I seriously doubt BlackRock would adopt this analysis and view. This may be something that can easily be adopted by much smaller individual or retail investors like me. But to an institution that is worth billions and is managing trillions, I don't think this is worth the risk. Whatever happened to diversification?

This is so different from the views of other respected figures in the world of finance. The same paper cited Thomas Peterffy's 2%-3% and Ray Dalio's 1%-2%.

Anyway, the subject is misleading. You should correct it lest it be misunderstood as a mega-bullish stand of BlackRock. This actually isn't BlackRock's opinion or view. This is simply the personal view of the three authors who happened to be working with BlackRock. But this study is not in any way sanctioned by BlackRock itself.

In general, I'm not a huge fan of subsidies. Subsidies might be necessary in some instances, but I think it should be considered as the last resort. To a certain extent, a government that has limited resources but is all too willing to provide subsidies left and right is an incompetent and lazy government. It's a government that's not creative or innovative enough, a government that doesn't study, analyze, and look for other ways and means to improve certain conditions. Subsidies are dole-outs. They're a band-aid solution. They're not sustainable. Money put into subsidy is most often money that is wasted.

In my country, subsidy is quickly considered as a response more often than it should be. A rising price of rice, subsidy. A rising fuel price, subsidy. A rising transportation cost, subsidy. Onion price rising, subsidy. Poor families, subsidy. Retirement benefits and pension, subsidy. It's subsidy everywhere. It's not even counting the huge tax subsidies that it also provides to companies and businesses. Almost all departments in the governments are now providing subsidies. For goodness' sake, can we not explore other options?

I guess I've stumbled upon Bovada a number of times in the past. I'm not a user, though. It's not even available here in my area. I took a quick search of it and while it hasn't been promoted here, it seems it has been operating for quite a while already, since 2011.

Anyway, the stolen funds is actually much higher now. The update says the total stolen is already $60 million.^[1] Users of the above-mentioned platforms should brace for some suspensions. If they still can, they should quickly cancel their bets and withdraw all funds.

---

[1] https://twitter.com/zachxbt/status/1683747073227624448


Not just protect but even sponsor them, sent them to reliable universities in China to hone their skills. They're not just protected and state-sponsored; they're state-employed. They don't belong to the 99%, apparently because they're part of a special circle, a very productive one.

It seems this isn't entirely bad news, especially for their users. The email doesn't say that Bundle is closing down for good. It's not bidding good bye. Rather, it only specifically informs them that the platform will cease operating because they will "restructure the business." So, this is temporary. I think this is simply a process of upgrading their infrastructure to integrate certain developments like the growing adoption of the Web3 ecosystem, for example. They will probably come out a much improved platform sooner or later.

To the Bitcoin ecosystem, it might be a positive move because it means adoption. It might also push the price up because companies would then accumulate Bitcoin to be able to pay their workers. However, on the part of the workers, it's going to be a double-edged sword. Especially if you are a worker who is fully dependent on your salary, there's no way you can make the most of Bitcoin's volatility all the time. There will surely be times when you will be forced to convert your coins at a much lower fiat value. We need to remember that the world out there is not using the Bitcoin standard.

I'm echoing Jawhead999. Futuur immediately comes to mind. I guess the platform offers the broadest possible options on what you can bet on. You can bet on almost everything. Odds on politics and entertainment may be few but they're still offered by certain platforms. But betting on whether robot guide dogs will be cheaper than organic guide dogs, for example, or whether the Brazilian dengue fever vaccine will be approved by the end of 2024 is something you can probably do only on Futuur.

I'm not in any way affiliated with the platform.

Ideally, of course, it's best if your post is perfect in both form and substance. But if you can't have the two, then I guess the latter is much more important than the former. It's probably enough that the point is made and understood. Certain aspects like grammar are secondary. As a non-native speaker of the English language myself, I can't help but commit grammatical, punctuation, and other errors every now and then.

But we should all be striving to be better posters nonetheless, both in form and in substance.

Speaking of this, just mere hours ago I've read that more than a thousand coins have awakened after 11 years of hibernation. It is worth $31 million. But I don't think the reason for this is any of the enumerated possibilities in the OP. It seems all the possible reasons cited in the OP are negative. The movement is possibly just a mere transfer to a SegWit address of a new wallet.

Just a month ago, there was also a movement of 1,400BTC, worth around $36 million, after a decade of dormancy. It seems the reason is also none of the ones mentioned in the OP as it seems it is primarily for the sake of privacy because it was moved to a P2TR address.

I don't think we are approaching the end of crypto or Bitcoin era and old whales are moving to fiat. Adoption is fast growing. Demand is rising. Supply on exchanges is draining. The future of Bitcoin is bright.

Gambling sites will have to protect both their patrons and their business interest. So they probably wouldn't introduce a feature that would somehow affect their revenue to a significant extent or discourage gamblers from using their platform.

This feature in particular won't probably save a gambler from addiction, especially if the gambler is already beginning to show signs that he/she is not anymore in full control of his/her urge.

Nothing defeats self-discipline.

Well, yeah, you can somehow compare Saylor with those sacred personalities, although I personally don't like the idea of such comparison. It might send a wrong message. There is already an existing tendency of some Bitcoin supporters to somehow treat Bitcoin as some sort of a religion or cult. Some avid advocates appear very close-minded because of it.

Also, adoption of Bitcoin as a peer-to-peer electronic currency should come first or should have more weight than its adoption as a new class of asset or a new hedge against inflation or whatever.

Well, there must be certain viewpoints which consider the Russian ruble as a big scam. But if we are to consider the reasons, we might end up generalizing that all fiat currencies are also scams. They may differ in degrees, but since they are all operating under this questionable fiat monetary system, then they are all fraud in one way or another.

First and foremost, these fiat currencies are not backed by any commodity. They are of no intrinsic value. In the absence of any enforcement coming from a powerful entity, these currencies have actually no use value.

I'm now wondering whether you have actually read or understood the entire decision. It's not wrong to paraphrase the decision if only to make it brief and direct to the point, therefore, easier to digest, for as long as the point is there. Not saying everything verbatim is not equivalent to "mak[ing] it appear that something else was being said." We're not being tricked here. We're simply repeating what is there in the decision itself. But let me just bring you to the actual text of Judge Torres:

"For the reasons stated below, the SEC’s motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, and Defendants’ motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part."

"For the foregoing reasons, the SEC’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED as to the Institutional Sales, and otherwise DENIED. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is GRANTED as to the Programmatic Sales, the Other Distributions, and Larsen’s and Garlinghouse’s sales, and DENIED as to the Institutional Sales."

The decision does not declare that XRP is "sometimes it is a security, sometimes not". Those are your own words, your personal interpretation. And those are the wrong words and interpretation.

The decision is actually founded upon the fact that "the SEC alleges that Ripple engaged in three categories of unregistered XRP offers and sales:

(1) Institutional Sales under written contracts for which it received $728 million;
(2) Programmatic Sales on digital asset exchanges for which it received $757 million; and
(3) Other Distributions under written contracts for which it recorded $609 million in “consideration other than cash.”"

The court's decision is based on these three different categories, and they ruled as follows:

• On Institutional Sales: "the Court concludes that Ripple’s Institutional Sales of XRP constituted the unregistered offer and sale of investment contracts in violation of Section 5 of the Securities Act."
• On Programmatic Sales: "the Court concludes that Ripple’s Programmatic Sales of XRP did not constitute the offer and sale of investment contracts.
• On Other Distributions: "the Court concludes that Ripple’s Other Distributions did not constitute the offer and sale of investment contracts."

These different decisions are the reason why there is not only one winner in the case. Clearly, the court favored the SEC in one category and opposed as to the other categories. In the same manner that it also granted Ripple's motions in some categories and denied in the other one.

And I repeat that Judge's Torres decision is not based on the XRP token alone but upon consideration of "the economic reality and totality of circumstances."

I read through the responses and while our minimum wage is indeed low, there are other countries that have much lower. Pakistan, for example, has only $5 a day. Nigeria has $1.28 a day. Indonesia probably is only slightly higher than us.

I think one of the big problems here is that while we have a low minimum wage, we actually have relatively expensive goods and services. The cost of living in some urban cities here is so high you can't survive with a minimum salary. As a matter of fact, one of our cities is in the top 20 most expensive cities in the whole of Asia, higher than Macao or Xiamen, for example.^[1] Another city is more expensive than more developed ones like Jakarta, for example, or Kuala Lumpur.^[2]

However, lest it be misunderstood, in reality minimum wage doesn't actually determine how long will you be able to accumulate 1BTC.

---

[1] https://www.google.com/search?q=most+expensive+cities+in+asia
[2] https://www.windowseat.ph/expensive-cities-in-southeast-asia/

What makes you think that I'm tricked by mainstream news media and some so-called experts?

How do you understand your quoted line, by the way?

It doesn't say that XRP is not a security. Neither does it say otherwise. The judge says that the decision is not to be based on those tokens themselves but on the "totality of circumstances" surrounding the offer, sales, and distribution of those tokens. The court decision even emphasized that "even if XRP exhibits certain characteristics of a commodity or a currency, it may nonetheless be offered or sold as an investment contract."

As a result, and I repeat, both Ripple and SEC are winners and losers at the same time as both their motions are partly granted and partly denied. 

There's somebody I know who gamble but seems to be pessimistic. Most gamblers would reprimand you if you place a bet and think that you will lose. They would say you shouldn't have bet at all if you think you will lose. So, yeah, I agree that most gamblers are optimistic, at least those who are thinking of winning or looking forward to the prize before they even place a bet.

But I don't think that this is a positive attitude. I've heard how a lot of people believe that one day they will hit the lottery and all their problems will be solved. I'm 100% certain that most of them will die without winning. Being optimistic without being realistic would make you blind.

When Uber came out into the market, it had so much hype and potential. Uber also became popular here in my country. Shortly afterward, however, direct competitors came to the fore and took so much away from Uber. It eventually stopped operating in the country, although there were also legal issues involved.

If it's only about wages, it can easily be addressed, but if it's a lot more than that, then they could easily be defeated by competitors. Grab, for example, came out with better offers both for users and employees alike. And they successfully brought Uber to their knees, at least in certain parts of the world.

Anyway, I don't think Uber is owned by Saudi. It's a US company. Bin Salman may have invested in it, but he doesn't own it. He's not even the largest shareholder.

It would be best for anybody in this digital age to undergo some sort of a cybersecurity course, but I don't think that's a prerequisite. One can possibly have the basic knowledge without enrolling in a course. Research, consultation with those who know, and other ways of gaining knowledge might be enough for a hodler. I don't even think you need to know the sophisticated ways of keeping your non-custodial wallets safe. There must be simple yet equally effective ways to protect your money.

OP, have you already finished your cybersecurity course, by any chance?

The decision as regards the SEC vs. Ripple wasn't black and white that you can declare Ripple as the winner. Both SEC and Ripple were winners and losers in the decision. Ripple's token was declared both a security and not. A security when directly sold to institutional investors and not when publicly sold on exchanges.

Coinbase's involvement in staking is a different case, although not entirely. If the case of Ripple can be any basis, then I guess coins purchased from exchanges, earned through mining, and any other way except being purchased from ICO, and then staked at Coinbase are probably not securities.

I cannot find Gensler's comments on the approval of Coinbase to be publicly listed at the same time suing it for being a broker of unregistered securities, but he's already commented on it. Coinbase is indeed a legal business and it was given a green light to go public, but these don't prejudice SEC's allegations of unregistered securities being sold on the platform.

I think it's not really population per se that's the real problem. Those huge economies that lack manpower could import them. Those poor countries with so much labor surplus could export them.

To those who have a small labor force, they could provide incentives to families so that they'll be encouraged to produce offspring. In this way, they will grow less and less dependent on imported labor.

To those who have an oversupply of labor, they could promote policies and programs to attract investors to make potential workers productive. At the same time, they could also prepare them properly so that they have higher value as exports.

My hunch is that Ordinals will share the same fate with other NFT projects. They will slowly die. The values assigned to these Ordinals are arbitrary. They don't have any basis at all except the subjective assessment and appraisal of the creator or the seller. Lucky for them if there is somebody else who is as eccentric as them and who is willing to spend a considerable amount for them. But if the buying is for the sake of speculation, disappointment will certainly be waiting for them in the end.