deflationary odds, launched IDO's. IDO? Initial Deflationary Offering? Does it resemble the structure of an ICO (initial coin offering)? Not certain what country their launching out of. The united states regulated and limited ICOs to higher income brackets awhile ago. If IDO falls into a similar category regulatory restrictions could apply. As a gambler, I favor games of skill that are somewhat deterministic. Gambling on sports where there is a degree of consistency that can be utilized to identify patterns is an interesting gambit. Slots and algorithmic gambling are betting against whatever backend calculations occur. Everything interesting and informative about that process is normally concealed from view. There's no way to tell what you did right with your gambling approach or what you did wrong. The lack of skill, strategy and thought make it less appealing. |
|
|
|
|
Islam has teachings against usury and excessively high interest rates. Predatory and exploitive business practices could also be frowned upon by the islamic faith. It could be a natural progression for them to gravitate towards crypto loans over banks offering (I think) higher interest rates.
Jesus being crucified shortly after ejecting money changers (ancient bankers) from a temple, may also be worth considering. The bible prophesizes accepting the mark of the beast as required for buying and selling goods and services. I doubt many religious folks think about this. If they did they might appreciate cryptocurrencies more.
Buddhism and eastern traditions I don't remember commenting much about finance. Its mainly the abrahamic faiths that do so afaik.
|
|
|
|
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.
I'll try to explain why I think it doesn't make sense. If the EU's goal were to address climate change. They could impose a tax on power plants that run on coal, oil and natural gas. While offering a tax credit on power plants fueled by solar, wind and hydroelectic power. Punish dirty energy while rewarding clean energy to incentivize positive change in industry. Raising tariffs/taxes on steel, concrete and aluminum is questionable. There aren't alternatives to concrete or steel that are more environmentally friendly to turn to. The main result is the cost of construction projects becoming more expensive. Which could trigger a chain reaction of decreased real estate development. Scarcity of living space. More expensive and difficult to afford rent and mortgage. Tax hikes on aluminum will make basic items like beverage cans more expensive to produce. EU manufacturing sectors, could negatively be affected by basic steel and aluminum costs becoming more regulated and expensive. Punishing concrete, steel and aluminum in the absence of more carbon friendly alternatives could prove to be self destructive over the long term. Climate change advantages the EU sees from diminished concrete, steel and aluminum emissions. They probably could have achieved through restructuring of things like landfills which are known to emit considerable amounts of carbon and methane from decaying waste. |
|
|
|
Was that a rhetorical question? Who do you think is going to pay for all this? The people, the masses, which is where governments get most of the money they collect. Especially in Europe. Sometimes, I get a feeling the majority believe corporations and the rich are paying for all of these extravagant state spending programs. They believe these taxes and tariffs won't affect them at all. If there is a negative effect, they'll probably blame Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, amazon, facebook or big tech. They'll blame capitalism or white privilege. Something I would not normally expect. So I have to ask. As it seems there is a very wide array of options available for answering the question of who pays for these taxes, tariffs and programs. And I'm interested to know what people think about topics like this. You cannot completely blame the EU though. Climate change initiatives have really not been able to get anything done due to the varying interests of all parties, especially with lot of developing countries just beginning to industrialize not being able to fulfill these lofty ideals without direct support (which hasn't been forthcoming from the developed world). This isolationism in the name of climate policy will probably continue to grow.
Politicians are climate change illiterates. The scientific advisors are the ones with real power and sway. Most associated with drafting climate change policy are bought by the highest bidder. Party differences have nothing to do with it. |
|
|
|
The real Estate the regular ones Will be Bad but the most luxury speciallly new york high end real estate Will be booming a lot market traders the whales Will put their money in real Estate. Here's an interesting angle on real estate. Biden’s new dilemma: How to slash housing costs for low-income borrowersWASHINGTON — President Joe Biden’s move to fire the top U.S. mortgage regulator is triggering calls from fellow Democrats to use the agency to expand access to loans for lower-income people, who have struggled to buy homes since the financial crisis. Progressives are concerned that Biden will be too timid in changing course at the powerful agency overseeing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two companies that stand behind half of the $11 trillion U.S. mortgage market. Top Democrats are calling on Biden to quickly name a permanent leader — a position that Senate Banking Chair Sherrod Brown's spokesperson said is “vital to the administration’s goals of building an equitable economy and must be filled quickly.” The Trump administration had worked to shrink Fannie and Freddie’s footprint and build their capital buffers so they could be released as private entities and withstand another housing downturn. Democrats opposed those efforts, saying they would raise mortgage costs for consumers. Biden could draw opposition from Republicans if he picked a regulator who reversed course in an attempt to double down on housing affordability. Advocates want FHFA to immediately do away with Trump-era limits on Fannie and Freddie's purchases of “high-risk” loans — characterized as having some combination of low credit scores and high debt-to-income or loan-to-value ratios. https://www.politico.com/news/2021/07/05/biden-housing-dilemma-low-income-497921 .... For those who know of a little thing called leveraged subprime mortgage collaterized debt obligations (CDOs). They might notice interesting parallels here. New york appears to be losing residents btw. Which normally reduces demand for housing. Resulting in decreased rent and property values. I really wonder what real estate market trends will look like over the next few years. I can't recall a discussion of which real estate is good to invest in during times of recession. |
|
|
|
Selling before the market downtrend can be a good practice. But if wealth is not held in inflation protected assets like bitcoin or precious metals. There is a risk of becoming a "starving billionaire".  Jeff Bezos estimated net worth of $177 billion may not seem like much, if a worst case inflation scenario hits. Finding a safe place to store and save wealth against inflation. Could be as important as timing the market. In 2021 the question of where to safely store wealth has become very difficult to answer. There are many news stories being published about counterfeit gold bars, safety deposit boxes being confiscated, shipments of commodities being falsified. To cast doubt on traditional methods of wealth protection being safe and reliable. |
|
|
|
Slew of proposals still leaves the hardest cuts for future generations.The European Union today unveiled a dozen pieces of legislation that would overhaul the bloc’s economy in an effort to slash carbon emissions. The sweeping “Green Deal” proposal would cut carbon pollution 55 percent below 1990 levels by leaning heavily on renewable energy and electric vehicles while also introducing a border carbon adjustment on imports and taxing aviation and maritime fuels. Together, the reforms signal the beginning of the end of fossil fuels in the EU. “The fossil fuel economy has reached its limits,” said European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. Europe has already begun the transition away from fossil fuels, but it became clear to leaders that it wasn’t happening quickly enough. “We’re not just faced with an industrial revolution; we’re also faced with an existential threat, which is the climate crisis,” Frans Timmermans, European Commission executive vice president for the European Green Deal, said during a news briefing. “You don’t have the luxury to say, 'Let’s very smoothly develop toward this change.' We have to do it quite radically.” The bloc has already cut its emissions by 24 percent below 1990 levels, a feat that took 30 years to achieve. Now, the EU is proposing to trim another 31 percent of emissions by 2030—less than nine years from now— and eliminate the last 45 percent over 15 years. While future technological advancements may help the EU reach net zero by 2050, the process will still be challenging. It’s widely understood that the easiest emissions reductions are typically tackled first, leaving the more intractable problems for later. Taxing imports Possibly the biggest change proposed in the legislation, and what is likely to be the most contentious, is the border carbon adjustment or tax. 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. It helps level the playing field between EU companies and those in countries with cheaper, more polluting energy sources, though it also disadvantages poorer countries that don’t have the capital to revamp their energy systems. 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. Electricity imported from outside the bloc would also be covered. As the system is refined, it would expand to cover more products and services. To address the concerns of its trading partners, the EU says it will “strengthen” its climate diplomacy to facilitate a global energy transition, including financing for poorer countries, but the bloc is not specific about how that will happen. What those specifics look like will probably play a big role in whether the border carbon adjustment catches on. Low-hanging fruit The rest of the proposal is much more conventional, tackling a significant proportion of its emissions by going after some low-hanging fruit. To reduce pollution caused by homes, offices, and the like, the EU would direct member states to renovate 3 percent of their building stock every year, or about 35 million buildings by 2030. The grid would also be cleaned up, with 40 percent of energy coming from renewable power by 2030. Another chunk of gains would come from improving energy efficiency across the economy by 36 percent. There are some relatively easy targets in transportation centered on cars and trucks. The EU wants pollution from cars to be reduced by 55 percent by 2030 and pollution from vans to be reduced by 50 percent by the same date. Those targets may seem aggressive, but this year, 15 percent of vehicles sold in Europe were already either plug-in hybrids or fully electric. BloombergNEF predicts that battery prices will reach the $100/kWh tipping point in 2023, at which point electric vehicles will be cost-competitive with fossil-fuel vehicles. The EU also intends to add road transport to its emissions trading program in 2026, which would help price vehicular pollution and nudge consumers toward lower- or zero-emission cars and trucks. Heavier lifts Still, the proposed EV targets may leave the most challenging part for last. The EU says it wants zero emissions from new cars in 2035. While that goal aligns with what other countries have pledged, it will be challenging to hit. Governments will have to do more than simply entice consumers to buy EVs with financial incentives—countries will have to build vast amounts of infrastructure to support fast-charging for road trips, on-street charging for people who live in buildings without parking, and in-building solutions for apartment and condo dwellers who have parking. Another challenging part of the plan is how the EU intends to boost its natural carbon sinks. The EU is relying on forests, soils, wetlands, and peatlands to pick up a significant portion of the slack. The bloc suggests it will get another 43 megatons of carbon locked in natural carbon sinks, a 16 percent boost over today. To put that in perspective, that’s about 1 percent of the EU's emissions in 2019, before the pandemic. To hit its natural carbon sink goals, the EU says it will work to restore landscapes and plant 3 billion trees by 2030. Those are laudable goals that offer additional benefits for biodiversity and other natural processes like water purification. But we don’t fully understand how carbon cycles through many ecosystems, making any projects challenging to assess. The hardest parts Like many climate proposals, the EU’s slate of legislation sets aside some of the hardest parts. It leaves the majority of pollution for later generations to solve—an approach that Germany’s top court has already rejected—and it punts on hard-to-eliminate emissions from the aviation and maritime industries. Aviation is particularly challenging. Planes can’t be too heavy, which rules out today’s batteries for most uses. Future batteries may change the equation, and so might synthetic fuels. But for now, the EU is relying on a carbon tax and nebulous references to “sustainable fuels.” The maritime industry receives similar treatment, with the EU working to “promote sustainable maritime fuels” by placing a carbon cap on shipping emissions and lowering them over time. The good news is that the EU plans to enforce those limits on all ships “regardless of their flag.” Aggressive enough? The EU’s proposal is certainly bold by today’s standards, but it’s unclear whether it goes far enough. Climate Action Tracker, a nonprofit that rates countries’ proposals, says the EU’s target of a 55 percent reduction by 2030 is “insufficient,” recommending that it be ramped up to 65 percent. Without the additional reductions, the group says the plan would leave 7.5 percent of its emissions remaining by 2050. Still, the EU’s proposals go well beyond those put forth by other major emitters like the US and China. The US hasn’t released a plan to reach net zero, though President Joe Biden has said getting there by 2050 is one of his key goals. China, meanwhile, has said it would try to get to zero before 2060 but hasn’t offered details. The plans proposed by the US and China are rated “critically insufficient” and “highly insufficient,” respectively, to limit warming to less than 2˚ C. The slate of legislation faces a long road ahead. The bloc’s 27 member states will all have to sign off on it, as will the EU parliament. There’s plenty of division among the EU’s members, with high-carbon countries like Poland likely to resist the changes. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/07/sweeping-green-deal-promises-to-revamp-eu-economy-slash-carbon-pollution/ .... 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? |
|
|
|
|
Steam discontinuing BTC support may have been one of the 1st indicators of a downtrend in that 2017 year. There was a certain eerieness to it. Other large retailers followed the trend. Almost as if it was a large coordinated effort. That was a scary moment, it was uncertain to what extent the trend was coordinated or would be extended.
Steam retains gift card support. Which can be purchased with crypto and exchanged for games and whatever else. With reduced anonymity. I can't comment on the experiences of others. Personally, I have a difficult time finding games that interest me. There are only a few games each year that pique my interest. If even that.
What I do miss is some of the smaller and less known places that supported bitcoin deposit and withdrawal via paypal having that option removed.
|
|
|
|
|
Why would fiat currencies need to be replaced.
I would prefer crypto and fiat exist in a state of relative competition. The way that competition between AMD and intel reaped significant benefits for consumers and semiconductor markets. Over the last 10 years competition has brought consumers lower prices, greater performance, greater reliability and lower energy consumption of CPUs. This is one positive facet of how free markets and capitalism are supposed to work to benefit humanity.
Fiat and crypto do not need to be enemies who attempt to destroy each other. They can compete and strive to make each other better and stronger. Fiat can learn lessons from crypto. And perhaps the opposite could be true to some degree. If crypto is successful it is due to shortcomings or limitations of fiat which crypto is better suited to fill. The rational solution is for fiat to improve and offer better terms, conditions and stability to its user base.
Crypto replacing fiat would end with crypto becoming a monopoly of itself. Which given the negative publicity monopolies have received of late, may not be an optimal solution.
|
|
|
|
|
It is possible they're waiting for a big economic crash to rollout CBDC. If people are desperate and have no other options. They may be willing to accept CBDC's with very restrictive and unfair terms.
China's initial CBDC blueprint contained plans for a digital currency with an expiration date so it couldn't be used for long term savings. There have also been recent discussions about whether central banks should limit which retailers and products consumers are allowed to spend digital currencies on. The general trend appears headed in an increasingly restrictive and regulated direction.
Every crisis in recent history has come with added restrictions and red tape. It doesn't necessarily take a Sherlock Holmes to guess another crisis could be exactly what central bank CBDC are waiting for.
|
|
|
|
I really like this type of humanitarian effort.  Another approach could be to purchase a small plot of land. Invite volunteers to grow communal gardens that produce fresh and healthy food which can be utilized to feed the poor. Financed through crypto. A small $2.00 pack of seeds might produce $200 worth of food under optimum conditions. Buying land would be the largest cost and it wouldn't be necessary. In some regions it could be possible for volunteers to donate small sections of land which could be used to grow things. Of course, in some areas of the USA the state has made humanitarian efforts to feed the poor, illegal. There have long been laws made against helping those in poverty. Which tends to complicate things. But poverty and homelessness are definitely ever worsening conditions. The day could come when we will all be forced to acknowledge it one way or another. |
|
|
|
|
For many years, events which the news media wanted to keep silent were publicized by anonymous bloggers. There was a movement in the US government years ago, before Trump took office. Where the state said they would help americans to remember their passwords and secure their identity by providing a single login (which they regulated and controlled) for all social media, forums and finance purposes.
It looks as if microsoft is attempting to re-launch this effort with their "decentralized" internet.
Using windows, I constantly have to disable windows defender almost everyday. It constantly re-activates itself. Even though I prefer anti virus not to actively scan in the background due to it shortening the lifespan of my hard disk. Windows defender can't be shut down from task manager or disabled. Microsoft and windows are so unbelievably terrible at what they do. I can't imagine anyone trusting them with user meta data.
|
|
|
|
Rogue nations like north korea have reportedly been involved in a majority of crypto ransomware attacks. They're state based attacks made by countries currently under economic sanctions. Making it impossible to extradite or prosecute ransomware attackers due to north korean authorities not cooperating with law enforcement, opting not to abide by international extradition. A case could be made for traditional financial institutions being breached and attacked far more severely in contrast to crypto equivalents. The federal reserve having reportedly been breached more than "50 times" in 4 years doesn't set a good precedent. Federal Reserve Hacked More Than 50 Times In 4 YearsWASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Federal Reserve detected more than 50 cyber breaches between 2011 and 2015, with several incidents described internally as “espionage,” according to Fed records. The central bank’s staff suspected hackers or spies in many of the incidents, the records show. The Fed’s computer systems play a critical role in global banking and hold confidential information on discussions about monetary policy that drives financial markets. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/hackers-breach-federal-reserve-50-times_n_574ee0d5e4b0757eaeb1194c .... Gold is actually not a good option for criminals. Cash in the form of unmarked bills is the option of choice for villains in movies for good reason. Unlike crypto, paper bills leave no digital trail. |
|
|
|
The fact that Europe will publicly subsidize these changes means that Tesla will no longer have that competitive advantage and that one of it´s moats will be gone in 5 years. One of tesla's announced future strategies is licensing its EV technology to other automakers. Similar to how nintendo earned extra revenue by licensing its cartridge technology to game developers. Which could mean tesla is positioned to license and supply components to EV automakers in europe. My guess is tesla and china will emerge as two main suppliers for EV tech in 2022 and beyond. China has advantages in owning a stake in a high percentage of rare earth mineral rights. Tesla has an advantage in developing tabless batteries and other claimed improvements over existing EV tech. I think there is a chance Elon Musk could step down as tesla CEO. The way that Jeff Bezos recently stepped down as amazon CEO. Elon Musk recently stated on twitter he hates being the CEO boss. |
|
|
|
|
Years ago, governments of the world began offering cash bounties for zero day (undocumented) exploits. A hacker that spent 6 months reverse engineering code might be paid $200,000 for a previously unknown windows exploit. The vulnerability would never be officially reported or patched. Leaving everyone vulnerable. Over the course of many years, nations stockpiled many such exploits as weapons. In something resembling a cyberspace version of the nuclear arms race.
Some of these zero day weapons leaked or were stolen by rogue actors. Eventually finding their way into the hands of the public. Some of the CIA's hacking tools were claimed to be leaked under wikileaks vault7 release. Long story short, there is a big market for undocumented zero day exploits which are unknown and have not been patched. Being patched up to date isn't enough to achieve true opsec (operational security). And hasn't been for a very long time. Its a bitter pill to swallow but as far as I know there aren't any real options or alternatives. Aside from perhaps using hardened OS/software. Which isn't something I know a whole lot about.
|
|
|
|
|
One aspect of bitcoin which could lead to it being one of the biggest investment opportunities. Is it being one of few inflation protected assets available to the general public.
Most couldn't purchase, take delivery of and store safely: gold, silver and precious metals as hedges against inflation. Investing more than $1 million in inflation protected assets is difficult in this day and age. It is difficult to safety store physical assets as the dependability and reliability of traditionally used services like safety deposit boxes diminish.
Bitcoin is one of the most convenient and safe solutions for asset inflation protection. Its also the easiest to access for 1.7 billion unbanked around the world who use btc.
It is possible these variables will align to form a perfect storm of bitcoin bull rush in the future.
|
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin's growth potential might be defined as infinite ∞.
Every year some bitcoin is lost and unrecoverable. Someone forgets their private key or password. Or unfortunately passes away, leaving their next of kin without a means of recovering lost coins. Bitcoin's supply shrinks as a result, making BTC a more scarce asset.
If bitcoin were defined purely in terms of increasing scarcity alone. By a growing quantity of coins that were lost and couldn't be recovered. Its growth potential in value, might be defined as infinite. Being that the trend will continue as long as people continue to utilize btc. Which could translate to value appreciation, as long as people continue to use bitcoin. In that sense btc might be as close to infinite as anything humans create.
|
|
|
|
|
Video game competitions fall under a ESPORTS category of gambling.
I have seen and bet on counterstrike only to satisfy my curiosity on how odds were calculated. Can't say I've delved into the topic deeply enough to know how common it is for fighting genre games to be covered by bookies and sportsbooks.
Nitrogensports currently lists: counterstrike, league of legends, DOTA2, valorant, call of duty, starcraft 2, overwatch, rainbow 6, king of glory and FIFA.
It would seem those games are the ones with the most gambling and league support.
|
|
|
|
Third, equality will no longer be applied to people living in poor countries and will be consider as slaves due to debt. Examinations of garbage dumps from ancient rome revealed human corpses were routinely discarded and mixed in with trash. There are eras of history where human life is not highly valued and slavery becomes normalized. Israelites in the bible were slaves under Egypt. Spartacus was a gladiator slave in rome. Africans were slaves in most of the world, only around a century ago. If people wish to prevent things like slavery, their best defense involves learning about it and becoming educated. Know history to prevent it from repeating itself. Fifth, endless wars will going to take place and peace and freedom will be taken out from humanity. Wars are dangerous to the rich as well as the poor. Like forest fires, they can blaze up and burn out of control. Consuming everyone and everything in their path. World War II, Vietnam and Korean Wars were the last real wars the united states participated in. What is called war today in the USA isn't real war. But carefully planned and executed skirmishes which can be controlled to suit a narrative. The same can be said of military industrial complex programs and projects. Everyone hesitates over and fears real war as it cannot be predicted or controlled. |
|
|
|
Why are they so optimistic about the crypto market and how do they analyze and profit from it? Pre regulation ICOs offered accredited investment opportunities to low bracket earners who are normally barred by law from participating. I doubt anyone would claim ICOs were free from risk or danger. But that level of opportunity isn't easy to find in traditional finance. Past eras of history have seen opportunities explode in the form of gold rushes and the silicon valley dot com bubble. Opportunities produce excitement. Its very easy to make money in a bull market like the one crypto enjoyed 2020/2021. Some crypto like bitcoin are considered inflation protected assets which further increases their value during times of inflation and potential recession. There are a few I've seen who are trying literally every crypto opportunity they can get their hands on, while blogging about the experience. People do it because, it works. They can witness firsthand the time and energy invested in crypto being transformed into financial rewards. The methods differ and don't necessarily repeat. But the end result remains the same. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
