what if the whole structure of financial operations starts to change?

Contrary to that point are things like BRICS, the Russia/China pipelines, loads of black-market operations, other enemies of the US coming onboard with Russia, and essentially the people getting fed up with the sanctions and forcing their leaders to get rid of them.

Right now, Russia and China are developing a form of SWIFT to operate between these two countries - https://www.russia-briefing.com/news/russia-and-china-to-develop-swift-avoiding-international-financial-systems.html/. And there are others. Turns out that the US is shutting down its own worldwide financial operations by trying to maintain is control.

None of this will unfold in a fast fashion for the US and Nato countries. But it will unfold fast for Russia and other major countries (countries who realize that they are being cut off from Russian benefits by the sanctions).

SPFS

SPFS (Russian: Cиcтeмa пepeдaчи финaнcoвыx cooбщeний (CПФC), romanized: Sistema peredachi finansovykh soobscheniy, lit. 'System for Transfer of Financial Messages') is a Russian equivalent of the SWIFT financial transfer system, developed by the Central Bank of Russia.[1] The system has been in development since 2014, when the United States government threatened to disconnect Russia from the SWIFT system.[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPFS

Gold, bitcoin, a CBDC or whatever, or a mix of everything, for sure the Dollar will be no more the leading currency and a lot of things will be different.
Now if we think about the USA, what will they do? Because don't think they will watch the story without trying to do something to stop it. That's a serious question I wonder. Wars or something else, not sure, but at the same time I'm thiking about the war in Ukraine and The USA 'too curious', China and Taiwan with the USA 'too curious' and so on...

As POTUS, no idea what I could do.

Berkshire Hathaway (BRK) vice chairman and staunch bitcoin skeptic Charlie Munger has called for the United States to follow in the footsteps of China and ban cryptocurrencies.

In an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal, Munger attributed the rise of cryptocurrencies to a gap in regulation as crypto assets aren't currencies, commodities or securities.

"Instead, it’s a gambling contract with a nearly 100% edge for the house, entered into in a country where gambling contracts are traditionally regulated only by states that compete in laxity," Munger wrote. "The U.S. should now enact a new federal law that prevents this from happening."

In 2021, Munger labelled bitcoin's (BTC) relative success, at the time as "disgusting" after alluding to how it is used by kidnappers and extortionists. A year later, the 99-year-old called bitcoin an "investment in nothing" as he doubled down on his skeptical stance.

This isn't the first time Munger or Berkshire Hathaway chairman Warren Buffett, also known as the "Oracle of Omaha," have gone after crypto with Munger even going as far to say that he wished crypto had “never been invented."

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/berkshire-hathaways-charlie-munger-calls-094144939.html

The economist argued that the current crypto ban in China is beneficial in the short term, but big opportunities can be missed in the long run.

The idea of lifting the cryptocurrency ban has started floating in China as a former central bank official has called the country to review its stringent crypto restrictions.

Huang Yiping, a former member of the Monetary Policy Committee at the People’s Bank of China (PBoC), believes that the Chinese government should think again about whether the ban on cryptocurrency trading is sustainable in the long run.

Huang voiced his concerns about the future of fintech in China in a speech in December, according to a transcript published by the local financial website Sina Finance on Jan. 29.

The former official argued that a permanent ban on crypto could result in many missed opportunities for the formal financial system, including those related to blockchain and tokenization. Crypto-related technologies are “very valuable” to regulated financial systems, he stated, adding:

“Banning cryptocurrencies may be practical in the short term, but whether it is sustainable in the long run deserves an in-depth analysis,” Huang stated. He also highlighted the importance of developing a proper regulatory framework for crypto, though admitting that it won’t be an easy task. Huang said:


Despite calling for an in-depth analysis of the potential long-term benefits of crypto for China, Huang still emphasized that there are many risks associated with cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin. Huang argued that Bitcoin is more like a digital asset rather than a currency because it lacks intrinsic value. Echoing a common anti-crypto narrative, he also claimed that a significant share of Bitcoin transactions is related to illegal transactions.

Huang, now an economics professor at Peking University’s National School of Development, also admitted that China’s central bank digital currency has failed to reach wide adoption despite being launched many years ago. He added that allowing private institutions to issue stablecoins based on the digital yuan remains a “very sensitive” question, but the pros and cons are worth considering.

China has been long known for its “blockchain, not Bitcoin” stance, with Chinese President Xi Jinping calling for the country to accelerate the adoption of blockchain as a core for innovation in 2019. At the same time, the Chinese government has shown some hostility to crypto, eventually banning virtually all crypto transactions in 2021.

Despite the ban, China has continued to be the second largest Bitcoin miner in the world as of January 2022, hinting at a large crypto community still existing in the country. According to official data, mainland China customers accounted for 8% of the collapsed crypto exchange FTX despite the country’s ban on crypto trading.

Some local crypto enthusiasts even believe that China has never really banned individuals from possessing or trading crypto.

https://cointelegraph.com/news/bank-of-china-ex-advisor-calls-beijing-to-reconsider-crypto-ban

Two sizable cryptocurrency banks, namely Silvergate and Signature, borrowed money from the US home loan banks because of the liquidity crisis, especially after the FTX crash, many people withdrew their money. Maybe for Signature and Silvergate there is no other way to increase liquidity power other than borrowing money, otherwise they will be threatened with bankruptcy right in front of them.

What do you think about crypto banks lending money to fiat banks, will this be bad, good, or will nothing happen for the future of crypto?

Source

New York CNN — BuzzFeed said Thursday that it will work with ChatGPT creator OpenAI to use artificial intelligence to help create content for its audience, marking a milestone in how media companies implement the new technology into their businesses.

Jonah Peretti, the company’s co-founder and chief executive, told employees in a memo that they can expect “AI inspired content” to “move from an R&D stage to part of our core business.”

Peretti elaborated that the technology will be used to create quizzes, help with brainstorming, and assist in personalizing content to its audience. BuzzFeed, for now, will not use artificial intelligence to help write news stories, a spokesperson told CNN.

“To be clear, we see the breakthroughs in AI opening up a new era of creativity that will allow humans to harness creativity in new ways with endless opportunities and applications for good,” Peretti said. “In publishing, AI can benefit both content creators and audiences, inspiring new ideas and inviting audience members to co-create personalized content.”

“When you see this work in action it is pretty amazing,” Peretti added, vowing to “lead the future of AI-powered content.”

The news sent BuzzFeed’s sagging stock skyrocketing more than 150% in trading Thursday to more than $2 a share.

Media industry leaders have increasingly said that artificial intelligence will revolutionize their businesses.

While BuzzFeed is the biggest digital content creator to move to implement OpenAI’s technology into its business, some other outlets have taken similar steps.

CNET recently used an artificial intelligence tool to help write stories. But the process did not go smoothly, with a number of articles ultimately requiring corrections.

In a note published online Wednesday, CNET Editor-In-Chief Connie Guglielmo apologized for the errors and said new processes had been put in place to prevent them in the future.

But, Guglielmo said, the outlet will not shy away from using artificial intelligence moving forward.

“The process may not always be easy or pretty, but we’re going to continue embracing it – and any new tech that we believe makes life better,” Guglielmo wrote.

The Associated Press also began using artificial intelligence to automate news stories nearly a decade ago.


https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/26/media/buzzfeed-ai-content-creation/index.html

Kodak announces its own cryptocurrency and watches stock price skyrocket

Jan 9, 2018

There’s a growing list of companies that have added language about blockchain or cryptocurrency into their names and mission statements, and it makes sense. Companies that do so see their stocks rise in value afterward. The latest company to jump on this trend is, unexpectedly, Kodak, which just launched its own KodakCoin, a cryptocurrency for photographers. As soon as the news was announced, Kodak’s stock (KODK) jumped up, and as of this writing, its stock price is $5.02, a 60 percent gain.

https://www.theverge.com/2018/1/9/16869998/kodak-kodakcoin-blockchain-platform-ethereum-ledger-stock-price

Now, they begin to turn to bitcoin and look like started to control the bitcoin inflation, so what you think if bitcoin inflation is wilder than fiat?

But do you think when someone becomes corrupt, will he be happy or miserable in the future?

The difference in mass is only 5 KG so its not really that much to go on. Does that much weight really make a difference in any sports event? I would say no.

Once again, the debt ceiling is in the news and a cause for concern. If the debt ceiling binds, and the U.S. Treasury does not have the ability to pay its obligations, the negative economic effects would quickly mount and risk triggering a deep recession.

The debt limit caps the total amount of allowable outstanding U.S. federal debt. The U.S. hit that limit—$31.4 trillion—on January 19, 2023, but the Department of the Treasury has been undertaking a set of “extraordinary measures” so that the debt limit does not yet bind. The Treasury estimates that those measures will be sufficient at least through early June. Sometime after that, unless Congress raises or suspends the debt limit before June, the federal government will lack the cash to pay all its obligations. Those obligations are the result of laws previously enacted by Congress. As our colleagues Len Burman and Bill Gale wrote in a recent Brookings piece, “Raising the debt limit is not about new spending; it is about paying for previous choices policymakers legislated.”

The economic effects of such an unprecedented event would surely be negative. However, there is an enormous amount of uncertainty surrounding the speed and magnitude of the damage the U.S. economy will incur if the U.S. government is unable to pay all its bills for a time—it depends on how long the situation lasts, how it is managed, and the extent to which investors alter their views about the safety of U.S. Treasuries. An extended impasse is likely to cause significant damage to the U.S. economy. Even in a best-case scenario where the impasse is short-lived, the economy is likely to suffer sustained—and completely avoidable—damage.

The U.S. government pays a lower interest rate on Treasury securities because of the unparalleled safety and liquidity of the Treasury market. Some estimates suggest that this advantage lowers the interest rate the government pays on Treasuries (relative to interest rates on the debt of other sovereign nations) on the order of 25 basis points (a quarter of a percentage point) on average. Given the current level of the debt, this translates into interest savings for the federal government of roughly $60 billion this year and more than $800 billion over the next decade. If a portion of this advantage were lost by allowing the debt limit to bind, the cost to the taxpayer could be significant.

How will the U.S. Treasury operate when the debt limit binds?

One cannot predict how Treasury will operate when the debt limit binds, given that this would be unprecedented. Treasury did have a contingency plan in place in 2011 when the country faced a similar situation, and it seems likely that Treasury would follow the contours of that plan if the debt limit were to bind this year. Under the plan, there would be no default on Treasury securities. Treasury would continue to pay interest on those Treasury securities as it comes due. And, as securities mature, Treasury would pay that principal by auctioning new securities for the same amount (and thus not increasing the overall stock of debt held by the public). Treasury would delay payments for all other obligations until it had at least enough cash to pay a full day’s obligations. In other words, it will delay payments to agencies, contractors, Social Security beneficiaries, and Medicare providers rather than attempting to pick and choose which payments to make that are due on a given day.

Timely payments of interest and principal of Treasury securities alongside delays in other federal obligations would likely result in legal challenges. On the one hand, the motivation to pay principal and interest on time to avoid a default on Treasury securities is clear; on the other, lawsuits would probably argue that holders of Treasury securities have no legal standing to be paid before others. It is not clear how such litigation would turn out, as the law imposes contradictory requirements on the government. Treasury is required to make payments, honor the debt, and not go above the debt limit: three things that cannot all happen at once.

Treasury may have the legal authority to mint and issue a “collectible” trillion-dollar platinum coin and deposit it at the Federal Reserve in exchange for cash to pay the government’s bills. However, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen noted recently that the Fed, reluctant to intervene in a partisan political dispute, might not accept the deposit. Others argue that the 14th Amendment to the Constitution—which says that “the validity of the public debt of the United States … shall not be questioned”—would allow the Treasury to ignore the debt limit. But those actions would certainly be viewed as circumventing the law that establishes the debt ceiling, and they would likely not prevent havoc in the debt market and many of the ill effects on the economy described below. 

How much would non-interest federal spending have to be cut?

If the debt limit binds, and the Treasury were to make interest payments, then other outlays will have to be cut in an average month by about 20%. That would be necessary because over this period as a whole, the Congressional Budget Office expects close to 20 cents of every dollar of non-interest outlays to be financed by borrowing. However, the size of the cuts would vary from month to month because infusions of cash to the Treasury from tax revenues vary greatly by month. Tax revenues in July and August tend to be fairly muted. Thus, the required cuts to federal spending when an increase in federal debt is precluded are particularly large during these months. If Treasury wanted to be certain that it always had sufficient cash on hand to cover all interest payments, it might need to cut non-interest spending by 35% or more.

How would a binding debt limit affect the economy?

The economic costs of the debt limit binding, while assuredly negative, are enormously uncertain. Assuming interest and principal is paid on time, the very short-term effects largely depend on the expectations of financial market participants, businesses, and households. Would the stock market tumble precipitously the first day that a Social Security payment is delayed? Would the U.S. Treasury market, the world’s most important, function smoothly? Would there be a run on money market funds that hold short-term U.S. Treasuries? What actions would the Federal Reserve take to stabilize financial markets and the economy more broadly?

Much depends on whether investors would be confident that Treasury would continue paying interest on time and on how long they think the impasse will persist. If people expect the impasse will be short-lived and are certain that the Treasury will not default on Treasury securities, it is possible that the initial response could be muted. However, that certainty would in part depend on whether there are swift legal challenges to the Treasury prioritizing interest payments and subsequent rulings. 

Regardless, even if the debt limit were raised quickly so that it only was binding for a few days, there could be lasting damage. At the very least, financial markets would likely anticipate such disruptions each time the debt limit nears in the future. In addition, the shock to financial markets and loss of business and household confidence could take time to abate.

If the impasse were to drag on, market conditions would likely worsen with each passing day. Concerns about a default would grow with mounting legal and political pressures as Treasury security holders were prioritized above others to whom the federal government had obligations. Concerns would grow regarding the direct negative economic effects of a protracted sharp cut in federal spending. 

Worsening expectations regarding a possible default would make significant disruptions in financial markets increasingly probable. That could result in an increase in interest rates on newly-issued Treasuries. If financial markets started to pull back from U.S. Treasuries all together, the Treasury could have a difficult time finding buyers when it sought to roll over maturing debt, perhaps putting pressure on the Federal Reserve to purchase additional Treasuries in the secondary market. Such financial market disruptions would very likely be coupled with declines in the price of equities, a loss of consumer and business confidence, and a contraction in access to private credit markets.

Financial markets, businesses, and households would become more pessimistic about a quick resolution and increasingly worried that a recession was inevitable. More and more people would feel economic pain because of delayed payments. Take just a few examples: Social Security beneficiaries seeing delays in their payments could face trouble with expenses such as rent and utilities; federal, state, and local agencies might see delays in payments that interrupt their work; federal contractors and employees would face uncertainty about how long their payments would be delayed. Those and other disruptions would have enormous economic and health consequences over time. 

Given that those disruptions would likely occur when the economy is growing slowly and perhaps contracting, the risk that the crisis would quickly trigger a deep recession is heightened. Moreover, tax revenues, the only resource the Treasury would have to pay interest on the debt, would be dampened, and the federal government would have to cut back on non-interest outlays with increasing severity.

In a worst-case scenario, at some point Treasury would be forced to delay a payment of interest or principal on U.S. debt. Such an outright default on Treasury securities would very likely result in severe disruption to the Treasury securities market with acute spillovers to other financial markets and to the cost and availability of credit to households and businesses. Those developments could undermine the reputation of the Treasury market as the safest and most liquid in the world.

Estimates of the effects of a binding debt limit on the U.S. economy

It is obviously difficult to quantify the effects of a binding debt limit on the macroeconomy. However, history and illustrative scenarios provide some guidance.

Evidence from prior “near-misses”:

As discussed in this Hutchins Center Explains post, when Congress waited until the last minute to raise the debt ceiling in 2013, rates rose on Treasury securities scheduled to mature near the projected date the debt limit was projected to bind—by between 21 basis points and 46 basis points, according to an estimate from Federal Reserve economists—and liquidity in the Treasury securities market contracted. Yields across all maturities also increased a bit as well, according to the Federal Reserve economists’ study—by between 4 basis points and 8 basis points—reflecting investors’ fears of broader financial contagion. Similarly, after policymakers came close to the brink of the debt limit binding in 2011, the GAO estimated that the delays in raising the debt limit increased Treasury’s borrowing costs by about $1.3 billion that year. The fact that the estimated effects are small in comparison to the U.S. economy likely reflects that investors didn’t think it very likely that the debt ceiling would actually bind and thought that if it did, the impasse would be very short-lived.

Evidence from macroeconomic models:

In October 2013, the Federal Reserve simulated the effects of a binding debt ceiling that lasted one month—from mid-October to mid-November 2013—during which time Treasury would continue to make all interest payments. The Fed economists estimated that such an impasse would lead to an 80 basis point increase in 10-year Treasury yields, a 30% decline in stock prices, a 10% drop in the value of the dollar, and a hit to household and business confidence, with these effects waning over a two-year period. According to their analysis, this deterioration in financial conditions would result in a mild two-quarter recession, leading to an increase in the unemployment rate of 1.25 percentage points and 1.7 percentage points over the following two years. Such an increase in the unemployment rate today would mean the loss of 2 million jobs in 2022 and 2.7 million jobs in 2023.

Macroeconomic Advisers conducted a similar exercise in 2013. It assessed the economic costs of two scenarios—one in which the impasse lasted just a short time and another in which it persisted for two months. Even in the scenario in which the impasse was resolved quickly, the economic consequences were substantial—a mild recession and a loss of 2.5 million jobs that returned only very slowly. For the two-month impasse, which included a deep cut to federal spending in one quarter, offset by a surge in spending in the next quarter, the effects were larger and longer lasting. In the analysis, such a scenario would lead to the near-term loss of up to 3.1 million jobs. Even two years after the crisis, there would be 2.5 million fewer jobs than there otherwise would have been.

In 2021, when an impasse among policymakers once again threatened Treasury’s ability to pay its obligations, Moody’s Analytics concluded that the costs to the U.S. economy of allowing the debt limit to bind then would be severe. In Moody’s simulation, if the impasse lasted several months in the fall of 2021, employment would decline by 5 million and real GDP would decline almost 4% in the near term before recovering over the next few quarters.

Conclusion

While greatly uncertain, the effects of allowing the debt limit to bind could be quite severe, even assuming that principal and interest payments continue to be made. If instead the Treasury fails to fully make all principal and interest payments—because of political or legal constraints, unexpected cash shortfalls, or a failed auction of new Treasury securities—the consequences would be even more dire.

The workarounds that have been proposed—the platinum coin, borrowing anyway, prioritizing payments—either bring significant legal uncertainty or are not sustainable solutions. These unlikely workarounds do not avoid the chaos that is inherent to the debt ceiling binding. The only effective solution is for Congress to increase the debt ceiling or, better yet, abolish it

https://www.brookings.edu/2023/01/25/how-worried-should-we-be-if-the-debt-ceiling-isnt-lifted/

Today you may have read about a global economy-devastating possibility of a US government default (and everything they are doing to raise the debt ceiling), but have you seen this national debt clock?

It's just mind blowing.

One of the biggest difficults in life is to manage growing your patrimony and income, when earning minimum wage and living in poor areas where opportunities are scarce, as is the money circulating in the local economy.

• According to research by the deVere Group, 82% of wealthy clientele have thought about investing in digital assets like Bitcoin in 2022.
• Studies show a rising interest in Bitcoin investments among millionaires.

Despite 2018 being a tough year for cryptocurrencies, a new survey by financial advisory firm deVere Group found that 82% of wealthy clients have considered investing in digital assets like Bitcoin BTC in 2022.
The survey’s findings, which were made public on January 30, showed that eight out of 10 of the company’s high net worth (HNW) clients who had between $1.2 million and $6.1 million in investable assets had done so in the previous year.

Despite the study group being “usually more conservative,” according to Nigel Green, CEO, and founder of deVere Group, interest in Bitcoin was driven by its key characteristics of being “digital, global, borderless, decentralized, and tamper-proof.” Millionaire investors’ interest in cryptocurrency investments increased, according to studies.

What else does the report say? The firm’s 2019 study found that 68% of global HNW individuals were already invested or planning to invest in crypto by the end of 2022. Moreover, a 2020 study from deVere found that 73% of the 700 surveyed HNW individuals either already own or are looking to invest in cryptocurrencies before the end of 2022.

Green sees it as a positive sign for the sector because established financial firms like Fidelity, BlackRock (NYSE:BLK), and JPMorgan are becoming more interested in providing clients with crypto services.

According to a PwC analysis from June 2022, about one-third of the 89 traditional hedge funds questioned were already investing in digital assets like bitcoin. The deVere CEO thinks that once the “crypto winter” of 2022 thaws because of altering circumstances in the old financial system, this momentum of interest could grow even more. The CEO said:


America’s growing interest in crypto Not just HNW people have grown their cryptocurrency holdings in the past year. JPMorgan and Co estimates that over 43 million Americans, or 13% of the country’s total population, held cryptocurrency at some point in their life as of 13 December, 2022. This is an increase from 2020 when only 3% of Americans were estimated to have done so.

The US Congress has been urged by to “step up its efforts” in regulating the cryptocurrency industry by four senior US officials at the White House. Congress should “increase regulators’ authority to prevent exploitation of customers’ money and to limit conflicts of interest,” the officials reportedly wrote in their letter to Congress.

Other recommendations made in the statement to Congress included tightening the standards for crypto companies’ openness and transparency, escalating the penalty for breaking laws governing illicit money, and cooperating more closely with foreign law enforcement partners.

Did Crypto have a good start to 2023? The year has started well for the cryptocurrency markets, which have seen some impressive gains as investors drive up the value of digital assets despite industry challenges.

By market value, Bitcoin is the most valuable digital currency in the world and just exceeded $24,000 after increasing by around 45% so far in 2023. The amount is currently $22,812, though. This cryptocurrency has had the best performance among all assets so far this year, according to a Goldman Sachs (NYSE:GS) report from earlier this month.

Ether, the second-largest digital currency in the world by total market capitalization, surpassed $1,660 on January 21 after increasing by around 40% from the beginning of 2023.

https://in.investing.com/news/crypto-attracts-more-millionaires-according-to-new-study-details-inside-3502726

There is a serious need for "Bitcoin Life Insurance" In the coming years we are going to see so many cases of "Lost Coins", these will be coins that are not accessible because the surviving heirs are unsure of the password to the ledger or trezor, or whatever cold storage wallet they have, or they just won't have copies of the private keys.