough revenue to be profitable in a 3 year period. If they're not profitable enough to secure more investment, then they go under. End goal for a lot of these businesses is to be bought out by a larger tech firm or license out the technology. These companies exist as R&D vessels. VC's will essentially gamble on these companies and hope they run through enough of them that they eventually stumble on a winner. They're not walking in with the expectation that the company will exist over a decades time.

They're not supporting cryptocurrency, though.

OP does not provide any sources so taking what he says at face value, China can support implementation of web3 or blockchain technology without adopting its application through cryptocurrency. Doesn't make any sense for a communist regime to support decentralized currency.

As "business minded" they are, the CCP thrives on retaining a tight grip on economic activities within their borders. Bitcoin's antithetical to the system China's created.

Nearly all litigations against corporations are civil cases unless there's reckless criminal conduct. Recklessness in the sense that some level of injury or damages occurred with the knowing creation of unjustified risk and consciously disregarding such risks. Reckless criminal conduct generally does not apply in these sort of cases. Civil classification means the penalty is a fine. Criminal matters mean prison is the penalty.

The SEC isn't going to start throwing people in jail, of course. Their goal might not even be significant fines. If they can drag the legal process out long enough absent of a legal victory, it might hinder Binance from operating in the U.S. The attorneys Binance are hiring for this will range from hundreds, to thousands of dollars per hour. It isn't a cheap fight.

If it turns out Binance knowingly defrauded the U.S. government or its citizens, then this becomes a criminal matter.

If Bitcoin was on the ballet, Ron DeSantis would be elected the next President by default: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5452608

He is the most pro-crypto politician running for the Presidency in 2024.

Unfortunately many Americans are too inept to pay attention to crypto regulation. I'd encourage you to look at Presidential debates over the years. Usually the questions the moderators ask gauge what the central issues are for the time period. You can go back to the 1960's debate of Kennedy and Nixon to find focus on infrastructure modernization and stopping communism spread through China and the Soviet Union. Debates pre-2001 hardly ever had questions related to terrorism, and of course every debate post 9/11 include foreign policy questions related to middle east operations and terror groups. Don't expect any crypto talk this election cycle.

When CBDC's to be introduced within the next 5-10 years contemporaneous to crypto regulations that strip people of their right to engage in crypto commerce independent of stringent regulation and taxes, then people might start paying attention. But that assumes more crypto adoption than we have now.

Crypto crackdowns aren't conspiracy theories. The government is rather candid about their plans regarding regulations.

If you want to get into the conspiracy theories, you can look at larger motives for the activists and politicians that are advocates against crypto. New World Order? Globalists instilling their agenda? Perhaps something more inauspicious is going on. What could these people gain from ensuring you and I don't have access to decentralized currencies -- presumably wealth and power.

What happened with FTX and campaign contributions happens all the time in American politics. Seemingly people are surprised that the wealthy pay off politicians through indirect donations when that's been the status quo for many decades. The average net worth of the U.S. politician is 1M+. They're not gaining this wealth through their public salary alone.

The ToS exist to protect the company against its users from liability, so consider the ToS to be against the user by default. Not that anyone bothers reading them, but get past a bunch of the legal jargon they probably explicitly state the company reserves the right to change the ToS without notice. It's not fraud in the legal sense -- you agreed to the terms on sign up. You shouldn't be handing out legal advice.

And if you think these casinos operate in jurisdictions amenable to lawsuits then you're mistaken.

MBA's are losing value, among other college degrees, for the fact that educational institutions are becoming diploma mills and offering these degrees to anyone who wants to pay for it. The internet doesn't require you have a degree for anything, experience matters.

Save yourself the costs and political indoctrination most universities made you endure, skip the degree and enter the labor market.

I already assumed it was banned to AI post on threads, I'd consider it spam. You can somewhat tell when someone is using AI to type out their responses because the prose reads robotic and generic.

Anyways, I've thought about AI content and intellectual property in the past because it creates a bit of a dichotomy when it comes to monetization. Who owns the intellectual rights to something AI produces? Easy to suggest the parent company, owner of the AI platform, is entitled to all work, but think of this example: Does Adobe Photoshop take ownership of all works created using their program? Surely not, as there's input required by the user for digital creation. AI works in similar way - AI content, as of now, requires user input before producing content. Something like ChatGPT does the heavy lifting in that regard, but you're still required to input the parameters.

Not exactly a conspiracy -- lobbyists groups are behind most legislation in U.S. politics, going so far as to writing bills for the U.S. congress to rubber stamp not having actually read the proposed legislation. That's normally how U.S. politics works anyways. These congresspeople don't have the technical knowledge of the markets or crypto to rely solely on their own knowledge and intuition.

Even if it's a lobbying group behind Warren Davidson's efforts, his reasonings for wanting to fire Gensler are not unreasonable: https://twitter.com/WarrenDavidson/status/1648379560122105882?s=20

As a side note, are we really surprised a former Goldman sachs executive appointed by Joe Biden is anti-crypto? He doesn't have to be the biggest crypto hater in the world to do some damage unfortunately.

Not only Pakistan, a lot of other countries want to join: https://www.msn.com/en-in/news/world/pakistan-expresses-interest-in-joining-brics-group-amid-economic-crisis/ar-AA1cmMMi


You'll notice these countries aren't particularly wealthy, so it's within their interest to form a pact with countries where interests may align. Except an alliance with Russia and China is an alliance headed for disaster.

India was more allied towards the western countries when Trump was in office, now the Biden administration is trying to have Modi removed. IMO it's a mistake for India to participate but they border China and perhaps some geopolitical matters might force them to cooperate.


If you join it could be BBRICS 

Most of the warmongers pull the strings behind the scenes. Even conservatives are amenable to such pressure. Remember the 2017 Shayrat missile strikes Trump ordered in Syria? Trump surrounded himself with horrible military advisers in 2017 so maybe he was coerced into intervention because he didn't know any better, but he  did hire John Bolton in 2018. Bolton loves regime changes.

Anyway, Trump could be more hawkish than he lets on, there's a lot of influence and money that go on behind the scenes that Trump may be amenable to. I'd still prefer Trump over Biden.

My thoughts are similar but I do wonder -- Technology gets cheaper with time, (though with Apple the curve of time and price is shifted slightly to the right as it takes longer for Apple's tech to lower in price) -- imagine 5-10 years from now when the current iteration of the Vision pro would be at a price point, say, 50% cheaper, or more. Consider competitors catching up to Apple's technology and releasing their own VR headset.

I could see VR headsets becoming ubiquitous as a smartphone; VR gambling could be the next iteration of online gambling and the company that can introduce VR table games or slots will make a lot of money. I recall when virtual blackjack tables were first introduce some years ago, it felt pretty groundbreaking.

Bitcoin doesn't have clear legal definitions and that's done on purpose. The legal framework has purposefully been left ambiguous because it allows for government law enforcement/financial agencies to target private enterprises who are left victim to undefined legal statutes. The SEC lawsuit against binance is predicated on this. They themselves conflate commodities and securities with unclear guidelines and then target Binance with frivolous lawsuits because the U.S. government can't get the statutory verbiage right.

The tax income from trading isn't going to be fueling the governments budget. It's within the governments interest that decentralized currencies do not compete with their own currency.

Casinos can deny KYC documents for any reason or for no reason. If they want an excuse to not payout a big win, KYC the client and reject any documents they provide for whatever arbitrary reason. Introduce a third party (who picks the 3rd party? It won't be the player, it'll be the casino) and you have the same issue, except your trust is outsourced to the third party.

I decline to play on casinos that abuse KYC. Even if they're inclined to use a third party intermediary, that doesn't solve the problem.

Where is this website getting the RTP data from? I looked briefly at their website and they're suggesting they have a database full of slots with the live RTP but they're not including where and how they get that data. Some casinos will provide the house edge to their users outright but the immediate RTP isn't something they would disclose, so where did they get this from?