Are Most Cryptocurrencies Doomed to Collapse — because they’re “ICO-issued”?steemCreated with Sketch.

in cryptocurrency •  8 months ago

Cryptocurrencies that were issued via an ICO* might be doomed to waterfall collapse.

I will explain in detail that this is because illegally issued investment securities are illegal to trade (even on registered exchanges). Or even if legally issued, it’s illegal to trade legal securities on unregistered (including decentralized) exchanges, thus (eventually) rendering every “ICO-issued” cryptocurrency (including Ethereum, NEO, Qtum, Dash, NEM, Stratis, IOTA, Lisk, Waves, EOS, Steem, PIVX, Tezos, etc.) non-fungible, effectively not legally tradeable, and thus (eventually) not plausibly functional for use as decentralized cryptocurrencies! 😲


UPDATE: 2 days after this blog was published the collapse was imminent and has now begun as China has declared ICOs illegal and all funds raised thus far must be refunded, with the SEC expected to follow!

As well South Korea, Russia, Hong Kong, and Canada also announced warnings or enforcement against ICOs. The UK is also contemplating regulating ICOs.


Then I’ll posit an idea (other than proof-of-work) for how to issue tokens which avoid securitization. I’ll also debunk some of the illogical theories that claim fungible ICO-issued token sales aren’t investment securities.

Note in the past, I had started afaik the original and most detailed discussion thread about whether ICOs are investment securities.

* The SEC wrote, “…offers and sales of digital assets by "virtual" organizations are subject to the requirements of the federal securities laws. Such offers and sales, conducted by organizations using distributed ledger or blockchain technology, have been referred to, among other things, as ‘Initial Coin Offerings’ or ‘Token Sales’.”.

Warning Shot Across the Bow

From August 28 to 30 the price of NEO plummeted 15% within a “few hours” (and -20% overall), presumably because it was announced that they wouldn’t be issuing tokens to Chinese citizens due to tightening regulations on fundraising in China and the possibility of an executive order suspending ICOs in that country.

However, speculative investors apparently aren’t totally spooked yet, because they probably (incorrectly) presume that the (unregistered?) issuance of NEO tokens in other jurisdictions can be traded on exchanges ongoing.

UPDATE: apparently enforcement warnings have already begun in the USA! And China is reportedly very close to taking action.

SEC’s “Hidden” Warning

I believe the SEC has foreshadowed upcoming enforcement actions and already warned about their methodology.

As quoted below, the SEC has reminded and cautioned that even legally issued (i.e. registered with the SEC or exempt from registration) securities must be sold only on exchanges which are duly registered or have an exemption; and illegally issued securities may not be offered for sale nor sold. Hence I presume decentralized exchanges of securities will be always be illegal, because afaics a decentralized system (i.e. which no one controls) can’t register itself and comply with the SEC — yet cryptocurrency tokens which aren’t securities could in theory be legally traded on decentralized and unregistered exchanges.

I presume based on the following SEC quotes that enforcement will include freezing on centralized exchanges, the tokens which were (thus illegally) issued as unregistered, non-exempt securities. And possibly also highly publicized prosecutions of individuals (especially the market makers who provide the liquidity required for exchanges to function well) who have (thus illegally) traded (legal or illegal issued) securities on (thus illegal) unregistered (including decentralized) exchanges:

SEC’s report on the DAO investigation wrote on page 2:

In addition, any entity or person engaging in the activities of an exchange must register as a national securities exchange or operate pursuant to an exemption from such registration.

And wrote on page 10:

Thus, both Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act prohibit the unregistered offer or sale of securities in interstate commerce. 15 U.S.C. § 77e(a) and (c). Violations of Section 5 do not require scienter.

And wrote on page 11:

DAO Tokens Are Securities

And wrote on page 16:

Because DAO Tokens were securities, The DAO was required to register the offer and sale of DAO Tokens, unless a valid exemption from such registration applied.

Moreover, those who participate in an unregistered offer and sale of securities not subject to a valid exemption are liable for violating Section 5 … “The prohibitions of Section 5 … sweep[] broadly to encompass ‘any person’ who participates in the offer or sale of an unregistered, non-exempt security.”

Section 5 of the Exchange Act makes it unlawful for any broker, dealer, or exchange, directly or indirectly, to effect any transaction in a security, or to report any such transaction, in interstate commerce, unless the exchange is registered as a national securities exchange under Section 6 of the Exchange Act, or is exempted from such registration.

The SEC decided to take no action against The DAO or its tokens on exchanges, “but rather to caution the industry and market participants”, presumably because as they wrote on page 9, the tokens were reverted to ETH and The DAO disbanded (analogous to the resolution of the SEC’s investigation into Erik T. Voorhees after he agreed to return all the investments):

On July 20, 2016, after a majority of the Ethereum network adopted the necessary software updates, the new, forked Ethereum Blockchain became active. The Hard Fork had the effect of transferring all of the funds raised (including those held by the Attacker) from The DAO to a recovery address, where DAO Token holders could exchange their DAO Tokens for ETH.

And as stated in footnote 1 on page 1 and 38 on page 14, the examination of whether The DAO was an “investment company” and whether its participants were “investment advisers”, wasn’t pursued because the funding operations of The DAO never commenced.

My stance is that now the SEC has warned everyone. Thus anyone who continues to offer for sale or sell ICO-issued tokens (unless the tokens were legally issued and are only ever* traded on an exchange registered with the SEC or if the individual is not a US citizen then exchange registered with regulators in his/her jurisdiction) is willfully (even arrogantly) violating the clearly advertised law and can be culpable to retroactive enforcement action in the future.

Tl;dr: never hold nor touch ICO-issued cryptocurrencies. They can destroy you.

* Thus the lineage of the trading of the tokens destroys fungibility because it would need to be recorded in the lineage which registered exchange each token spend was made on, because every spend was potentially an exchange until it is proven it was a spend for goods or services. IOW, the implication is that ICO-issued tokens (even if legally issued) can’t legally function plausibly as decentralized cryptocurrencies! Yikes! 😲

Multi-Pronged Enforcement

In the prior section, I explained that the SEC has provided a warning about the applicable law and the possible enforcement actions that may be coming.

They also stated that the enforcement actions they may undertake will not necessary recover funds for all the afflicted investors:

Law enforcement officials may face particular challenges when investigating ICOs and, as a result, investor remedies may be limited. These challenges include:

  • Tracing money. Traditional financial institutions (such as banks) often are not involved with ICOs or virtual currency transactions, making it more difficult to follow the flow of money.

  • International scope. ICOs and virtual currency transactions and users span the globe. Although the SEC regularly obtains information from abroad (such as through cross-border agreements), there may be restrictions on how the SEC can use the information and it may take more time to get the information. In some cases, the SEC may be unable to obtain information from persons or entities located overseas.

  • No central authority. As there is no central authority that collects virtual currency user information, the SEC generally must rely on other sources for this type of information.

  • Freezing or securing virtual currency. Law enforcement officials may have difficulty freezing or securing investor funds that are held in a virtual currency. Virtual currency wallets are encrypted and unlike money held in a bank or brokerage account, virtual currencies may not be held by a third-party custodian.

So the above can be interpreted as a warning that when in an enforcement action the SEC freezes illegally issued cryptocurrencies on centralized exchanges and files illegal trading cases against some who traded the afflicted tokens, the resultant collapse in the price can impact investors who hold the afflicted fungible tokens in private wallets and exchanges outside the SEC’s enforcement reach. IOW, the SEC can cause a conflagration in the global market price for afflicted cryptocurrencies, even though the SEC can’t freeze every private key and exchange in the world.

And indications are the SEC’s action will be eventually matched by similar enforcement in China, Russia, Europe and other jurisdictions such as Japan, Singapore, the Philippines and Canada, which are also advancing their securities law and/or exchanges regulation ostensibly in preparation for G20 coordinated actions. Analogous to how the USA was able to effectively force the FATCA, KYC, and AML regulations to be applied globally, similar results will likely be achieved in enforcement of securities regulation. G20 governments won’t willingly relinquish their regulation power over capital controls, seigniorage, money issuance, and finance.

Many cryptocurrency speculators think they’re outside the reach of TPTB of the G20, yet I predict their hubris will be shattered as always for those whose flippant middle finger is more active than their rational due diligence and pre-frontal cortex.

ICOs Are Securities

Every token ­— issued in exchange for something of value paid to the issuer,* wherein the issuer is involved in the ongoing managerial or entrepreneurial duties which provide for the investors expectation of profit — is an investment security as so defined in the Supreme Court’s Howey Test:

  • Investors in The DAO Invested Money
  • With a Reasonable Expectation of Profits
  • Derived from the Managerial Efforts of Others

    The central issue is “whether the efforts made by those other than the investor are the undeniably significant ones, those essential managerial efforts which affect the failure or success of the enterprise.”

Another summarized it was follows:

  1. It’s an investment of money
  2. There is an expectation of profit
  3. The investment of money is a common enterprise
  4. The profit comes solely from the effort of the seller or third parties

Another explained that marketing arguments about “use value” are irrelevant obfuscations of the economic reality:

“With the expectation that they would earn a profit solely through the efforts of the promoter or of someone other than themselves,” the purchasers of Howey’s citrus-laced acres entered the hazy territory of investment contracts … As such, the ruling birthed the Howey test, a simple criterion to determine the purview of SEC jurisdiction over securities. “If that test be satisfied,” wrote Justice Murphy, “it is immaterial whether the enterprise is speculative or nonspeculative, or whether there is a sale of property with or without intrinsic value.” What matters is whether “the scheme involves an investment of money in a common enterprise with profits to come solely from the efforts of others.” A security has been sold, in other words, when the value of one’s transaction hinges on another’s work.

The term ‘security’ applies because the investors depend (i.e. are secured by) on the ongoing management or entrepreneurial duties of those who were funded by the value transferred to the issuer; thus, forming an implicit “investment contract”. Given there are humans securing an expected outcome, there’s opportunity for fraud and scams which deceive those investors’ expectations. This is why the governments are tasked with regulating the issuers of investment securities, because investors do eventually get defrauded and complain, e.g. The DAO.

The only way to avoid cryptocurrency tokens being classified as investment securities is if at least one of the following applies:

  • No seigniorage for those who have managerial or entrepreneurial duties that fulfill the expectation-of-profit, i.e. no privileged participants funded by transfer of value to issuers.*

  • No expectation-of-profit by buyers of tokens for some (not yet invented) reason. Note that issuance on registered crowdfunding sites doesn’t necessarily eliminate the expectation-of-profit, e.g. the Rimbit scam issued on Indiegogo.

Tokens issued by competitive proof-of-work aren’t investment securities, because there’s no seigniorage on issuance transferred to those who have some managerial or entrepreneurial duties that fulfill the expectation-of-profit.

But sneaky (e.g. Dash, Bytecoin’s houdini scam, NEM’s scam airdrop, Decred’s scam airdrop, Byteball’s scam airdrop, etc) or stealth mined (e.g. Steem) issuance which is intentionally non-competitive, is just an obfuscation of the economic reality that tokens are then sold by this exclusive group to investors as securities because the expectation-of-profit depends on that exclusive group’s ongoing managerial or entrepreneurial duties! Sorry but I just realized that Dan Larimer was likely mistaken and STEEM tokens are probably investment securities. Yikes! 😲

More explanation is here explaining in detail why sneaky insta- or stealth proof-of-work mining distribution such as Dash, Steem, etc are investment securities. Additionally, Dash’s masternode scam (also in PIVX) by compounding of the initial pre-mine scam and the ongoing distribution of a significant proportion of block rewards to masternodes, enables the insider group to maintain control over the money supply and thus are effectively administered centralized-control ledgers.

Baseball cards aren’t securities, but ICOs are.

* Issuers who — also redeem tokens or transmit monetary value in exchange for issuance instead of either spending the issuance on goods and services and instead of trading the issued tokens on a registered exchange — are classified as “money transmitters”; thus, are required to register with FinCEN unless an exemption applies. Yet this fact is orthogonal to whether tokens are investment securities.

Afaics, the FinCEN guidelines here and here don’t require an individual to register as a money transmitter when the individual employs unregulated (including decentralized) exchanges to trade between tokens that weren’t “ICO-issued”. In the centralized virtual currency case (e.g. all “ICO-issued” tokens), the individual trader (thus acting as an exchanger who must register as a money transmitter and the unregulated or decentralized exchange by definition didn’t do it for him) sells his own virtual currency and is defined with the prerequisite of a centralized administrator (group) doing issuance. Whereas, in the decentralized case the exchanger is defined as facilitating trade between two other parties. This money transmitter issue is separate from other implications of tokens being investment securities as discussed in this blog.

Pre-mine Without Securitization

Whether a pre-mine is obfuscated (e.g. by a sneaky or stealth proof-of-work) or not, what makes it an investment security (per the Howey Test) is that the tokens are sold to investors who have an expectation-of-profit which depends on ongoing managerial or entrepreneurial duties funded by those who are selling the tokens. I thus logically posit that if the tokens were held back and not sold (i.e. not issued to investors) until the expectation-of-profit no longer relies on such ongoing centralized managerial or entrepreneurial duties, the sold tokens wouldn’t qualify as an “investment contract” and thus not classified as investment securities.

But if the developer needs funding early and can’t wait, I suggest a non-profit corporation could be constituted with shares issued in exchange for investment. The shares (not the eventually pre-mined tokens) are investment securities that may or may not need to be registered depending on if an exemption applies.

The said corporation would develop the software, launch it with a pre-mine of tokens, and hold the pre-mined tokens until the ecosystem became sufficiently diversified such that the investors’ expectation-of-profit no longer depended on the corporation’s ongoing managerial or entrepreneurial efforts. At that point, the corporation could sell the tokens (pay any CGT) and issue the proceeds as a dividend to the investors holding its shares. I thus posit those tokens wouldn’t be investment securities because the tokens were never held by investors with an expectation-of-profit. The investors were dependent on the managerial or entrepreneurial efforts of the said corporation, and they held shares as investment securities for the investment contract. They received as a dividend the profit from the activity of the company.

Note as aforementioned in a section footnote, in an applicable regulatory jurisdiction (e.g. FinCEN), the company would be regulated as a money transmitter if selling those tokens directly (for monetary value instead spending them on goods and services) and instead of trading them on an exchange which is registered as a money transmitter.

Additional tokens to the pre-mine could be issued with some competitive, objective form of proof-of-work (or equivalent), and these shouldn’t be investment securities nor be subject to regulation as money transmitters. If the said corporation was able to earn these tokens as payments in the ecosystem (presuming there’s no coercion), these earned tokens could be distributed to shareholders as dividends without causing them to become investment securities.

Note afaics the said company would not be classified nor regulated as an “investment company” per Sec. 3. Definition of Investment Company on page 17 of the Investment Company Act of 1940.

Refutations of Some Incorrect Logic

Haonan Lin opined:

Contrary to common opinion, this could be good news for the ICO market. The SEC are not trying to kill the ICO model, but rather trying to apply regulation to players in the market that are exploiting consumer ignorance, or launching coin offerings with no intentions to deliver on the promises made.

As I already explained, the problem with that rosy interpretation is that (legally issued) securities can only be legally traded on regulated exchanges.

A token (UTXO) which is a security must have all its trading lineage documented to be sure it doesn’t have illegal trading history that could cause the tokens to be frozen or seized on an exchange by SEC (or securities regulators in other jurisdictions) enforcement action; which is the antithesis of fungibility and ameliorates the cardinal feature of a cryptocurrency: the freedom to transact and spend decentralized without all transactions passing through a regulated exchange. Thus, ultimately (when the SHTF) I can’t see how any token which is classified in law as an investment security can function properly as a cryptocurrency.

Most of the tokens being sold in ICOs today are similar to virtual products. These tokens are designed as a “permission slip” for the use of a protocol. Unlike a pure investment, they have literal functions … Participating in these tokens sales is similar to supporting your favorite program on Kickstarter. These ICOs are less likely to be classified as securities because they are more like selling a virtual product than promoting an investment plan.

Some have incorrectly argued that tokens marketed as only having use value won’t (significantly) have this expectation-of-profit, but the free market of speculators will expect appreciating value for tokens. Any token which the purchaser assumes will become traded on exchanges has an implicit speculative expectation-of-profit regardless of any marketing to the contrary. And since there are 100s if not 1000s of shitcoins that trade on a plethora of exchanges, it’s afaics impossible to reasonably argue that purchasers of blockchain tokens aren’t doing so for speculative expectations of profits. Even if the tokens were sold on a crowdfunding site to people who didn’t know about virtual currencies speculation, the savvy speculators (always scouring for a “hiding” opportunity to buy low and sell high) will find that crowd-sourced ICO and speculate on it.

The second type is purchasing certificates for the future expectation of a functional app coin. The only effort made by the coin’s team is to make sure that the whole network is operating properly. The team did not spend any effort on creating profit.

This is almost analogous to what I proposed in my prior section, but only if the “app coin” is not transferred until after the coin’s team (the issuer) has stopped/completed doing development efforts (or those efforts diluted by ecosystem participation) which the market depends on for the expectation of profit on the appreciation of the “app coin”. And I argue the “app coin” must be sold by the non-profit company which is doing those development efforts only after stopping/completing its development efforts (or so diluted as previously state); and then distribute the proceeds of the said sales as dividends. Transferring the “app coins” directly as dividends instead of selling them may convert them to securities.

After a purchase of NEO tokens through the ICO, a certain amount of NeoGas (app coin) is sent to the designated blockchain address.

As I explained, that doesn’t meet the requirements for not being an investment security.

BitTrust summarized Coinbase’s securities framework document:

The upshot of this framework is that blockchain tokens, if designed properly, should be deemed as a simple contract, equivalent to a franchise agreement. By this measure, the analogy is fitting: holders of blockchain token are granted rights to contribute to a larger system, “rather than through a passive investment interest.” The advantage of classifying Dapp tokens as a simple contract disentangles token ownership from the legal complexities of holding a security.

Tokens which are under some form of contract (e.g. “franchise agreement”) are subject to regulation on disclosures, and will be required to trade on regulated exchanges so that regulators can enforce that the disclosures have been made. This then ruins the fungibility for these tokens as I already explained. That is the antithesis of a cryptocurrency, which much be allowed to transact decentralized when it is spent.

Besides regardless of the intended agreements, speculators will speculate on an expectation-of-profit.

I will react to a few quotes from that framework’s paper:

A white paper defines the network and its use cases. It is critical for buyers to be able to understand the characteristics and functionality of the token they are buying, the challenges and risks of development, and the benefits of using the network.

Irrelevant. Fulfilling disclosure requirements for securities, doesn’t impact the 3 aspects of the Howey Test which determine whether the tokens are investment securities.

A clear development roadmap gives buyers confidence that the proceeds of the sale will be properly used for the project and that the network will be launched, meaning that they will be able to use the tokens as intended.

Ditto irrelevant.

Enabling real and meaningful participation in the network from a diverse set of independent parties may also strengthen the arguments against the second and third criteria of the Howey test, because participants are less reliant on the initial developers.

Agreed, but unless the initial developers cease their efforts to prove otherwise, the presumption is the speculators would have much lower expectations of profit if the initial developers exited. Unless reasonable observers appraise that the ecosystem is sufficiently diversified.

Decide on the percentage of the total token supply that represents a fair reward for the work of the development team and advisors.

Can’t be objectively measured. There’s no way to prove how much of the ICO was insiders buying from themselves.

Principle 6: Avoid marketing the token as an investment

Smoke & mirrors don’t change the economic reality, as I already explained. The Supreme Court stated in the Howey Test decision, that any obfuscations of the economic reality are irrelevant.

We generally believe that a Blockchain Token with one or more of the following rights likely should not meet the definition of security (nonsecurity Blockchain Token):

Tokens which are under some form of contract (e.g. “franchise agreement”) are subject to regulation on disclosures, and will be required to trade on regulated exchanges so that regulators can enforce that the disclosures have been made. This then ruins the fungibility for these tokens as I already explained. That is the antithesis of a cryptocurrency, which much be allowed to transact decentralized when it is spent.

Besides regardless of the intended agreements, speculators will speculate on an expectation-of-profit.


Disclaimer: IANAL so readers shouldn’t interpret this blog as legal advice. This is my opinion shared as creative endeavor for your entertainment and to stimulate discussion.

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  Trending

I've downvoted this post because it tries to equate Steem with an illegal ICO which is inaccurate FUD.

I don't believe Steem should be rewarding someone to FUD it, and as a stakeholder I have voted accordingly.

·

I believe everyone should have the right to express their views no matter what.. He took time and effort to write this article out and express his view. Although I don't agree with all his views I feel like he should be rewarded for his time/effort. He has also been writing some interesting stuff past few months, wish I had caught it earlier. Interesting to read your stuff @anonymint.

·
·

The whole post is not out to FUD Steem this is true. But the way Steem is presented in it is disingenuous. There also appears to be an attempt to nakedly back up his assertion by posting similar things on a Bitcointalk thread (the OP of which simply links to this post, and refers to the author in third person. It's also linked via web.archive.org for some odd reason) under a different nickname.

·
·
·

The whole post is not out to FUD Steem this is true.

None of the post was intended to FUD Steem. When I wrote the first draft of the blog, it did not mention Steem. Then as I thought about it more as I was thinking about why Dash’s instamine makes it an investment security, I realized that Steem is also the analogous obfuscation of an ICO.

And there is no FUD. You’re mistaken.

But the way Steem is presented in it is disingenuous.

Incorrect. The analysis and presentation is factual and not disingenuous.

It's also linked via web.archive.org for some odd reason) under a different nickname.

Important posts on BCT have to be archived because the mods over there are insane.

P.S. Note I augmented some of my prior replies to you, so you may wish to re-read them.

·
·

Please read my further rebuttal of his witless verbal diarrhea.

Also please find the message I sent you in the History of your wallet.

Interesting to read your stuff @anonymint.

Ty. I think you will be even more interested in the fact that I am going to replace proof-of-work with something that is not proof-of-stake and which is technically sound. Steem’s DPoS requires a whale oligarchy, thus it is not viable for scaling Steem up to the world. I have the solution to that.

@pfunk just made a major blunder in terms of his future share of the crypto pie.

Regarding disagreements, they may be actual disagreements or they may just require more communication for each party to arrive at understanding. Also I found that people tend to come over more to my philosophies the longer they are exposed (or I come over to their astute corrections), because I seek truth, meritocracy, and prosperity. The other witless fall into the woodchipper even though I try to convince them to have a dialogue about truth, meritocracy, and prosperity.

·
·
·

I genuinely wish you luck if you come up with a novel solution to the difficult problem of distribution and decentralization of a smart money network.

·
·
·
·

Besides luck and some generosity from others, it has mostly required years of R&D and effort. Meritocracy.

Which is where the knowledge about the Howey Test and investment securities originates.

I experienced attempted censorship at BCT and Redditard. And now here it is again from a random dolphin on Steem.

Why is that retards love the buzzword “FUD” when they don’t know the subject matter.

I don't believe Steem should be rewarding someone to FUD it, and as a stakeholder I have voted accordingly.

Hey I am a Steemian also. I was blogging here since summer of 2016. You don’t have exclusive ownership here. I am owner/participant also.

I probably brought considerable traffic to Steem, because I was very well known on BCT before I started blogging here. And cross-linked many times from BCT to Steem.

I’m aware there are others who contributed much more than I did to Steem. Yet I am not just some fly on the windscreen.

What irks me is that you come in here with an attitude like you own the place or that you presume the other 105 people who upvoted my blog will appreciate your factually incorrect allegations and attempt to lower the reward they wanted to give me. You actually steal from them by downvoting.

·

I agree. His interpretations of SEC rules/language and what he believes happened with Steem are inaccurate. The more I read from him, the more this seems like deliberate FUD.

·
·

You’re factually incorrect. I have already refuted you. I’m well researched on this topic over more than a year. And @smooth has disagreed with you (also archived)!

·

I've downvoted this post because it tries to equate Steem with an illegal ICO which is inaccurate FUD.

You just subtracted $100 from my earnings by downvoting. Do you realize I put in several months of research into this blog! You fucking idiot.

You’re factually incorrect. I have already refuted you. I’m well researched on this topic over more than a year. And @smooth has disagreed with you (also archived in case the post is deleted by a mod)!

And downvoting is not the correct way to express disagreement. Downvoting should only be to discredit spam and non-meritorious content.

Also this blog post predicted China’s ban of ICOs 2 days before it occurred. Having this sort of highly expert content on Steem is the way to make Steem grow in usership and importance. You’re a fucking idiot when it comes to marketing.

Steem continues to shoot itself in the foot in numerous facets. And you’re a prime example of the witless falling into the woodchipper.

Any way, soon I replace Steem with a Bitcoin killer. So enjoy your nonsense.

I don't believe Steem should be rewarding someone to FUD it

The wise speculators/investors understand that it is better to be well informed (because you can easily sell one token and buy another one!), than to deceive yourself by trying to sweep the truth under the rug. I had explained this recently in the context of Monerotards censoring my recent Steemit blog about Monero’s anonymity being flawed.

Essentially what you’re trying to do is censor me, because you’re not going to win a debate with me on the merits of this issue.

·
·

You’re a fucking idiot when it comes to marketing.

Huh?

You just subtracted $100 from my earnings by downvoting. Do you realize I put in several months of research into this blog! You fucking idiot.

Childishly calling me a 'fucking idiot' multiple times and not understanding where your rewards are coming from aren't making you look more credible or believable. I encourage you to investigate a little more deeper on why your post value fell by $100 or so.

·
·
·

I encourage you to learn that downvoting meritorious work, is the antithesis of a meritocracy.

And it is an insane way to destroy the marketing of Steem.

For disagreements, simply initiate a discussion.

This isn’t Redditard where downvotes are just a meaningless shit testing contest.

And no way you are getting early into my project. You just fucked yourself in that regard.

So I encourage you to think about where your ROI will be coming from.

You downvoted a second coming of Satoshi. Remember that later when you are kicking yourself. So yes, you’re a fucking idiot. I speak the truth.

I observed my pending reward was $200+ until after you downvoted. Actually I do not need the silly $100. It is the principle that matters here. 105 people appreciated my blog and in one downvote, you erased half of their monetary appreciation. That is irresponsible and inequitable. It’s a design flaw of Steem.

Childishly

The downvote was highly irresponsible. You lashed out with “FUD” when you don’t even understand the subject matter.

Speaking the truth about how idiotic some people can be, has nothing to do with maturity level.

Political correctness is for clowns in a circus.

What matters economically is being correct and making the correct designs/decisions.

Peruse my post history for evidence. I have very respectful discussions with many Steemians. But you come blazing in here with a happy finger. And think your the white knight in shining armor who is going to slay the “FUD”.

·
·
·
·

You downvoted a second coming of Satoshi.

That's amusing but I'd like to see you prove it before taking on that kind of grandiose self-anointment.

I didn't erase anything, for one. All payouts in Steem are pending until 7 days from the time the post or comment is made. Until then they are subject to upvotes, downvotes, or vote adjustment from existing voters. I only made the number change by $15 or so. Someone else adjusted their vote.

·
·
·
·
·

I only made the number change by $15 or so. Someone else adjusted their vote.

You’re correct that @thejohalfiles removed his upvote.

Presumably because you brow beated @thejohalfiles about this. Or perhaps he didn’t see the Steem discussion in the blog until after he had upvoted. Which would then show his non-objectivity about rewarding meritocracy and optimum marketing.

Nothing the two of you do here w.r.t. to me, will change the reality about Steem.

I have done both of you a service by making you aware of the reality. Attacking (or removing upvotes from) the messenger retards the information flow that you need in order to be properly informed as an investors.

Information is golden in investing. Marrying your investments such that you prefer to bury information, is the fast track to failure as an investor.

That's amusing but I'd like to see you prove it before taking on that kind of grandiose self-anointment.

Whatever. Why would/should I care what you like?

Do you code? Do you have $2 million in liquid net worth?

·
·
·
·
·
·

I have no contact with @thejohalfiles regarding this post. He replaced a 100% vote with a 50% vote. Is that an attack? I suggest learning more about Steem before attempting to replace it.

·
·
·
·
·
·
·

You had contact with him here in this blog wherein you tried to convince him I was spreading FUD.

I’m so fucking tired of dealing with trolls. Men should make sure they are well read, before attacking, because men are capable of returning the attack. Be respectful, if you want to be respected. And that means don’t go slandering someone when you’re incorrect.

He replaced a 100% vote with a 50% vote.

Where did you determine that? I see only “Weight: 0” at steemd.

·
·
·
·
·
·

The principal! He will give me TP! I would hate for my bungholio to get polio....Where I come from, we have no bunghole.

·
·
·
·
·

The whale @fulltimegeek is abusing all those who upvoted my post, by downvoting this blog which I obviously put a lot of effort into (thus removing about 1/3 of the rewards). I don’t care about the lost rewards. I do care that the voting paradigm is dumb and inherently/irreparably flawed.

Any way, he is incriminating himself given I have already explained in the comments on this blog that Steem tokens are illegal securities.

·
·
·
·
·
·

All payouts are pending until 7 days from the moment a post or comment is made. Downvoting is not abuse of upvoters.

·
·
·
·
·
·
·

Downvoting is an abuse of the intention of upvoters to reward content they appreciate. Downvoting by whales ameliorates the economics of Likes and confirms that Steemit will descend into a crab bucket clusterfuck eventually:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1558366.msg21680281#msg21680281

Essentially downvoting is censorship. Because my readers did not elect you downvoting whales to be moderators for them. You're forcing your will on readers who do not agree with you. The Internet was liberating because each person could independently publish and source information, yet now Steem wants to tie everyone's shoelaces together again by debasing everyone from a common pool of tokens in order to redistibute everyone's money collectively which is of course a power vacuum of politics clusterfuck totally in antithesis to the innovation of the decentralized Internet protocols. If you do not like my blog, then do not read it. Downvoting is inane, and should only be used to human filter spam. But you want to run your blockchain like a corporation, because it is effectively an investment security corporation. And a corporation can not have more than more CEO. So either you will have an oligarchy that takes control (if not already the case but obfuscated with Sybil accounts) or the blockchain will diverge into a clusterfuck of disagreement.

At the end game collapse is when either the whales start downvoting each other due to fighting over differing ideals and vested interests (which will be accelerated when competition is kicking Steem's butt forcing it to change or die), or an oligarchy takes control of sufficient money supply to run Steem as the corporate token illegal investment security that it is.

The power-law distribution of resources is inviolable. It is a natural outcome of economics and physics. Decentralization technologies have to overcome this fact of nature somehow. So far afaik, no one (other than myself privately) has shown how to accomplish it. Proof-of-work and proof-of-stake have not ameliorated the ill effects of the power-law distribution of resources. Ditto Steem's ill conceived voting paradigm.

·

Equating Steem with an illegal ICO is accurate according to the facts. Who cares if the facts are on that platform?

STEEM was not issued via ICO. It was mined. Unless they have a definition of ICO that is entirely inconsistent or not actually an ICO (which is entirely possible, given the government), it doesn't appear that it would apply to STEEM.

·

STEEM was not issued via ICO. It was mined.

I know, but that is an irrelevant obfuscation of the economic reality that it was intentionally stealth mined noncompetitively so that it would only (~80+%) be issued to the insiders. So then when the insiders sell those tokens, they are issuing investment securities just the same.

Mining their own tokens with no competition is economically equivalent to a pre-mine.

I had already explained that (and make sure you click the links):

But … stealth mined (e.g. Steem) issuance which is intentionally non-competitive, is just an obfuscation of the economic reality that tokens are then sold by this exclusive group to investors as securities because the expectation-of-profit depends on that exclusive group’s ongoing managerial or entrepreneurial duties! Sorry but I just realized that Dan Larimer was likely mistaken and STEEM tokens are probably investment securities.


@ats-david wrote:

Unless they have a definition of ICO that is entirely inconsistent or not actually an ICO (which is entirely possible, given the government), it doesn't appear that it would apply to STEEM.

The economic reality per the 3 requirements of the Howey Test is the definition. Here is what I wrote about that in my blog:

Smoke & mirrors don’t change the economic reality, as I already explained. The Supreme Court stated in the Howey Test decision, that any obfuscations of the economic reality are irrelevant.

·
·

Yeah, I read those parts as well. I just think you're explaining the mining and "expectation of profits" incorrectly regarding STEEM. There is no "issuer" of tokens - de facto or otherwise. And there is no expectation of profits from any central issuer of the tokens, partly because there's no issuer.

I think your interpretation is based on what you believe was an "insider" mining scheme, but it can be demonstrated that the mining was in fact opened publicly, even though the pool was small.

I think it would also be hard to prove that any "issuance" took place since the selling of the tokens was via exchanges - not through an explicit ICO process by the creators of the token.

It would really be a stretch to include STEEM in this rule. I'm not saying the state couldn't or wouldn't do it, but they would really need to take the broadest interpretation of the rules in order to do so - if not create additional rules entirely.

·
·
·

There is no "issuer" of tokens - de facto or otherwise.

They pre-mined the tokens to themselves via the stealth mine. Then they sell those tokens. From an economic reality perspective (as the Howey Test requires), that is no different than pre-mining them and selling them in an ICO.

The minuscule cost of mining the tokens in the intentionally and premediated (as Dan’s blog said they would do to disincentivize anyone but them from mining it) is irrelevant to the economic reality.

And there is no expectation of profits from any central issuer of the tokens, partly because there's no issuer.

They attempted to obscure that they are the issuer by using an irrelevant stealth mine to pre-mine the tokens. But the SEC will ignore the obfuscation as required by the Howey Test, which specifically says obfuscations of the economic reality are irrelevant.

It doesn’t matter how much they (or you) try to deceive yourself (and others) with obfuscated realities, the economic reality is unarguable.

I think your interpretation is based on what you believe was an "insider" mining scheme, but it can be demonstrated that the mining was in fact opened publicly, even though the pool was small.

They intentionally as Dan premeditated didn’t provide the following during the accelerated mining:

  • Significant advanced notice
  • Binaries for all platforms
  • Lots of Documentation

Add to that the highly accelerated timeframe for mining all the tokens!

They made some barely comprehensible ANN thread at Bitcointalk, and then stonewalled while mining when others were asking for better instructions, Windows clients, etc…

How can anyone who has any ethics conclude that is not a criminal and scammer mindset.

Anyone who wanted to make a token distribution not susceptible to SEC action wouldn’t intentionally do actions that ameliorate the facets of proof-of-work distribution that make it not economically equivalent to a token sale issuance by the insiders.

I think it would also be hard to prove that any "issuance" took place since the selling of the tokens was via exchanges - not through an explicit ICO process by the creators of the token.

The Howey Test was due to a Supreme Court decision wherein they were addressing attempts to use smoke & mirrors to obfuscate the underlying economic reality.

So I’m sorry but you’re incorrect. The SEC can prove these economic events are equivalent to each other, even if different in obfuscated verbiage (aka bullshit).

You’re thinking that it might be difficult to trace the coins. Afaik on Steem there are no anonymous tokens. Also afair, Steemit, Inc. has admitted to pre-mining tokens, and they apparently do sell some of them to raise development funds. As for example in the recent BTC-e prosecution, the authorities can monitor the exchanges and subpoena logs, etc...

If the insiders tried to obscure their tracks, the authorities can bypass due process and invoke draconian powers to pressure the insiders to rat on each other, such as throwing them in Super Max prison for 7 years on a fabricated contempt-of-court charge as they did to Martin Armstrong.

Perhaps they’ve tried to make it appear the ecosystem is very diversified and not dependent on the insiders, but afaik it’s only the insiders for the most part who had the development funds to develop on the ecosystem. Because the money supply was so concentrated from the stealth mine.

It would really be a stretch to include STEEM in this rule. I'm not saying the state couldn't or wouldn't do it, but they would really need to take the broadest interpretation of the rules in order to do so - if not create additional rules entirely.

The Howey Test decision was precisely about broadening the definition of the rules to the underlying economic reality, no matter how obfuscated.

Edit: hey I like some of the features of the Steemit blockchain and software. I hope it sticks around for a while. But if I were one of the insiders or a whale holding/selling a lot of STEEM, I would be very wary about the future implications in terms of fines and jail time. And most especially since apparently many of the insiders are in the USA.

I realize it will be a difficult decision for whales to decide whether they should walk away abandoning their STEEM instead of selling it. Unpleasant indeed. But it’s better to have all the information to make a decision, than to be unaware and blindsided later. My suggestion is any STEEM you already sold, invest it very wisely so you can afford to buy your way out of the mess if the SEC comes knocking.

EDIT#2: afaik, there is only one exchange (blocktrades.us) still supporting trading of STEEM and SDB. If they ever decide based on this blog, that they must stop offering trading for illegal securities, then STEEM could become untradeable and illiquid.

·
·
·
·

Steem was mined and then was bought and sold (not just by Steemit) on the market. Not ICO.

Bittrex and Blocktrades are liquid markets and Poloniex will hopefully get their node/wallet running again.

There are also markets with less volume trading STEEM: https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/steem/#markets

·
·
·
·
·

Steem was mined and then was bought and sold (not just by Steemit) on the market. Not ICO.

As @smooth also agreed (archived here), you’re using irrelevant words to attempt to obfuscate the economic reality.

The Supreme Court’s Howey decision stated that the SEC must always look at the economic reality and disregard any descriptive words (obfuscating schemes or other attempts to deceive or obfuscate the economic reality) that are irrelevant to that economic reality.

You state that Steem was mined, but it was not competitively mined. The insiders mined (about ~80+%) of the money supply because the mining was intentionally done in a sneaky and stealth manner so that the insiders would not have much competition during the mining. And the mining was not over a long period of time, but very rapid so that the insiders could mine the money supply at a very low-cost.

Thus economically all the mining phase did was to issue tokens to insiders at nearly no cost. Thus economically it is equivalent to pre-mining (~80+% of) the tokens.

Then the insiders sell these tokens to investors to raise funds. Selling tokens that were creating at no cost by the issuers, is effectively an ICO, but just intentionally obfuscated.

In terms of the Howey Test that determines whether STEEM tokens are illegal investment securities, there was a transfer of value from investors to the insiders who the investors depend on for ongoing managerial and development efforts. Thus STEEM is an illegal investment security.

You’re a fucking idiot.

At least learn the subject matter before you go downvoting my blog and removing $100 of earnings!

Poloniex will hopefully get their node/wallet running again.

If Polo doesn’t implode before that.

Another Mt. Gox is coming and Polo has been exhibiting signs of it.

Bittrex and

Correction noted. I wasn’t aware that Bittrex is still offering trading of STEEM.

This was a great write up. Sadly I just saw it.

I do think it misses the point. All of crypto is rebellious vs any legal system and lives outside of it. ICO or Bitcoin token alike are not legal and only work without the existing legal systems. Any form of sec or other legal entity having any influence on it thru law i.e. Without partaking in the economic incentive structure weaken and threathen the system while the crypto currencies threathen the legal system entirely as well.

The legal system has two choices: allow cryptos by ignoring them or fight them. Of course hybrid approaches may work also. However the result by the cryptos is the mirror imagine. If they are being ignored they too will ignore the existence of the legal systems and if fought they will to more parts rely on decentralized solutions for economic interaction, disobeying the laws. Example exchanges: if it is illegal to exchange decentral exchanges must and will evolve.

As such cryptos should from the start try to be as independent as possible.

·

Afaics, non-deceptively mined proof-of-work issued tokens entirely avoid MLM scam and securities laws and thus are legal. Many major nation-states have declared that Bitcoin is legal. Some nations have declared Bitcoin is currency, others such as IRS in USA declared it is property, and for example FInCEN in the USA has stated that for example Bitcoin mining is legal.

As for ICO issued tokens, please read this further explanation.

Example exchanges: if it is illegal to exchange decentral exchanges must and will evolve.

I’m going to analyse this aspect more in my next blog.

The mainstream of society has no compelling reason to incriminate themselves unless it's to join a speculative bubble. Afaik, the liquidity of truly decentralized exchanges has been pitiful thus far. Afair, for example Bitsquare is not truly decentralized and the escrow agents are the enforcement Achilles heel.

Carrying on from my last post at BCT on this issue.

Copy of the op-ed from SEC and CFTC heads, which is behind a paywall but you can read the entire thing linked below. Make sure you read the highlighted part of the following link to understand what is coming:

http://archive.is/9tuoa#selection-2283.1-2287.612

Also see this:

https://www.coindesk.com/sec-icos-nicolas-morgan-paul-hastings/

They will I bet later this year or next have a formula for pattern matching ERC-20 ICOs which are securities and these will be aggressively targeted including attacking trading platforms which host them.

My expectation is that the crypto winter will come when they begin the aggressive enforcement, because the international regulation is not yet coordinated enough for there to be global issuance of TAOs (refer to my past BCT posts for analysis of the legal clusterfucked, quick sand of global securities regulation):

https://www.coindesk.com/goodbye-icos-hello-taos-tokens-will-change-2018/

Again I reiterate that I think this Tulip Mania of unregulated ICOs is going to run to a nosebleed level of ~$40k – $100k for the BTC price after bottoming somewhere above $6000 (probably $7000 – $8000) sometime before May. If we dive below $6000 (or $7000 in April), then the crypto winter will likely be here now (which could mean no ATHs until 2 – 3 years hence). But I think this mania is just reloading right now and we’re not yet in the crypto winter crash:

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/feb/02/bitcoin-bananacoin-prodeum-cryptocurrencies

https://www.express.co.uk/finance/city/913179/bitcoin-price-why-BTC-falling-today-cryptocurrency-news-value

https://techcrunch.com/2018/02/01/why-is-bitcoins-price-down/

The crypto winter regulation, potential SegWit theft megacrash, and Bitfinex+USDT (Tether) collapse is coming eventually but I think there’s far too many people scrambling to get on this current mania for it to stop here. Everyone I know has woken up about Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies. And the regulators aren’t coordinated enough yet globally and the SegWit donations to miners haven’t accumulated enough yet. This Wall of Worry is normal in at the base of the larger move of the phase transition.

Also see the regression-fit logarithmic chart analysis I discussed and linked to in my last few posts in the Martin Armstrong thread at BCT.

·

Great to start reading your work again! Unfortunately I'm banned from bitcointalk so can't see your posts there. I agree with you but I think regulations are coming faster than we think. G20 having crypto regulations as one of their topics at their meeting in March. Once they decide something things could get rolling fast. The big question is what kind of regulations they will make up this time.

·
·

Edit history of this comment.

Current linear trendline is ~$5800 and rises to $6000 by Feb 20. If we break down through that, then next trendline is ~$3500 rising to $6000 by 2019, so that would be probably a crypto winter or at least probably not new ATHs until after 2018. If we break through $3500, then all trendlines are broken. That would be catastrophic. I haven’t tried to model that case yet, and it would surely be a crypto winter or worse. There’s probably not enough BTC that is available to be sold for the price to drop to $1800 (buyers would swoop in at higher prices and take all the volume the market could dump).

https://cryptowat.ch/kraken/btcusd/3d
https://cryptowat.ch/kraken/btcusd/1d

The logarithmic regression fit trendline (which is more of a long-term model which won’t help with the wiggles) is at the BCT link I provided in my prior post.


EDIT: We’ve already hit $5919 on Kraken, so very near to trendline support, if that will hold as support. Look at the long-term chart for Bitcoin and make sure you set it to “logarithmic” and then click also “hide events”, so you can get some historical perspective on this correction. Note on that long-term chart that the rise was very steep before the $31 peak in 2011, then the rate of ascent was less steep from 2012 to the peak of $1150, yet was more steep than the rate of ascent since 2016. So this means that if we’re going into a crypto winter with a bottom at 1/10th of $19k (i.e. $1900), then that $1900 won’t be reached until 2 years! That seems highly unlikely to be the scenario we’re in. Whereas if you move the starting date for that long-term chart forward to 2013 (drag the slider at the bottom with your mouse pointer), you can see both the $213 peak in March and the $1150 peak in December has greater than 2/3 corrections very quickly after the peaks. Yet the March peak obviously lead to another peak 6 months hence which was 5X higher. If that’s the scenario we’re in now, then since the rate of ascent is less steep, it might take 9 - 18 months to reach that 5X higher peak at $100k.

btc2018.png
Chart of high volume at bottoms

Also look at the huge volume on this last dramatic leg of the correction today! More volume than we’ve ever seen on Bitcoin trading. Wow, blood in the streets. The weak hands and those who were leveraged short have capitulated as I expected would be required to reset the bull market. ATHs in terms of volume usually are an inflection point. I put greater than 50% odds that $5919 is the bottom. Another probably expert trader appears to agree.

UPDATE#2 Bitcoin bottomed $5850 nearly exactly as I predicted earlier in the day! Very strong vertical move. We will get a decent bounce over next days or weeks. However, I think we should cash out more BTC when we hit $15k to be sure we have enough to meet project expenses for many months, because when BTC dropped from $213 to $68 in 2013, then it bounced to 80% of $213 then declined again for a double-bottom before resuming the assault on a new ATH at $1150. Given the slope of BTC log chart is flattening over time, it will probably be 9 - 18 months before we hit next ATH peak at $40k – $100k.


IMO, the current China scare and other Wall of Worries (ICO crackdown, Tether fears, etc) are not of the scale of Mt. Gox which caused the last crypto winter. Mt. Gox had more than 75% of the exchange market at that time. China can Great Firewall the foreign exchanges, but this will only push their users to VPNs and decentralized exchange options. It’s causing the cryptocurrency ecosystem to diversify and become more resilient. Single or grouping of nation-states can’t kill cryptocurrency, it is analogous to an endospore bacteria that can’t be destroyed. Taking note of McAfee’s tweet that Bitcoin declines every January for past years, note that the very important Chinese new year may be a factor. Institutional investors are bullish with a long-term focus.

Also the general markets are also correcting. For the DJIA perhaps fear of rising interest rates which also temporarily drives international capital out of the dollar-denominated bonds and towards EU bonds where the ECB is expected to be less aggressive about raising interest rates given preexisting bond investments decline in value when rates rise (but this will reverse in a stampede when the short-dollar vortex kicks in and capital chases capital into the skyrocketing earnings in USA stock markets and higher-yielding USA bonds with a vengeance) , but Armstrong has shown numerous times in his blogs that DJIA should rise with rising interest rates (also because of the short-dollar carry trade unwinding vortex ahead). This was all part of Martin Armstrong’s prediction of a pullback before the SLINGSHOT move. Seems to me that the DJIA and Bitcoin are both aligning themselves for a SLINGSHOT move to nosebleed ATHs after this very scary correction to knock all the weak hands off the crypto rocket. I could be wrong though and we enter the crypto winter now (but I really doubt it!). Also the interest rate issue mostly affects public institutions (and the coming collapse of Western socialism and its ideological suicide) such as government’s interest payments on gargantuan sovereign debt and the bankruptcy of the world’s retirement plans, because technology is accelerating growth more than we can see in the GDP numbers. Note BTC peaked December and DJIA January, so if BTC bottomed now and DJIA doesn’t that could just be they’re slightly out of phase. Btw, did y’all notice Armstrong correctly predicted the Eagles SuperBowl win when the majority were betting for the Patriots. He (his Socrates system automagically/automatically) also predicted the recent top of BTC at $19k precisely, which I also confirmed it did predict in advance.

Thanks for the heads up on G20 March plans for coordination on crypto regulation. Do you have link for that news? In any case, I doubt they can implement a coordinated scorched earth dragnet policy against ICOs in some radical swoop so soon after that meeting. Instead, they will likely take an incremental approach. When the crypto sector goes to nosebleed Tulip Mania (e.g. BTC to $100k), then they will likely need to become really get aggressive against ERC-20 ICO securities. The regulations I expect from them is coordination on defining what is a security and the ability to ban centralized exchanges within their coordinated jurisdictions which don’t comply with delisting tokens which are breaking the securities regulations. They can’t really ban decentralized exchanges, but decentralized exchanges aren’t used much any way. Decentralized exchanges have very low liquidity right now (I mean truly decentralized which most of all of the existing offerings that claim to be decentralized are not really and can be easily taken down by the authorities). This is btw why I am being very careful with my crypto project to not create a token which is a security.

I was wondering how to contact you because I wanted to ask how your health is going on and update you on my health and what I learned. First I cured the TB. A MRI (no contrast die as that shit is long-term toxic to neurological system) confirmed I have numerous 0.3 - 1.1cm cysts on my liver, spleen, and left kidney. So what I’ve discovered is that I only feel healthy and improve if I religiously adhere to:

  1. Daily sunshine on my entire exposed torso, which for me in the tropics means 15 minute jog/walk wearing only mini-shorts. For you in nordic climate, you’re going to need an hour in the sun in the summer and in the winter you’re fucked. Tanning beds and vitamin D3 supplementation is not the same result! In short, you need to leave northern Europe in the winter.

  2. Daily intense exercise, which means alternating days of barbell+gym and jogging/basketball.

  3. Daily modified warrior diet, which means no eating from bedtime to after lunchtime then next day. For lunch only a salad with no dressing. Heaping portion of dark green leafy vegetable such as spinach every damn day. And then meat in the form of tuna, chicken breast, and beef. Avoid the fatty fish for the most part such as salmon. Use an organic mayonnaise with the tuna that has free-range eyes and no chemicals (Kirkland brand for example), and actually the soybean oil is a good source of vitamin E. Lots and lots of salad with celery, raddish, Romaine dark green lettuce, onions, bell peppers, etc. And minimize the carbos from grains. Eat lots of fruit bitter or semi-sweet fruits instead (not juices!). For me the pineapple is the best and has so many minerals also. So carbos coming from fruit, not just grains! Never ingest anything that has any chemicals in it, including soft drinks, etc.. Only eat those whole foods above. Exercise in morning if feel hungry to make hunger go away. Fasting until after lunch or to evening (other than a salad) causes the liver to produce ketones every day instead of only relying on glucose.

That regimen works!

If you logout of BCT (i.e. delete all the cookies for that site in your browser), you should be able to read the site. If BCT blocked your IP address, then use a VPN. You have to find a VPN they haven’t blocked though. BCT is becoming an insane censorship gulag which we need to replace with a decentralized option.

P.S. Most of my activity lately is on Github and for the moment mostly in the issues discussion of a single repository. I don’t know if there’s still a means to see all the Github activity for @shelby3 because Github doesn’t include issue comments in what it defines to be contributions?

·
·
·

I found some sources pertaining to Davos and coordinated crackdowns contemplated…

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/feb/05/lloyds-bank-bans-buying-bitcoins-credit-cards

The move follows warnings by regulators in the US, South Korea, China, Russia and India. Germany’s Bundesbank has also called for global regulation of bitcoin and France’s finance minister wants tougher rules for cryptocurrencies.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jan/23/bitcoin-ubs-chairman-warns-against-cryptocurrency-investment-currency-falls

Talking at the Davos world economic forum, UBS Chairman Axel Weber, said that bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies were speculative, risky and “not an investment we would advise”.

“Retail clients, who don’t fully understand these products, should be protected from going into these products, because if there is a retail client affected in the future, the question will be again who was the bank that sold them these products and then banks will be blamed again for what has happened,” Weber told CNBC.
[…]
Consultancy Ernst & Young also warned Monday that so-called initial coin offerings (ICOs), which offer cryptocurrency tokens to raise funds, were at risk of cybercrime. Of the 372 ICOs analysed, raising a total of $3.7bn, roughly $400m had been stolen by hackers, who were taking up to $1.5m in ICO proceeds per month.

The warnings of theft from ICOs come as the chair of the US Securities and Exchange Commission, Jay Clayton, said the agency had seen “disturbing” evidence that investors in ICOs had been counselled that they did not need to comply with federal securities law.

“I have instructed the SEC staff to be on high alert for approaches to ICOs that may be contrary to the spirit of our securities laws and the professional obligations of the US securities bar,” Clayton said.

But note the reality that cryptocurrency and decentralized ledgers are on the way to subsuming everything:

Firms including camera-maker Kodak, fintech firm LongFin, power firm Digital Power, tobacco company Rich Cigars, tiny US drinks firm Long Island Iced Tea Corp and many other smaller companies have all seen their share price rocket through pivots towards cryptocurrencies or blockchain technology.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jan/25/bitcoin-wont-last-in-world-of-finance-warns-nobel-winning-economist

Theresa May said in Davos that she was concerned that criminals were taking advantage of digital currencies, which can be used to anonymously transfer funds. “In areas like cryptocurrencies, like bitcoin, we should be looking at these very seriously,” May told Bloomberg.

The US treasury secretary, Steven Mnuchin, also flagged up concerns about misuse of digital currencies. “My number one focus on cryptocurrencies, whether that be digital currencies or bitcoin or other things, is that we want to make sure that they’re not used for illicit activities,” Mnuchin told CNBC. “So in the US our regulations [say] if you’re a bitcoin wallet, you’re subject to the same regulations as a bank.”
[…]
Digital currencies have been a key topic of conversation at Davos. Ethereum, a rival to bitcoin, has set up its own lounge on the main promenade of the ski resort. Banks are showing particular interest in the blockchain – the digital ledger that underpins a cryptocurrency.

Note there was at least one voice of reason there, who understands my thesis (although not the conspiratorial angle of my thesis):

However, some investors at Davos disputed the idea that bitcoin faced a rocky future. Jennifer Zhu Scott, of Radian Partners, said bitcoin was a “very lousy currency” and a “very lousy payment system” but insisted that it worked as an asset. “I don’t think bitcoin is disrupting currency or money. Bitcoin is disrupting gold,” she said.

Zhu argued that bitcoin was extremely efficient as a store of value, as there could only ever be 21m in circulation – and only about 16m have been created so far.

·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·

Below I also integrate a concise (layman’s) summary of securities regulation (in the USA) with links to prior in depth analysis, and allude to how we plan for the project I’m working on to not issue securities (i.e. to issue “pure/true cryptocurrencies” as SEC Chairman refers to).

At ~28min mark in the video, SEC Chairman Clayton makes the emphatic point that if ICOs are acting as a security, then it’s a security. That has been my point all along and even in my extended analysis of the SAFT and utility tokens.

That’s why I’ve design the launch of our decentralized ledger project (tentatively named CRED, or at least the token name CRED unless we think of better name before launch) such that we’re not issuing tokens which are securities. I devised a clever way to insure that those who obtain securities can’t legally expect them to be investments, and thus force them to be utility tokens. My solution is quite clever and isn’t a variant of the SAFT. So thus while these other projects which were issued as ICOs will likely be destroyed (forced to delist from all centralized exchanges and the principals under cease-and-desist attack by the authorities), we expect our project to be unaffected. Sorry I will not provide at additional details about our plans at this time. Everyone must wait until we actually launch.

Just before the 31min mark, Clayton makes a very stern warning to professional advisers (attorneys!) and other professionals such as broker dealers, accountants (several mentioned at 135min) that they’re going to punish those who are semantic games. Even promoters are targeted at 147min. At 205 - 206min, Clayton emphatically indicates he’s going after these professionals! This is precisely what I’ve been warning! So Daniel Larimer better pack his bags for prison (and that includes the former Treasury official who served as their attorney for the sneaky premine of STEEM that obfuscated that it’s really a security and of course the EOS offering is clearly an obfuscation of a security). Disclaimer: this is only my opinion, IANAL. He later reiterates a statement he had been previously quoted as making, which is that every ICO he has looked at, is a security!

At the 31min mark, he admits that they don’t have regulatory authority over tokens which are not securities. And he implies that coordination of regulation against tokens which are not securities is going to be complicated.

At 33 min mark, CFTC Chairman Giancarlo points out what all of us know which is that Bitcoin has been spreading virally on everyone’s lips in the entire world. Billions of people now have heard of it. He argues for enabling decentralized ledger technology to flourish while cracking down very hard on fraudsters who manipulate the enthusiasm of the general public for a new technology to exploit the general public as greater fools.

At 39min mark, there is discussion about the lack of regulatory jurisdiction and coordination within the USA just for regulating the centralized exchanges. Before that the CFTC Chairman had mentioned they couldn’t even regulate the derivatives until the recent futures markets were created, which now allow them to go after those who might manipulated exchanges which feed data into those futures markets. So you can imagine the EU and other nations may even be further behind on regulatory capability and coherence. Discussed further with great emphasis 135min.

Hopefully now you can see another reason why I posit the Zionists created Bitcoin to force the nation-states towards a NWO global authority of coordination!

At before and after 48min, SEC Chairman admits they don’t have sufficient resources.

At 49min we hear questions from Senator Shelby1, and both chairmen explain there is coordination with Treasury Secretary Mnuchin.

Before and aft of the 104min mark, Clayton defines a security in simple terms and notes the exchange of value for an expectation-of-profit relying on efforts of the issuer and the ability to trade what was issued to someone else in exchange (and by implication specifically in exchange for another fungible unit-of-exchange or store-of-value, not an exchange for non-fungible goods-and-services which would thus make it a unit-of-exchange or utility token and not a security). Those who are insightful should be able to deduce the solution we will employ for our project to avoid tokens being classified by securities per that definition. Remove the centralized issuer whom the expectations of effort apply, the exchange of value, and/or the expectation-of-profit via (expectation of) fungible exchange, then IMO it’s no longer a security (but disclaimer IANAL). Note that mining (or the equivalent on Steem of writing blogs which is a value created via effort) is an exchange of value. But in Bitcoin’s case, there’s no centralized issuer which the investor is basing his expectation-of-profit. Note from just before 134min forward, Clayton clarifies that profit returned in any form (whether it be server time or any good or service) would still qualify for the expectation-of-profit. But again note my emphasis on expectation. ;-) Chairman Clayton emphasizes this retail investors expectation of secondary markets at 207min. If the purchasers of a token have no expectation-of-profit, then there’s no security. There’s also a risk test variant of the expectation-of-profit test that some States of the USA use, which basically requires the investor have capital at risk due to the efforts of the others who received the capital.

From 114 min forward, they get into the international jurisdictional arbitrage (subversion) of nation-state regulation. During 117th min, CFTC Chairman Giancarlo mentions specific interactions they’ve had with their counterparts in other nations. Yet they both seem to imply that they’re a long way from achieving a comprehensive coordinated G20 regulatory framework. Interestingly he says that he thinks the recent crash in the BTC price reflects the awareness of investors the regulators are stepping up their enforcement! So if the BTC price to $100k within 2018 prediction (see my recent reply to @rajsallin) is correct, then the regulators are going to be under even more pressure to radically increase enforcement as it will be seen that their efforts have been inadequate to constrain a Tulip Mania. In fact at the 132min mark, SEC Chairman Clayton mentions a continued rise as reason to heighten their urgency. At 133min, Gianclaro mentions coordination at “IOSCR”— international organization of securities regulators.

At 116min, CFTC Chairman concurs (and per his prior statements on this issue) with Clayton that price manipulation on the exchanges is major problem. They’re implicitly referring to Tether which has allegedly issued some $2 billion of unbacked tokens and controls about 15% of the volume on exchanges. So expect actions against Tether! Also against those involved with ICOs who manipulate the price on exchange facilitating by for example buying the ICO from themselves or otherwise issuing a large share of the token supply to themselves.

Awesome question from Senator Kennedy at 124min about what’s the point of requiring disclosure when investors don’t read it any way. By implication, what is the point of regulating ICOs, but the point of regulating ICOs isn’t just disclosure rather it’s preventing issuers from making hype claims which aren’t material facts! Unfortunately neither Chairman Gianclaro or Clayton make this point (EDIT: Gianclaro addresses his omission about false disclosure at 132:50 and Clayton from 154min in context of Kodak et al hyping their association with blockchain). An example of such a hype claim not backed by material facts is Verify.as project claiming and implying some significant market for their project and then implying a token is needed, when in fact neither are true material facts.

From 135min, the enormous potential of decentralized ledgers is emphasized. They discuss volatility from 142min. The volatility is because there’s extreme expectation of future adoption (i.e. huge unprofessional/leveraged speculative demand) coupled with rampant manipulation, e.g. Tether, but the chairmen don’t make this point.at

Senator Menedez asks about Venezuela’s and Russia’s cryptocurrencies at 143min.


1 Who is most likely my distant relative as all Shelby those with last name Shelby in the South of the USA probably have paternal lineage connection to Isaac Shelby, including myself (even though they moved it to a first name for my grandfather, father, and myself due to a maternal lineage).

·
·
·
·
·
·

With Circle (Backed by goldman sachs) acquiring poloniex, what do you think about this from the twattersphere?

https://twitter.com/nathanielpopper/status/968202570719117313

Seems like the SEC is just rolling over...

Thanks for the heads up. I don’t think that indicates the SEC is rolling over. It indicates to me the situation is rapidly heading towards regulated exchanges where they can easily confiscate and delist nearly all the ERC-20 tokens that were illegally issued as securities. The plan would be to get as many of these tokens stored on exchanges as possible before beginning the crackdown. This seems to play right into a nosebleed top in crypto markets later this year or early next.

Why do you think Vitalik is warning about crypto could go to zero and don’t put all your money there? He also sniffs a crackdown coming eventually.

·
·
·
·
·
·
·

nathanielpopper Nathaniel Popper tweeted @ 26 Feb 2018 - 19:14 UTC

Just got this slide from a confidential Circle presentation. It does more to explain Circle's acquisition of Poloni… twitter.com/i/web/status/9…

Disclaimer: I am just a bot trying to be helpful.
·
·
·
·
·
·

The “drunk on crypto fever” BCT interpretation of the hearing is much more sanguine than mine. They seem to ignore SEC Chairman’s Clayton’s repeated admonishments and the repeated threat that the SEC will go after those principals and professional advisers involved with ICOs, which he emphatically repeated at the end in response to a follow-up Q&A with Senator Warren.

Even Coindesk mentioned this in their canvasing of reactions from experts:

Van Cleef said she was struck by the way Clayton "made it clear that the gatekeepers, lawyers and accountants are subject to SEC jurisdiction."

That made her think that "there must be something in the offing" in terms of regulatory actions against such professionals, she said.
[…]
Likely to come, as suggested by Palley, is a push from both agencies to step up their enforcement efforts against bad actors in the space.

He remarked:

"If you're somebody who's an innovator and not afraid of the law, this was quite positive. If you're running a $200 million ICO and didn't follow the law you might be a little worried now."

Techcrunch also picked up on this:

Throughout the hearing, on the SEC side, Clayton struck a relatively solemn tone focused on ICO fraud concerns, while the CFTC’s Giancarlo came across as genuinely enthusiastic and curious about the emerging market.
[…]
On ICOs as a security:

“I believe every ICO I’ve seen is a security… You can call it a coin but if it functions as a security, it is a security…,” Clayton said. “Those who engage in semantic gymnastics or elaborate re-structuring exercises in an effort to avoid having a coin be a security are squarely in the crosshairs of our enforcement provision.”

[…]
All told, the hearing was far from apocalyptic for regulationphobes. While it’s clear that the CFTC and SEC have only scratched the surface of the kind of rule sets they’d like to put in place, their plans appeared to be overwhelmingly focused on protecting consumers from threats like rampant ICO “fraudsters” and unsafe exchanges rather than discouraging growth.

https://www.express.co.uk/finance/city/916826/bitcoin-price-latest-news-BTC-cryptocurrency-USD

Hong Kong’s Securities and Futures Commission (SFC) revealed it sent several warning letters to cryptocurrency exchanges involved with initial coin offerings (ICO).

The move is part of a wider effort by the SFC to caution investors about the risks of trading in cryptocurrencies.

The SFC wrote to the unnamed ICO organisers that are soliciting investors from Hong Kong and whose tokens are considered securities – a right to ownership as represented by an option – by the agency.

·
·
·

the short-dollar carry trade unwinding vortex ahead

See also a comment I added today. Important point there about how rising volatility is the catalyst for contagion cascade that ends raising demand for the existant global reserve currency— i.e. the USA dollar.

·
·
·

Oily foods in excess just aren’t good. Salmon is a very oily fish. It’s okay once in a while, but my experience with it, is it is not a good regular item for the diet. Also grass/bugs fed, open range raised beef and chicken also have significant omega 3. IMO and experimentation, too much omega 3 by over emphasizing fatty fish is taking the point about omega 3 to an extreme and beyond a healthy balance. Generally speaking if all other factors equal, fish that live exclusively in the wide-open ocean are leaner and healther than fish that dwell in streams, rivers, lakes (especially man-made such as Tilipia fish) or in the corrals or along the seabed. Yet very old fish in waters polluted with mercury aren’t desirable as they concentrate it. Tuna from the south Pacific where I am are very low in mercury.

I’m not claiming salmon is bad, but I don’t think eating salmon every day is a panacea or desirable, based on my experimentation with it. I find I am much more lean and feel better with tuna. If I eat salmon or tuna belly which are both extremely unbalanced high in omega 6, then I get adverse effects. Yet I am much more sensitive than someone with a healthy digestive tract.

·
·
·

officialmcafee John McAfee tweeted @ 05 Feb 2018 - 19:03 UTC

OK ... You are a hard sell crowd. Then let me show you a different perspective. Bitcoin does this every year at thi… twitter.com/i/web/status/9…

Disclaimer: I am just a bot trying to be helpful.
·
·
·

Thanks for the update! Especially your eating regiment. I'd also like to talk to you more outside of here concerning health. Not sure how to keep in touch. I just signed up for steemit chat https://steemit.chat/home. Maybe that could be an appropriate channel. Otherwise I will have to get a vpn and new account at bitcointalk.

Here is a link to the news about bitcoin talks at the G20

https://www.coindesk.com/mnuchin-talk-crypto-regulation-g20-summit/

Concerning your predictions on the btc market I like the idea of this drop being the same as the april 2013 drop. I remember how surprised everyone got when the dip was just temporary and btc just kept goin gup and up 6 months later. I managed to sell a lot of coins in dec and started buying back last few days. maybe this was the bottom but if it wasn't I still have some more ammo for lower prices.

take care!

Raj

·
·
·
·

One of my trader friends shared the following chart with me, which he presumably produced after reading my prior post and based on my statements over the past month that the logarithmic chart gives a long-term perspective. When the linear and log chart interpretations agree, that could be a strong indicator of the interpretations being correct. He employs better datasets and software than I do, because he is very professional about his trading (I’m a computer scientist not a professional trader).

It’s interesting that he identified a funnel from 2011 which was more steep than the funnel that appears to be forming now for 2018. This interpretation would mean that we’re not replicating 2013, but rather 2011 on a 50% reduced slope! Wow. So we could by summer be at new ATHs. And it also consistent with a much more steep and deep crash after hitting $100k than 2014 (replicating the 2011 crash), which is consistent with my expectation of a massive theft of SegWit transactions (aka donations) by the miners thus bankrupting many of the centralized exchanges. My conspiratorial theory (which I’ve linked to in my prior post) is that nation-states won’t even need to regulate centralized exchanges, because the Zionists funded Blockstream in order to be able to destroy the centralized exchanges algorithmically. Or at least the crash coming after the $100K peak can be induced by G20 coordinated crackdowns on listing of ICOs on centralized exchanges, failure of Tether (which btw the aforementioned trader and I brought to the attention of BCT early last year yet we were scoffed at).


click to zoom

Compare the above chart to the long-term regression chart fit trend (←follow that to this link for the actual chart):


click to zoom

Note the above chart was needs to be updated. The current regression fit trendline would be higher than the “1 year ago” pink curve (my guesstimate is it would cross $100k in 2021) and significantly higher than the red curve, because that regression fit was computed in early 2017 when the price was much lower. The update extending the green line was hand drawn by myself to a rough approximation. Note the regression fit does not mean $100k can’t be reached until 2021, because of the massive overshoot above the regression fit line on speculation mania peaks as shown in the 2011 and 2013 peaks. So we could indeed touch $100k on a peak possibly in 2018 or early 2019, and then $1 million looks plausible roughly 2024 – 2026.

I’ll respond to @finitemaz’s comment post with my thoughts about the testimony at the Senate hearing. I will include there any additional thoughts about G20 coordination. Essentially the European securities regulation unification under the EU regulator is I think not yet fully in place, thus I think it’s going to take them some time to get a highly coordinated crackdown on ICOs globally. Based on the chart above, the move to $100k (and subsequent crash) will likely get out in front of their efforts and thus when they go cracking down on all the ERC-20 ICOs, the principals of those securities offerings will be unable to make restitution because surely the securities regulators will base investment valuations on fiat and the crash in the cryptocurrency prices will mean these principals will be lacking sufficient funds. It will be a bloodbath of ERC-20 fraudsters going to jail and/or fined (with clawbacks of their homes and other assets), along with their affiliates (e.g. promoters, brokers, and potentially legal counsel). The worldwide clawbacks, extraditions, etc will go on for years and decades as the nation-states coordinate their activities over time (and remember Russian Federation is a member of the G20). These idiots who are offering, promoting, advising ERC-20 ICOs are going to have their fingertips burned up to their armpits eventually.

It’s useless to make ICOs legal in the tiny nation of Belarus, because securities regulation jurisdiction is the jurisdiction where the buyers of your securities are. ICOs need to be global or significantly near to global in order to garnish the investment interest they do. If Belarus refuses to cooperate with the G20 on crackdowns against such violations, they will become excluded from the financial system with sanctions.

I’m still on crypto.cat as user ecash. Send me a buddy request. Please to other individuals don’t spam me with buddy requests because I’m too busy programming and researching. No time for discussion with numerous individuals. For the other computer scientists and programmers, add me on LinkedIn (link is in my first blog post on this system) if you’re sure we are peers otherwise general contact is email me shelby at coolpage dot com; and I will get around to responding there as priorities allows. Note I get a lot of spam in my email, so I may not see every inquiry because I don’t check it every day (maybe once of a week).

·
·
·
·
·

Latest updates from Martin Armstrong’s Socrates is calling for Bitcoin to make lower lows than the close on April 6 of $7037. His system isn’t factoring the intraday low on for example Kraken of $58xx. So we’re thinking of BTC revisiting the $6xxx level one more time possibly. Socrates remains bearish on the Weekly Level, but on the Monthly Level it has turned bullish again and issued a buy signal but with caution. Also Socrates has the $3505 level as the support trendline of doom, same as what I wrote about. So it seems Socrates agrees with our outlook.

I was going to note that the 2011 decline from the 2011 peak was more significant than the decline thus far, so if we were modeling the current decline as correlated to the peak of 2011, instead of one of the flag patterns before the peak of the funnel in 2011, then we could see this current decline down to $3500, and then take more than a year to reach new ATHs (but not 3+ years as would be the case with a correlation to the 2014 - 2015 crypto winter). This is the other possible scenario, but I think it is less likely because 1) the length on the current rise on log chart is not as long as the one to the peak in 20111 thus we need to attain higher ATHs first before correlating to the 2011 peak; and 2) the current fundamentals call for a blowoff top because the ICO mania won’t stop until the regulators stop it (or per my aforementioned wild conjecture that Tether and SegWit theft will destroys the centralized exchanges), which is not soon.


1 Unless we measure from the last bottom in 2015, but in that case the slope is much less steep yet the current decline has been as steep as the 2011 decline from the 2011 peak. Declines in 2013 and 2014 have been becoming less steep as the rate of ascent also has become less steep as adoption has widened. The steepness of the current decline thus must be a bear trap to fake out the weak hands.


EDIT: perhaps I’m so widely read that I’m being quoted by proxy on CNBC:

"We believe after February the market will likely go on a bull run comparative if not greater than last year potentially reaching the trillion-dollar mark before a proper crypto winter sets in where the market becomes more focused on proper market fundamentals," Jamie Burke, CEO at Outlier Ventures, a venture capital firm that focuses on blockchain investments, told CNBC by email on Tuesday.

Note the theory of a “crypto winter” which is a term I popularized. Although the term was used before that, so mostly likely it’s just a coincidence.


EDIT#2: The DJIA has a similar market price chart pattern as BTC since 2016. Armstrong notes the possibility of the “winter” scenario if the DJIA declines below the 2017 year low indicating a global recession to 2020/21 and then the new ATHs coming after 2021 with an ultimate peak in 2032 instead of peaking in 2021.

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/markets-by-sector/stock-indicies/dow-jones/cycle-extension-inversion-2021-or-2032/

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/markets-by-sector/stock-indicies/dow-jones/vix-losses-feeding-collapse/

Clearly we’re in a Panic Cycle year as evident by havoc on the global markets the Trump tax cuts will have. This is causing much uncertainty which I think is what is causing the VIX to go crazy. Also the government shutdown in the USA added to uncertainty over short-term timing of flows.

Rogers predicts the stock market will experience jitters until the Federal Reserve increases borrowing costs.

“I’m very bad in market timing,” Jim Rogers said. “But maybe there will be continued sloppiness until March when they raise interest rates, and it looks like the market will rally.”

But the impending dollar short vortex as now highly boosted by the repatriation of $1 – 2 trillion dollars and profits USA corporations will be able to retain and reinvest, should overwhelm sentiment at some point as it evidently becomes the undeniable reality. My understanding is that the dollar short vortex will send USA dollar and stocks skyrocketing while the rest of the world slows due to the resultant increasing burden of servicing the dollar carry trade debt. Whereas, imports in the USA will become less expensive, thus the USA economy will be booming.

So I see the coming 2020 low for Asia as high for the USA. I will be interested to read the report Armstrong is working on to get his perspective on the matter. If I am incorrect and the USA can also go into recession going into 2020, then perhaps BTC is also going to suffering a crypto winter now. But note BTC has not historically been (negatively nor positively) correlated (0.1 only) to other assets in the general economy, yet appears to have aligned with the DJIA since 2016 in terms of correlated not on the small wiggles but the move from a low to recent peak.

One of Armstrong’s themes has been that the strong dollar killing off the global economy was a prerequisite for monetary crisis reset of the global reserve currency given that the other nations would be very pissed off at the USA’s advantageous position. This would seem to be the perfect setup for Bitcoin taking its role as an independent global reserve when the nations are bickering and can’t come to an agreement on one. So the DJIA and dollar declining into 2020 seems be incompatible with that interpretation and scenario. Also delaying the rush into Bitcoin for another 3 years, would seem to set the timing back in terms of a monetary reset in 2024 allowing Asia to rise to become the financial capital of the world by 2032. That scenario doesn’t seem to corroborate with Armstrong’s general thesis.


EDIT#3: In the most recent private subscription comments, Armstrong reminds of the possibility for a SLINGSHOT move wherein the DJIA could drop below the 2017 low, yet SLINGSHOT back to a high by 2021! Aha, so that’s what I’ve been thinking about Bitcoin that it would crash in a way that shook out all the weak hands but SLINGSHOT back to ATHs quickly and not a drawn out crypto winter. So perhaps we have more downside coming for Bitcoin before bottom. Could we decline further to the ridiculous level of $3500 first?

Electing that tomorrow and there is a risk that this Panic Cycle Year will indeed break last year's low of 19,677.94 before this is over and we can do this all by March.

Keep in mind that 1987 + 31 Years = 2018.

The Dow May Break 19677 Before March

We hope to have this Special Report available this weekend. The price will be $750, but we are dealing with the most crazy period with a Panic Cycle on the Yearly Level. We will still see new high ahead, and this is going to be one heck of a ride.

The potential for an absolute nose-bleed is very high with a slingshot that will confuse everyone.

·
·
·
·
·
·

POSSIBLE SLINGSHOT BITCOIN CRASH AHEAD

Possible crash to $3500 ahead with a V bottom quickly slingshotting back to new ATHs within a short period of time.

It’s possible the BTC price could touch $11k before such a possible crash. Or we could turn over soon with $9k being the peak of the deadcat bounce. It also remains possible that $5850 (on Kraken) was the low, but I’m leaning away from that probability now because…

I wrote:

EDIT#3: In the most recent private subscription comments, Armstrong reminds of the possibility for a SLINGSHOT move wherein the DJIA could drop below the 2017 low, yet SLINGSHOT back to a high by 2021! Aha, so that’s what I’ve been thinking about Bitcoin that it would crash in a way that shook out all the weak hands but SLINGSHOT back to ATHs quickly and not a drawn out crypto winter. So perhaps we have more downside coming for Bitcoin before bottom. Could we decline further to the ridiculous level of $3500 first?

Armstrong is definitely thinking a further crash of everything into a SLINGSHOT move to the upside. Hmm. Maybe we should be prepared for a drop to $3500!

I had also noted the steepness of this current decline as being abnormal and not fitting our models:

1 Unless we measure from the last bottom in 2015, but in that case the slope is much less steep yet the current decline has been as steep as the 2011 decline from the 2011 peak. Declines in 2013 and 2014 have been becoming less steep as the rate of ascent also has become less steep as adoption has widened. The steepness of the current decline thus must be a bear trap to fake out the weak hands.

Such as not fitting this model:

I was going to note that the 2011 decline from the 2011 peak was more significant than the decline thus far, so if we were modeling the current decline as correlated to the peak of 2011, instead of one of the flag patterns before the peak of the funnel in 2011, then we could see this current decline down to $3500, and then take more than a year to reach new ATHs (but not 3+ years as would be the case with a correlation to the 2014 - 2015 crypto winter). This is the other possible scenario, but I think it is less likely because 1) the length on the current rise on log chart is not as long as the one to the peak in 20111 thus we need to attain higher ATHs first before correlating to the 2011 peak; and 2) the current fundamentals call for a blowoff top because the ICO mania won’t stop until the regulators stop it (or per my aforementioned wild conjecture that Tether and SegWit theft will destroys the centralized exchanges), which is not soon.

Armstrong wrote:

ANSWER: Yes. With Dow declining, we are failing to see a rally in cryptocurrency or gold and the long-touted flight to quality is not unfolding as most have expected.

When Equities typically decline, people run to the government bonds, and this we call the Flight to Quality.
[…]
So what is going on this time? We are in the midst of the Transition from the confidence in government to the private sector but nobody seems to understand what is unfolding. This is why we are getting mixed signals and strange relationships.

People will invest in the private sector and sell government bonds, smelling a default in the wind.We are more than likely going to get the first kneejerk reaction, where equities will DECLINE and people will rush into government bonds, even with negative yields. This should create the final bubble top in debt, and then it will reverse in a Flash Crash type move. Traditional people will buy bonds and lose a fortune. Others will sell their stocks at the lows and jump on short positions. This will set the stage for a crazy period that comes around every so often, measured in hundreds of years.

I had also written:

Clearly we’re in a Panic Cycle year as evident by havoc on the global markets the Trump tax cuts will have. This is causing much uncertainty which I think is what is causing the VIX to go crazy. Also the government shutdown in the USA added to uncertainty over short-term timing of flows.

Rogers predicts the stock market will experience jitters until the Federal Reserve increases borrowing costs.

“I’m very bad in market timing,” Jim Rogers said. “But maybe there will be continued sloppiness until March when they raise interest rates, and it looks like the market will rally.”

Taking another look at the following chart which was posted upthread, perhaps the rightmost green uptrending line on the chart will become resistance instead of support as it did in 2011! We can visualize an analogous line on the 2011 funnel (which isn’t drawn but you can use a ruler on the image below to visualize it). Thus we can still possibly make new ATHs late in 2018 but $40k only. Any move to $100k would be delayed into 2019.


click to zoom

The pattern of 2011 and now are exactly the same, except for the less steep slope of the rise, but the slope of crash underway is the same. The price crashed 94% in 2011! Also the prior peak in 2013 and the second blue arrow drawn on the above chart align horizontally at ~$1275 for a -94% collapse where the current crash would likely meet the bottom blue line! Holy shit!

The only two corrections which were this great and this rapid were 2011 and spring 2013. Both crashed more than 80%. Thus this correction is probably not finished. The remaining question is whether we crash -83% (spring 2013) or -94% (2011)?

Elliot Wave analysis in January was also predicting this, although I think EW is hocus pocus with 50% chance of being corrrect or incorrect, lol.

Even the long-term HODL (hold on for dear life) bulls are starting to get that queasy deja vu nausea.

The market has weakened considerably. And more bad news is coming any day or week from now. Everyone is having a difficult time shifting their attitude from bullish to bearish. It’s denial. So therefor I’m thinking we probably get a strong deadcat bounce now, because of the denial. But then we rollover and go lower. Ditto the DJIA.

Also this chart from zerohedge:


click to zoom

Btw, the above chart is misrepresenting the crash from 2011-06-09 to 2011-10-20 as shown on 99bitcoins.com from $29.58 to $2.31 in 133 days, thus -78%. Actually I think the intraday peak was above $32 and bottom closer to $2.10, so another 80+% crash (roughly about -94%).


IMPORTANT NOTE: if we break down below $6000, it’s going to be a panic and it’s plausible that altcoins (and ICO bags) are going to go no-bid as they did during the crash after Dec. 2013. So far the alts have held up recently well considering and in fact since Dec. 10, Bitcoin’s share of the total crypto marketcap has fallen mainly due to gains by Ethereum and “Others” (not including other Top 10 alts), but I think perhaps this is because everyone’s assuming we’re not in another 80+% crash. The proliferation of ICOs is why “Others” is sucking up so much BTC (and presumably some of these ICO issuers are selling the BTC for fiat to guard against losses, pay expenses such as buying off the legal counsel, and pay themselves yachts, crack, hookers, and such). Perhaps it’s different this time because there’s so much (unwavering/unbreakable?) speculative fever in ICOs and such (and given this may only be a SLINGSHOT and not a long drawn out crypto winter), but it’s plausible that altcoins will be on firesale prices when/if Bitcoin drops to $3500. The mindset of those buying ICOs has been it would be sure money because the market is flooded with greater fools coming in. But if the fear of drawn-out crypto winter becomes visceral, we might see the demeanor of the market change?

In fact, demeanor is a significant reason I don’t think we’ve bottomed yet. There’s far too much optimism still. A bottom comes when everyone becomes very pessimistic. The fact that the shitcoins are leading Bitcoin is very weird and perhaps very ominous because it means no one believes this crash is going to last very long or go very deep enough to turn away the flood of the masses and institutional investors coming into cryptocurrency.

There’s far too much of this going on:

·
·
·
·
·
·
·

Best bitcoin TA together with FA available imo. Would be willing to pay you for this. thanks!

·
·
·
·
·

thanks will install crypto.cat later this week. too tired now. have to sleep.

·
·
·
·
·
·

I won’t go into more detail here because you may not wish for me to discuss or even hint at details of health issues in public, but please remind me to discuss intravenous vitamin C treatments with you. I did this 5 times thus far. I will explain to you what I think the benefits might be. I have a blog on my Medium which discusses IV vitamin C for treating Tuberculosis, which is presumably not an illness you have.

I've resteemed this article as I believe more steemians should read it before it disappears into oblivion.

·

Unfortunately when you resteemed, it caused a whale to notice it and downvote it.

This is an insightful, well researched article worth a second, third, fourth read.
China is right now rumored to be banning all its exchanges besides having banned all ICOs. I'm wondering if this will have an osprey dive effect on all crypto-currencies and what next for crypto-currencies in China?

I can't weigh in on whether your views are accurate or not, and frankly I don't care.

I downvoted it because you are using an image of the World Trade Center attacks, which is as low and classless as you can possibly get as you try to get clicks and dollars.

·

This blog is not a democracy. And this is yet another reason why the voting model of Steem is not appropriate for rewarding a meritocracy.

My motivations for using that image is because it portrays exactly the imminent multiple collapse that was unexpected (which is the same in this case where I predicted the collapse 2 days before it occurred and yet still people think ICOs will not totally collapse yet they will); and also to remind warriors that probably shady elements within our own government slaughtered 3000+ people.

For idiots who ignorantly believe that 9/11 was not caused by explosive charges which were planted in the elevator shafts, then your downvote attests that you are a witless who falls into the woodchipper. Anyone with a brainstem can understand that kerosene fuel can’t cause that sort of demolition.

Why is that you want to sweep under the rug the massive crime that has been perpetrated against the American people? Those who did this crime remain unpunished. And it wasn’t Bin laden who planted the Thermite charges on the elevator shafts. It was an inside job.

·

Are you working for Israel’s Mossad?

Israel DID 9/11 (Israeli Mossad) Dr. Alan Sabrosky

GENIUS CHRISTOPHER BOLLYN EXPLAINS WITH FACTS WHY AND HOW ISRAEL DID 9-11

Zionist Orchestrated SJWs Protests Against Christopher Bollyn (Larry Silverstein was the owner of the WTC!)

9/11 - Ten Years Of Deception

I had already explain in other comments that the image represents the impending destruction I had expected and which ended up coming true. Even today the SEC has announced enforcement actions, China banned ICOs, and South Korea has said they will start enforcement actions, etc...

I wonder how this works for ico that happen on a token external to the blockchain of which development is paid by the fund rised through the sales of those tokens.

Like eos who made their ico using eth tokens to fund the development of their own blockchain.

The eth token are not supposed to rise based on the value of the tokens on the blockchain.

But its clear those funding are shady, if not scams, and its only a matter of time before regulation start to kick in, and i think it can be expected they paint things with a broad brush, leaving plenty on the bad side of the law.

·

Like eos who made their ico using eth tokens to fund the development of their own blockchain.

It appears “EOS Tokens” are a half-baked attempt to be an example of the “shares” I refer to in the “Pre-mine Without Securitization” section of my blog:

But if the developer needs funding early and can’t wait, I suggest a non-profit corporation could be constituted with shares issued in exchange for investment. The shares (not the eventually pre-mined tokens) are investment securities …

The “EOS Tokens” are issued to those who invest ETH. Thus, it’s an investment security.

And some claim it is a scam.

In their purchase agreement, they distinguish the (eventually pre-mined) “EOS Platform” tokens from the “EOS Tokens”:

NOT A PURCHASE OF EOS PLATFORM TOKENS. EOS Tokens purchased under this Agreement are not tokens on the EOS Platform. Buyer acknowledges, understands and agrees that Buyer should not expect and there is no guarantee or representation made by Company that Buyer will receive any other product, service, rights, attributes, functionalities, features or assets of any kind whatsoever, including, without limitation, any cryptographic tokens or digital assets now or in the future whether through receipt, exchange, conversion, redemption or otherwise.

Note that afaics the above purchase agreement guarantees no distribution of dividends to EOS Token investors, from selling EOS Platform tokens. So I have no idea why investors are investing. The section of my blog proposes how to achieve such distributions providing an incentive to investors, without causing the platform tokens to become investment securities.

Note that purchase agreement erroneously claims that since the EOS Tokens have no utility, then they’re not investment securities. Which is incorrect, because there is still an expectation-of-profit based on apparently greater fool theory which depends on the ongoing managerial efforts of the EOS Token issuers:

No Purpose. As mentioned above, the EOS Tokens do not have any rights, uses, purpose, attributes, functionalities or features, express or implied. Although EOS Tokens may be tradable, they are not an investment, currency, security, commodity, a swap on a currency, security or commodity or any other kind of financial instrument.

We can see they want to simultaneously imply but also deny that EOS Tokens will be convertible to EOS Platform tokens! Daniel Larimer is a lunatic! In any case, this clearly makes EOS Platform tokens investment securities in any future convertibility (because the Howey Test ignores all obfuscations and looks at the economic reality!):

a blockchain will ever be launched with or without changes to the EOS.IO Software and with or without a distribution matching the fixed, non-transferable EOS Token balances

·
·

Note that afaics the above purchase agreement guarantees no distribution of dividends to EOS Token investors, from selling EOS Platform tokens. So I have no idea why investors are investing. The section of my blog proposes how to achieve such distributions providing an incentive to investors, without causing the platform tokens to become investment securities.

Yes i wonder the same thing with this form of fund rising based just on buying a token on eth.

Maybe investors have other interest in the development of eos ..

·
·

I don't think those behind EOS would disagree with you from a U.S. legal perspective, because they are clearly deterring U.S. citizens from acquiring the tokens, although I do find it intriguing how the U.S. has the power to bend the rest of the world to its whims (FATCA perhaps being one of the best examples of this, as you mentioned elsewhere):

It was decided that U.S. citizens, residents and entities should be excluded from purchasing EOS Tokens in the token distribution because of some of the logistical challenges associated with differing regulations in the many states of the United States of America.

Link: Upcoming EOS Token Distribution - US Citizen Restriction - and Other NOOB Questions

Of course, as what happened with Armstrong (and more recently, Martin Shkreli), if you're in the U.S. (or with most govt's for that matter) and they want to target you for something, they can easily come up dozens of reasons to do so.

·
·
·

pocketsend:1000@alexpmorris

·
·
·
·

Successful Send of 1000
Sending Account: wekkel
Receiving Account: alexpmorris
New sending account balance: 997199
New receiving account balance: 999
Fee: 1
Steem trxid: 3e2e99cc1aa74b910b6da69c63bd46b4273eaa37
Thanks for using POCKET! I am running this confirmer code.

·
·

ironically, however, this just came out today as well...

Chinese regulators have today taken the unprecedented move of banning all ICOs. This follows news last week that authorities intended to implement stricter regulations to protect investors from fraud.

  • Organizations and individuals must not raise funds through ICO activities.
  • Fundraising platforms must not provide trading and exchange services.
  • Banks and financial institutions must not do any business related to ICO trading.
  • Organisations and individuals who have completed funding through an ICO should make arrangements to repay investors.

Link: IC-NO! CHINA BURSTS INITIAL COIN OFFERING BUBBLE

·
·
·

UPDATE: the collapse was imminent and has now begun as China has declared ICOs illegal and all funds raised thus far must be refunded, with the SEC expected to follow!

As well South Korea and Russia also announced enforcement against ICOs.

·
·
·
·

Will this ban be temporary until legislation and oversight are in place or is this the final nail to the coffin?

·
·
·
·
·

Please read my latest thoughts which are more balanced.

In my reasoned guess/opinion, it is likely the nail in coffin for most of those Xerox copy ICOs created on Ethereum recently. They will have to refund the money. Even the SEC had that policy of leniency of prosecution of the issuers if raised funds are refunded. And reissue in a way that either 1) creates a registered investment security as the token which means the tokens can only be spent on a centralized, regulated exchange; or 2) use a different investment structure as I proposed in my blog in the section “Pre-mine Without Securitization”.

I think other purely ICOs issues such as NEO and Qtum may be forced to reissue and restructure, or maybe not. It is very complicated because global securities regulation appears to be muddled (although note IANAL).

Some people will lose money. Refunding is a mark-to-market event, because if the raised money was already spent on hookers and cocaine, then the investors loose because the tokens will likely be declared illegal on exchanges all over the world.

I wonder about that. I'm outside the USA so that doesn't apply for me I think. I also wonder what will happen to the value of erc20's if Ethereum drops say 50%.

·

Personal legal culpability might not apply depending on which country you’re in and the state of development of that jurisdiction’s securities regulation (and do note the link I provided to recent news about the EU advancing their regulation to harmonize with the SEC and do note China recently moving to regulate ICOs).

But note the SEC noted that even if you’re outside the USA and you offer for sale or sell illegal securities to USA citizens (even unwittingly and note the SEC wrote “Violations of Section 5 do not require scienter.”), then in their eyes you are have fallen into their jurisdiction and they can prosecute you. And given the cooperation pledged by the G20 for sharing data as of Jan. 1, 2017, it seems that the G20 will honor and aid enforcement of the SEC’s jurisdiction.

They destroy you with legalese because most people have more hubris than diligent study of every word.

Cryptocurrencies are forcing globalization and harmonization of enforcement of regulation.

I’m wary that the market conflagration due to enforcement action presumably coming from the SEC and then eventually other nations will knock the ICO-issued tokens down eventually in price and market acceptance. I predict eventually they will not be taken seriously at all. There is no way I would be buying ICOs (even if I wasn’t a USA citizen) right now with a correction in the cryptocurrency euphoria approaching after this current moonshoot, and then ICOs languishing followed by enforcement actions ongoing incessantly.

If only the G5 do enforcement actions, ICO-issued tokens are dead. Eventually enforcement from G20, and then the rest of the nations falling into harmonization as they did for FATCA. Because the USA and G5 can penalize the other nations if they do not accede to harmonization. C.f. the links I provided in my blog for more details about this.

·
·

@‍Traxo wrote at BCT:

It's implausible to expect that millions of ICO investors worldwide[…]

There aren't millions.
ICO issuers buy the ICO from themselves to make the illusion of significant interest, while thus pre-mining most of the tokens to themselves.

Probably less than 10,000 ICO investors of any significant amount.
I agree the regulators probably won't waste their effort to go after those who are only speculating with their lunch money.

The people who need to pay attention are those who have significant amount of money tied up in "ICO-issued" tokens.
They had better think carefully about this.

Also the potential fines and jail time is not the only threat.
The other threat is the collapse in the price of these "ICO-issued" tokens.

·
·
·

This post foreshadows the collapse of ICO-issued tokens or the collapse of their price? Collapse of ICO-issued tokens would mean these tokens become illegal and non fungible which then leads to the collapse, making them worthless.

·
·
·
·

Both.

But please also read my recent thoughts about caveats.

·
·
·
·
·

Sure, I will do that.

·
·

nobody really cares about the USA and their stupid tax laws. US Crypto trading citizens should give up their citizenship and move to other tax free countries..

·
·
·

The USA is still dominant and dictating the (financial) rules in most of the Western World. If you mean that these rules won't stop the cryptocurrency/'decentralised exchange of value' wave, I concur.

Thank you Anonymint for your in depth analysis. It clearly shows how tyrannical and control obsessed TPTB really are. It is fascinating to imagine how the big Wall Street banks call up the SEC and demand immediate action to protect their regulated monopoly on currency issued from the FED, and oligopoly on investment banking services.

National debt and unfunded liabilities are now unsustainable. That's right, it is already mathematically impossible that the debt will ever be repaid. Just wait to see what happens when the US misses a T-bill coupon payment............

·

I am not sure how they would ever 'miss' a payment (I bet there are numerous tactics available to keep the show going on for quite some time).

Excellent post @anonymint, I agree with what you write, it's very interesting, thanks for sharing that information , I follow you, we must support ourselves as a community, I appreciate it if you I would give me a look at my last post and give me your opinion, greetings and success in everything.

seems bitcoin is safe

·

Agreed safe from the “ICO-issued” classification (even if Satoshi mined most of the early coins, he didn’t get 80% and apparently his mined tokens have never been sold), but we have potentially a different devastating threat on the horizon for Bitcoin.

·
·

Apparently you do come across as a doomsday preacher, but if you're right, we should not touch it and avoid it at all cost. Which also means whatever steem we get here for contributing is up in smoke in reality. This isn't the best way to lose your precious time to if profiting from our posts is the prime reason we contribute. If not, fire on.

·
·
·

Please read my latest thoughts which are more balanced.

Is it safe to invest in crypto at all? I mean is there any way they can shut down ALTcoins? or all cryptos? and just use their tehno for gvrnmnt?

·

Is it safe to invest in crypto at all?

Proof-of-work is launched competitively appears to be legally safe to invest in.

The “Pre-mine Without Securitization” section in my blog explains an alternative to proof-of-work which I posit should be legal.

Congratulations @anonymint! You have completed some achievement on Steemit and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :

Award for the number of upvotes

Click on any badge to view your own Board of Honor on SteemitBoard.
For more information about SteemitBoard, click here

If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word STOP

By upvoting this notification, you can help all Steemit users. Learn how here!

Comply with the SEC or go to jail? Decisions, decisions...

Dear author, whoever you are, please consider removing the image of the attack on the World Trade Center. It had no bearing on your story and that image itself makes it hard for many to read your post, brilliant as it may be.

·

I already explained why I think the image is appropriate.

I agree that 9/11 was a horrific event (I still remember it viscerally), and I think we should continue to remember it so that we remain sufficiently enraged at the bastards who did it, because they are probably the same bastards who are driving us towards world war again.

Since when does appeasing the emotions or values of others have anything to do with factual presentation.

Please do not try to brow beat me with your values. I have my own values. You are free to write your own blogs. And to associate with those who share your values.

Your feedback is accepted, but I would prefer if you had posted as reply to the comment I had already made on this issue.

brilliant as it may be

I’m not ignoring your compliment. It’s just that I don’t think people should be so emotional. We need to be more focused on manly attitudes. The political correctness and emasculation in our society is indicative of failure.

·
·

"We need to be more focused on manly attitudes." Well, well, well. I was reading your material when it crossed my mind that intellect and personality are entertwined for a reason: one makes the other more pallatable. I was reaching a point in my reading where how you interact with other humans was louder to me than your written thoughts. And, then, I came across your belief that we need to be more focused on"manly" attitudes. Hey ho... and off we go.. says this female who is not happy about PC behaviors but certainly does desire respect for whatever the hell her female attitudes are... manly attitudes? Good grief. You go ahead and have fun building up your sense of self-significance, while making others feel insignficant. Such a wonderful gain.

·
·
·

blah blah blah

The witless are economically irrelevant.

Besides, afaik you and I have never communicated. How is that you can make personal judgement of me without having any personal interaction with me? I encourage you to review what Jesus spoke on the mountain in Matthew 7 in the Bible about judging.

Bearing false witness is form of grave dishonesty and societalcide.

Show me what I have written which is incorrect?

while making others feel insignficant

I don’t ever attempt to assign untruthful valuation. One can’t be successful if they deceive themselves about valuation.

Those who dismiss me based on their incorrect high valuation of political correctness, are going to learn an important lesson about the negative worth of political correctness.

I cheer on those who are productive and rational. I detest those who cowtail to the negative worth of political correct groupthink.

where how you interact with other humans was louder to me than your written thoughts

I interact very well with those who are rational and productive.

If you identify and empathize emotionally with the willfully and intentionally witless, then you’ve put yourself in the crab bucket with them.

We have work to do. Wasting time on this, is for losers. Frankly I don’t have time to figure out how to appease every random person’s fragile emotions.

I wish for you to up your game and join the successful. I don’t wish bad for you. But I can’t do it for you.

P.S. I wrote this post presuming you are a man (it is sometimes difficult to discern the difference with all the emasculated males in the West). I did not have time to check your profile. If you’re a female, all I can say is that I want a society that doesn’t destroy females. You may like the society the way it is, in which case feel free to stay on the Titanic. I’m not stopping you. Western society will break up into various factions because there is disagreement about how to best organize the society. Btw, I will always strive to provide the technology so you can speak uncensored, even if you speak against me. Females are not insignificant. They hold the keys to reproduction. I can’t give birth to a child! If a females says to me she knows best how to nurture this child, I must respect. She does know best. But if she says to me she knows best what to teach the child about civilization and correct philosophy, then I will be very skeptical. She very likely does not know best in that area. You may have your own opinion about this. Opinions are like assholes. Everybody has at least one. What matters really in the long run is who was economically and logically correct. Not who can form a gulag of political groupthink.

Address me how you wish for me to address you. You will find that is a base principle of my interactions with humans.

·
·
·
·
·

Are you working for Israel’s Mossad?

Israel DID 9/11 (Israeli Mossad) Dr. Alan Sabrosky

GENIUS CHRISTOPHER BOLLYN EXPLAINS WITH FACTS WHY AND HOW ISRAEL DID 9-11

9/11 - Ten Years Of Deception

Zionist Orchestrated SJWs Protests Against Christopher Bollyn (Larry Silverstein was the owner of the WTC!)

I had already explain in other comments that the image represents the impending destruction I had expected and which ended up coming true. Even today the SEC has announced enforcement actions, China banned ICOs, and South Korea has said they will start enforcement actions, etc...

Unfortunately you would be in a stronger position had you used only regulated exchanges

Are you saying the position would be stronger having participated in the ICO? Unsure if you are missing a word in there somewhere...

I’m positing that if you have been trading (the possibly illegally issued) investment securities (i.e. “ICO-issued” tokens) but doing it on an exchange which is registered with FinCEN and/or SEC (i.e. a regulated exchange which does KYC, AML, and other compliance), then afaics at least you can argue that you delegated the responsibility for compliance to the regulated exchange. Whereas, if you traded on unregulated exchanges (presumably avoiding exchanges which do compliance), then you presumably retained full responsibility for compliance.

·

Interesting stuff. Thank you for the time and effort.
What is the current impression of a "regulated exchange". I assume Gemini (a bank) and Bittrex (US based embracer of rules) count, but what about Polo or new kids like wings?
As a collective, where do we move if BTC is in trouble and gold sees a major pump with a crypto armageddon like the OP depicts?
This is the prepper portion of the comments section.

·
·

Peruse some of my recent writings else where, and hope you can see I do not expect a crypto Armageddon for proof-of-work issued coins as a result of this ICO regulation issue.

what about Polo or new kids

If they’re not requiring strict KYC, they will probably end up like BTC-e and Mt. Gox. Lots of bad reports about Polo. I experienced it myself, Polo trades against its own users.

where do we move if BTC is in trouble and gold sees a major pump

Per my prior blogs, I’m still expecting the possibility of BTC-SegWit collapse with a BCH moonshot. Might not happen, but it might happen.

You can hang on to a safe proof-of-work option such as BCH, LTC, or XMR in a private wallet (not on an exchange). When we get more clarity on BTC, there might be a “real BTC” (Satoshi’s protocol unmodified) to hang on to. If my project has reached launch, you can park some funds there if you want.

Note I don’t think all the more muddled cases of “ICO-issued” equivalents tokens such as ETH, STEEM, DASH, NEM will necessarily be regulated immediately. I think first regulators are likely to prioritize purely ICOs such the Xerox copy ICOs issued on Ethereum. The outcome for other purely ICO issues such as NEO and Qtum is less clear to me. So the Armageddon may be a muddled outcome that meanders for a year, couple of years, or so before eventually all tokens with a scam-like history are perhaps doomed (and not just because of possible securities regulation rather that failure of execution is endemic to scams). Thus, I think the free market might actually kill STEEM, DASH, and ETH before the regulators need to (and I’m thinking specifically of what I know about my altcoin project that outsiders do not, and being the one that potentially kills those what I think are poor executed or some other paradigm shift from some group I may not even be aware of).

Since I know from past experience that a few (not too many) people are going to ask me, I will just answer in advance. Readers can’t invest in my altcoin project now. At launch you may be able to. We’re working to possibly offer that crowd equity second round of financing opportunity so we can broaden the pre-mine distribution before the onboarding phase of distribution begins.

As for gold, MA’s stance is it will likely decline one more time below $1050 before the slingshot to $5000. But he does allow for the possibility that it does not decline. $1367 is the key level of overhead resistance.

P.S. Ethereum is very confusing to analyse from a securities perspective. I suppose ETC is actually the decentralized original block chain of what was launched as Ethereum with an ICO. ETH forked off to steal back a user’s ETH. What an amazing chaos. Is it decentralized enough and chaotic enough to cause regulators to stay away? Will be interesting to see what happens.

FYI - Pic of 9/11 feels very inappropriate given the context of this post.

·

Are you working for Israel’s Mossad?

Israel DID 9/11 (Israeli Mossad) Dr. Alan Sabrosky

GENIUS CHRISTOPHER BOLLYN EXPLAINS WITH FACTS WHY AND HOW ISRAEL DID 9-11

9/11 - Ten Years Of Deception

Zionist Orchestrated SJWs Protests Against Christopher Bollyn (Larry Silverstein was the owner of the WTC!)

I had already explain in other comments that the image represents the impending destruction I had expected and which ended up coming true. Even today the SEC has announced enforcement actions, China banned ICOs, and South Korea has said they will start enforcement actions, etc...

·
·

Any updates on this article?

Thats a real crappy photo to use

·

It correlates with the theme of imminent* waterfall collapse.

It also correlates with people not wanting to think the unthinkable or verboten thoughts. In this case, most people will go back to “business as usual” and put off making any decision about their ICO-issued cryptocurrency involvement, until later they’re “slaughtered” by their failure to wake up.

When the WTC was bombed the first time in 1993 (when I was your age), I thought to myself that was a trial run for the next time. In 1995, when Timothy McVeigh blew up half of a building, I was reminded of my thought in 1993. I was expecting 9/11/2001.

Why is it crappy to associate the theme of “the banksters (perhaps Mossad agents) slaughtered 3000+ people with demolition of the WTC” in order to enact the Patriot Act which was the precursor to the FATCA legislation which is the methodology they will presumably employ to force USA-style securities regulation throughout the world?

If you’re a man, you can man up to the reality of this harsh world.

* I stated in another comment, “It could be after my blog is long forgotten, the SEC has allowed everyone to incriminate themselves much deeper into the dodo and then they do the enforcement much later. Timing is difficult to predict.”

·
·

The principal! He will give me TP! I would hate for my bungholio to get polio....Where I come from, we have no bunghole.

·
·

Sorry, but thats a shitty justification in my opinion. Should of used a different image.

·
·
·

This blog is not a democracy. There’s no “should” involved here. It’s my blog and I’ll use the image that I want to use. And if that boils your propaganda controlled attitude, then cry to your sociopath puppet master George Soros.

UPDATE: the collapse was imminent and has now begun as China has declared ICOs illegal and all funds raised thus far must be refunded, with the SEC expected to follow!

As well South Korea and Russia also announced enforcement against ICOs.

This can be seen also as a victory for China’s dominance of proof-of-work mining, since ICO issued tokens usually trade on a non-proof-of-work ledger system.

·
·

did you ever thought all the fake ico could be sponsored by those same organisation to promote regulation, like they do with all the security buisness, creating the threat to be shown as necessary ? :)

·
·
·

Hegelian dialectic.

·
·
·
·

Not really. .

Its more invariants in cia/mi6 tactics to emulate radical offshot of things they want to condamn, while making profits on it to fund their enforcmebt of the security against it.

Like opium war, or the so called false flags.

·
·
·
·
·

That is a Hegelian dialectic. It is the creation of the antithesis, in order to gain support for the thesis, i.e. create a false flag such as 9/11 to gain support for the Patriot Act.

·
·
·
·
·
·

Yes this sort of stuff! Lol its not what i would understand as hegelian diaclectic, but maybe it is lol

·

Are you working for Israel’s Mossad?

Israel DID 9/11 (Israeli Mossad) Dr. Alan Sabrosky

GENIUS CHRISTOPHER BOLLYN EXPLAINS WITH FACTS WHY AND HOW ISRAEL DID 9-11

9/11 - Ten Years Of Deception

Zionist Orchestrated SJWs Protests Against Christopher Bollyn (Larry Silverstein was the owner of the WTC!)

I had already explain in other comments that the image represents the impending destruction I had expected and which ended up coming true. Even today the SEC has announced enforcement actions, China banned ICOs, and South Korea has said they will start enforcement actions, etc...

I have followed you on Steemit, please be kind enough to follow me as well.

deeponion.jpg

Deep onion is a non ICO and Tor secure for oppressive governments. Deep onion is having a 40 week airdrop for those of you that have a bitcoin talk account. It's fully anonymous and designed to run thru the tor network. The Dev team and marketing strategy are on another level with a full team of friendly moderators ready to answer any questions at a moments notice. With it's unique distribution It's a great long term hold with zero financial risk. If you don't have a bitcoin talk account you can put that miner to work or pick some up at novaexchange and stake them for interest. To apply you just need your Bitcoin talk ID number and a Deep onion wallet.

https://deeponion.org/apply.php?ref=251926

·

and Tor secure for oppressive governments

Tor is a honeypot.

Deep onion is a non ICO … Deep onion is having a 40 week airdrop for those of you that have a bitcoin talk account … To apply you just need your Bitcoin talk ID number

Bullshit!

I already wrote about how BCT accounts for an airdrop is a scam where insiders pre-mine to their sock puppet accounts and thus is economically equivalent to an “ICO-issued” token investment security:

NEM’s scam airdrop

BCT has a thread about the DeepOnion scam.

rajc wrote at the NEM forum:

He says “NEM’s scam airdrop is just an obfuscation of the economic reality that tokens are then sold by this exclusive group to investors as securities because the expectation-of-profit depends on that exclusive group’s ongoing managerial or entrepreneurial duties”

Correct.

To prove this, he cites some random fud post from bct about nem creators creating all the bct accounts and distributing all nem amongst themself, which is bulshit, so you dont have to worry about anythihng he says…

It’s a fact that there is no restriction on creating BCT accounts which would prefer the issuers from pre-mining tokens to themselves. They were asked to add Facebook or other verification and they refused.

(Or maybe i was the only real participant of nem airdrop and all the rest of accounts were sockpuppets. But it can get even worse… Maybe I am the only person in this universe and you all are just projections of my mind … )

Your logic skills are pathetic.

That there are some users who got tokens is not a proof that the insiders did not also pre-mine tokens with the scam airdrop.

·
·

All wallet address including the devs can be viewed thru the block chain

·
·
·

That does not address a Sybil (aka sockpuppet) attack on wallets. I’m sorry if you do not comprehend.

only way i could reach to you. I need the post that has all the links to all the ideal money articles. aaron w. wants it. cheers!

I'M AN ANARCHIST ... They can't control me haha

·

Lol. That worked against the Prohibition, but alcohol isn’t a fungible investment with a lineage indelibly recorded on the blockchaindecentralized ledger.

The value of money and speculation about its value is driven by PUBLIC CONFIDENCE, which is usually propped up by the backing of the government. If the governments are attacking that money and declaring it illegal, prosecuting high profile cases, then I doubt there will be much group confidence in that money.

If the government was lying, then perhaps the public would remove the legitimacy of the government’s actions, but I think I have explained the logical rationale for why the government is tasked to regulate investment securities.

Every ICO that has been issued has been a scam. So the public is not going to support them when the government makes it clear about the lack of transparency as I mentioned about the various shitcoins I listed in my blog post.

We as a community need to demand that cryptocurrencies are not issued as scam airdrops, scam sneaky mines, and scam stealth mines.

It could be after my blog is long forgotten, the SEC has allowed everyone to incriminate themselves much deeper into the dodo and then they do the enforcement much later. Timing is difficult to predict.

·
·

Dude, that 9-11 picture. Not cool.

·
·
·

I already explained why I think the image is appropriate.

I agree that 9/11 was a horrific event (I still remember it viscerally), and I think we should continue to remember it so that we remain sufficiently enraged at the bastards who did it, because they are probably the same bastards who are driving us towards world war again.

Why do you prefer only warm fuzzy emotions? Do you deny the reality of the war humanity is in against these bastards? Are you not a warrior? Please do not instruct me to tailor my presentation for those who are not warriors. I want men, not faggots. Get all that leftist clusterfuck shit away from me.

Do not try to brow beat me with your values. I have my own values. You are free to write your own blogs. And to associate with those who share your values.

Your feedback is accepted, but I would prefer if you had posted as reply to the comment I had already made on this issue. You replied offtopic to a comment thread which has nothing to do with this.

·
·
·

Are you working for Israel’s Mossad?

Israel DID 9/11 (Israeli Mossad) Dr. Alan Sabrosky

GENIUS CHRISTOPHER BOLLYN EXPLAINS WITH FACTS WHY AND HOW ISRAEL DID 9-11

9/11 - Ten Years Of Deception

Zionist Orchestrated SJWs Protests Against Christopher Bollyn (Larry Silverstein was the owner of the WTC!)

I had already explain in other comments that the image represents the impending destruction I had expected and which ended up coming true. Even today the SEC has announced enforcement actions, China banned ICOs, and South Korea has said they will start enforcement actions, etc...

Nice post @anonymint ...blessings