“vitalik.eth(@VitalikButerin) sold some tokens received for free and got 140.67 $ETH($340.5K) 50 mins ago!”
The Vitalik foundation sells eth and buys btc, of the former we have proof, of the latter I am sure.
It would be super funny if we had reached cycle highs and are at this price for years 😂.
But the laws of thermodynamics cannot be violated.
The price will end up rising, every day the world needs more Fiat, every day all Fiat currencies devalue more, every day all products go up in price, and that includes #Bitcoin.
I believe that the cycle will be fulfilled again, because people do not expect it 😂.
The maximum will be more shy of the forecasts that go around giving, I think around 100k/120k at most 140k and then down to 58k 😂.
Coinbase to delist USDT and other non-compliant stablecoins in EU.
Coinbase will remove stablecoins that don’t meet the EU’s new MiCA regulations by December 30, 2024.
In the European Union we only know how to regulate.
- If a meteorite falls, we regulate.
- A super volcano explodes, we regulate.
- When aliens invade us, we regulate.
Sincerely, we deserve to disappear from the map, we are a civilization in total decadence.
Remember, the state is not your friend, the state is not there to help you, the state is there to steal from you.
This is what is happening in the US after the hurricane.
by @BroSpencer
Just got off the phone a Pastor in the midst of the flooding in TN/NC. He is in one of the most devastated locations. He verified a few things about the situation:
- Almost all help is being done by private citizens, mainly churches.
- Private helicopters are flying in the vast majority of the supplies.
- Local Sheriffs are telling people to feel free to defend their property from looters by whatever means they have. 🔫
- WROL (Without Rule of Law) is happening in some areas, which means looting, robbing, and etc.
- FEMA's involvement has seriously complicated the rescue efforts.
- Local Sheriffs have threatened to arrest FEMA workers if they hinder rescue and aid work.
- The response to this tragedy has been massive and overwhelming. All from private individuals and local Churches.
Pray for these people!
Lightning Network ‘an obstacle for criminal investigations,’ says Europol
" Furthermore, layer 2
solutions such as the lightning network might also be abused by criminals. This
can be used, for example, to make payments to each other without making
times and amounts of these payments visible. Similarly, new wallet encryption
schemes may also complicate lawful access by law enforcement."
https://www.europol.europa.eu/cms/sites/default/files/documents/EU_Innovation_Hub_First%20Report%20on%20Encryption.pdf
Julian Assange has been vindicated after 14 years of inhumane treatment by US and UK. The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe has recognised him as a political prisoner whilst held in London.
https://m.primal.net/LJzd.jpg
It's as easy as using WhatsApp or Signal, but you don't use a phone number. You put a nickname and little else.
To add contacts you have to scan a qr and to enter groups you have a search engine.
Install it and experiment.
“We witness the efficacy of freedom and rejoice in the intricate beauty of complex voluntary exchanges.
intricate beauty of complex voluntary exchanges. We demand
the right of every ego to maximize its value without any limit except that of another ego.
of another ego. We proclaim the age of the unleashed market, the natural and proper
and proper conditions for humanity, wealth in abundance,
goals without end or limit, and the meaning of all: Agora.”
“We urge all those who would not hesitate to lock us up to explain the causes; in the absence of
explain to us the causes; in the absence of proof of our aggression, we break the shackles. We bring to justice all those who have ever assaulted us.
ever assaulted. We restore all those who have suffered
oppression to their rightful condition. And we destroy the greatest monster of all time
Monster of all times, the pseudo-legitimized monopoly of coercion of our minds and our society, the
coercion of our minds and our society, the protector of the aggressors and disarticulators.
the aggressors and disarticulator of justice. That is, we
crush the State: Anarchy.”
“We force our will to the personal limits restricted
only by a consistent morality. We revolt against the antiprinciples
that would undermine our will and we fight all those who physically defy us.
who physically challenge us. We do not rest or waste
resources until the State is crushed and humanity has reached its agorist home.
reached its agorist home. Burning with a tireless desire for
Justice for now and Freedom forever, we win:
Action!” ”Agora. Anarchy. action!”
Samuel Edward Konkin III, Oct. 12, 1980
Kraken delists Monero in Europe due to regulations.
Any thing that offers privacy will be banned in Europe, a few days ago it was Lightning in Germany, today it is the turn of Monero at the European level.
This is Europe gentlemen, a totalitarian state.
https://support.kraken.com/hc/en-us/articles/support-for-monero-xmr-in-europe
They can't ban them, and there are decentralized exchanges like bisq which currently has the highest volume of Monero.
But in short they are telling you that privacy is illegal, of course you don't have to comply with the law.
I reaffirm myself, Europe is a totalitarian state.
- Forced vaccination in many countries.
- Restriction of freedoms
- Restriction of freedom of expression
- Attempt after attempt to override encryption and undermine privacy.
- Abusive taxation
And so on and so forth.
Censorship and privacy are not the same thing, many possible attacks that voltage mentions have been solved, you show your ignorance and that you only know how to repeat what a third party says.
The reality is that you are not able to de-anonymize or even use a single lightning transmission and neither is chainalysis.
Julian Assange's full testimony to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) in Strasbourg today:
"Mr. Chairman, esteemed members of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, ladies and gentlemen.
The transition from years of confinement in a maximum-security prison to standing here before the representatives of 46 nations and 700 million people is a profound and surreal shift.
The experience of isolation for years in a small cell is difficult to convey; it strips away one's sense of self, leaving only the raw essence of existence.
I am not yet fully equipped to speak about what I have endured - the relentless struggle to stay alive, both physically and mentally, nor can i speak yet about the deaths by hanging, murder, and medical neglect of my fellow prisoners.
I apologise in advance if my words falter or if my presentation lacks the polish you might expect in such a distinguished forum.
Isolation has taken its toll, which I am trying to unwind, and expressing myself in this setting is a challenge.
However, the gravity of this occasion and the weight of the issues at hand compel me to set aside my reservations and speak to you directly.
I have traveled a long way, literally and figuratively, to be before you today.
Before our discussion or answering any questions you might have, I wish to thank PACE for its 2020 resolution (2317), [https://pace.coe.int/en/files/28508/html], which stated that my imprisonment set a dangerous precedent for journalists and noted that the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture called for my release.
I'm also grateful for PACE's 2021 statement [https://pace.coe.int/en/news/8446/pace-general-rapporteur-expresses-se] expressing concern over credible reports that US officials discussed my assassination, again calling for my prompt release.
And I commend the Legal Affairs and Human Rights Committee for commissioning a renowned rapporteur, Sunna Ævarsdóttir, to investigate the circumstances surrounding my detention and conviction and the consequent implications for human rights.
However, like so many of the efforts made in my case - whether they were from parliamentarians, presidents, prime ministers, the Pope, UN officials and diplomats, unions, legal and medical professionals, academics, activists, or citizens - none of them should have been necessary.
None of the statements, resolutions, reports, films, articles, events, fundraisers, protests, and letters over the last 14 years should have been necessary.
But all of them were necessary because without them I never would have seen the light of day.
This unprecedented global effort was needed because of the legal protections that did exist, many existed only on paper or were not effective in any remotely reasonable time frame.
I eventually chose freedom over unrealisable justice, after being detained for years and facing a 175 year sentence with no effective remedy. Justice for me is now precluded, as the US government insisted in writing into its plea agreement that I cannot file a case at the European Court of Human Rights or even a freedom of information act request over what it did to me as a result of its extradition request.
I want to be totally clear. I am not free today because the system worked. I am free today because after years of incarceration because I plead guilty to journalism. I plead guilty to seeking information from a source. I plead guilty to obtaining information from a source. And I plead guilty to informing the public what that information was. I did not plead guilty to anything else. I hope my testimony today can serve to highlight the weaknesses of the existing safeguards and to help those whose cases are less visible but who are equally vulnerable.
As I emerge from the dungeon of Belmarsh, the truth now seems less discernible, and I regret how much ground has been lost during that time period when expressing the truth has been undermined, attacked, weakened, and diminished.
I see more impunity, more secrecy, more retaliation for telling the truth and more self censorship. It is hard not to draw a line from the US government's prosecution of me - its crossing the rubicon by internationally criminalising journalism - to the chilled climate for freedom of expression now.
When I founded WikiLeaks, it was driven by a simple dream: to educate people about how the world works so that, through understanding, we might bring about something better.
Having a map of where we are lets us understand where we might go.
Knowledge empowers us to hold power to account and to demand justice where there is none.
We obtained and published truths about tens of thousands of hidden casualties of war and other unseen horrors, about programs of assassination, rendition, torture, and mass surveillance.
We revealed not just when and where these things happened but frequently the policies, the agreements, and structures behind them.
When we published Collateral Murder, the infamous gun camera footage of a US Apache helicopter crew eagerly blowing to pieces Iraqi journalists and their rescuers, the visual reality of modern warfare shocked the world.
But we also used interest in this video to direct people to the classified policies for when the US military could deploy lethal force in Iraq and how many civilians could be killed before gaining higher approval.
In fact, 40 years of my potential 175-year sentence was for obtaining and releasing these policies.
The practical political vision I was left with after being immersed in the world's dirty wars and secret operations is simple: Let us stop gagging, torturing, and killing each other for a change. Get these fundamentals right and other political, economic, and scientific processes will have space to take care of the rest.
WikiLeaks' work was deeply rooted in the principles that this Assembly stands for.
Journalism that elevated freedom of information and the public's right to know found its natural operational home in Europe.
I lived in Paris and we had formal corporate registrations in France and in Iceland. Our journalistic and technical staff were spread throughout Europe.
We published to the world from servers in based in France, Germany, and Norway.
But 14 years ago the United States military arrested one of our alleged whistleblowers, PFC Manning, a US intelligence analyst based in Iraq.
The US government concurrently launched an investigation against me and my colleagues.
The US government illicitly sent planes of agents to Iceland, paid bribes to an informer to steal our legal and journalistic work product, and without formal process pressured banks and financial services to block our subscriptions and freeze our accounts.
The UK government took part in some of this retribution. It admitted at the European Court of Human Rights that it had unlawfully spied on my UK lawyers during this time.
Ultimately this harassment was legally groundless. President Obama's Justice Department chose not to indict me, recognizing that no crime had been committed.
The United States had never before prosecuted a publisher for publishing or obtaining government information.
To do so would require a radical and ominous reinterpretation of the US Constitution.
In January 2017, Obama also commuted the sentence of Manning, who had been convicted of being one of my sources.
However, in February 2017, the landscape changed dramatically.
President Trump had been elected. He appointed two wolves in MAGA hats: Mike Pompeo, a Kansas congressman and former arms industry executive, as CIA Director, and William Barr, a former CIA officer, as US Attorney General.
By March 2017, WikiLeaks had exposed the CIA's infiltration of French political parties, its spying on French and German leaders, its spying on the European Central Bank, European economics ministries, and its standing orders to spy on French industry as a whole.
We revealed the CIA's vast production of malware and viruses, its subversion of supply chains, its subversion of antivirus software, cars, smart TVs and iPhones.
CIA Director Pompeo launched a campaign of retribution.
It is now a matter of public record that under Pompeo's explicit direction, the CIA drew up plans to kidnap and to assassinate me within the Ecuadorian Embassy in London and authorized going after my European colleagues, subjecting us to theft, hacking attacks, and the planting of false information.
My wife and my infant son were also targeted. A CIA asset was permanently assigned to track my wife and instructions were given to obtain DNA from my six month old son's nappy.
This is the testimony of more than 30 current and former US intelligence officials speaking to the US press, which has been additionally corroborated by records seized in a prosecution brought against some of the CIA agents involved.
The CIA's targeting of myself, my family and my associates through aggressive extrajudicial and extraterritorial means provides a rare insight into how powerful intelligence organisations engage in transnational repression. Such repressions are not unique. What is unique is that we know so much about this one due to numerous whistleblowers and to judicial investigations in Spain.
This Assembly is no stranger to extraterritorial abuses by the CIA.
PACE's groundbreaking report on CIA renditions in Europe exposed how the CIA operated secret detention centres and conducted unlawful renditions on European soil, violating human rights and international law.
In February this year, the alleged source of some of our CIA revelations, former CIA officer Joshua Schulte, was sentenced to forty years in prison under conditions of extreme isolation.
His windows are blacked out, and a white noise machine plays 24 hours a day over his door so that he cannot even shout through it.
These conditions are more severe than those found in Guantanamo Bay.
Transnational repression is also conducted by abusing legal processes.
The lack of effective safeguards against this means that Europe is vulnerable to having its mutual legal assistance and extradition treaties hijacked by foreign powers to go after dissenting voices in Europe.
In Mike Pompeo's memoirs, which I read in my prison cell, the former CIA Director bragged about how he pressured the US Attorney General to bring an extradition case against me in response to our publications about the CIA.
Indeed, acceding to Pompeo's efforts, the US Attorney General reopened the investigation against me that Obama had closed and re-arrested Manning, this time as a witness.
Manning was held in prison for over a year and fined a thousand dollars a day in a formal attempt to coerce her into providing secret testimony against me.
She ended up attempting to take her own life.
We usually think of attempts to force journalists to testify against their sources.
But Manning was now a source being forced to testify against their journalist.
By December 2017, CIA Director Pompeo had got his way, and the US government issued a warrant to the UK for my extradition.
The UK government kept the warrant secret from the public for two more years, while it, the US government, and the new president of Ecuador moved to shape the political, legal, and diplomatic ground for my arrest.
When powerful nations feel entitled to target individuals beyond their borders, those individuals do not stand a chance unless there are strong safeguards in place and a state willing to enforce them. Without them no individual has a hope of defending themselves against the vast resources that a state aggressor can deploy.
If the situation were not already bad enough in my case, the US government asserted a dangerous new global legal position. Only US citizens have free speech rights. Europeans and other nationalities do not have free speech rights. But the US claims its Espionage Act still applies to them regardless of where they are. So Europeans in Europe must obey US secrecy law with no defences at all as far as the US government is concerned. An American in Paris can talk about what the US government is up to - perhaps. But for a Frenchman in Paris, to do so is a crime without any defence and he may be extradited just like me.
Now that one foreign government has formally asserted that Europeans have no free speech rights, a dangerous precedent has been set.
Other powerful states will inevitably follow suit.
The war in Ukraine has already seen the criminalisation of journalists in Russia, but based on the precedent set in my extradition, there is nothing to stop Russia, or indeed any other state, from targeting European journalists, publishers, or even social media users, by claiming that their secrecy laws have been violated.
The rights of journalists and publishers within the European space are seriously threatened.
Transnational repression cannot become the norm here.
As one of the world's two great norm-setting institutions, PACE must act.
The criminalisation of newsgathering activities is a threat to investigative journalism everywhere.
I was formally convicted, by a foreign power, for asking for, receiving, and publishing truthful information about that power while I was in Europe.
The fundamental issue is simple: Journalists should not be prosecuted for doing their jobs.
Journalism is not a crime; it is a pillar of a free and informed society.
Mr Chairman, distinguished delegates, if Europe is to have a future where the freedom to speak and the freedom to publish the truth are not privileges enjoyed by a few but rights guaranteed to all then it must act so that what has happened in my case never happens to anyone else.
I wish to express my deepest gratitude to this assembly, to the conservatives, social democrats, liberals, leftists, greens, and independents - who have supported me throughout this ordeal and to the countless individuals who have advocated tirelessly for my release.
It is heartening to know that in a world often divided by ideology and interests, there remains a shared commitment to the protection of essential human liberties.
Freedom of expression and all that flows from it is at a dark crossroad. I fear that unless norm setting institutions like PACE wake up to the gravity of the situation it will be too late.
Let us all commit to doing our part to ensure that the light of freedom never dims, that the pursuit of truth will live on, and that the voices of the many are not silenced by the interests of the few."
The warmonger Stalin was an angel compared to the warmongering of some Nostr users.
Wishing wars from behind your home keyboard while drinking some kind of sugary drink is very brave he?
I totally disagree with you, in a war the attacks are never selective, after seeing the slaughter that Israel has executed in Gaza I don't know how you can support that genocidal regime.
How bad are the Russians, how bad are the Ukrainians, how bad are the Israelis, how bad are the Palestinians, how bad are the Lebanese or how bad are the Iranians.
And you don't even realize that it's a struggle of states, that you don't give a shit.
There are good and bad people, but all states are bad.
If you are retarded you will simply applaud the side that says so on TV and say that everything that does not agree with you is propaganda.
If you are moderately intelligent you will support the side that benefits you economically, if you are intelligent you will not support anyone and will take actions that benefit you and your family.
As a European, the ukrainian war is benefiting you and your family? Energy prices skyrocketing, taxes going up because you have to finance the war, not to mention a possible escalation of the war.
It's all Russian propaganda of course, Putin pay me, first warning.
“that's propaganda” this is the answer you give if I post an article you don't like.
I have my own criteria, if you don't like what I post don't follow me, neither you are going to convince me nor I am going to convince you.
We are adults, in today's world everything is propaganda, nobody who is a public figure writes something without interest, only a crazy like me who does not need to be maintained by anyone, nor owes anything to anyone can write without interest, and I do not write, just to give my opinion, to put shitty memes and interesting information for you to think a little.
I am old enough to discern truth from lies and have my own criteria, do not come to me with paternalistic comments.
There are things that really piss me off.
A second front in the new world war has just been opened
Aleksandr Dugin
A brutal war has begun to break out in the Middle East. After Israel's terrorist attack by using household appliances to mass murder Lebanese, a bombardment has been unleashed on the whole of South Lebanon. Israel has explicitly decided, after having been the victim of an attack, to launch a genocide on Gaza which is now being transferred to Lebanon. This attack means that other Shiite countries and movements such as Syria, Iraq, the Yemeni Zaidies and, most importantly, Iran (and perhaps at a later stage the Sunni countries) will join the fray. It is clear that Israel needs a war: a large-scale, ruthless, brutal one with biblical overtones it seems. This confrontation has no chance of becoming a one-off. The escalation of the conflict is predictable and the use of nuclear weapons, which Israel possesses and Iran apparently possesses, is not excluded. Of course, we are only talking about tactical nuclear weapons or “dirty” bombs, which in the context of humanity as such are not so deadly, but will affect the fate of the region catastrophically. The Lebanon war has several explanations, but we will focus on two:
First: the purpose and eschatological ideas driving Israel. It is important to understand the goals of the Jewish state. Of course, one could see Netanyahu's extreme radicalism as the result of psychological trauma after Hamas attacked Israel and took several hostages. It was a terrorist act, but Israel found nothing better to do than to respond to terror with widespread terror: a small terrorist act is met with gigantic terror, with no quarter, destroying everything and sparing no one. No one justifies the actions of Hamas, but what happened afterwards was genocide. Everyone condemned the Hamas attack and now everyone condemns Israel's genocide against the people of Gaza, except the collective West and its satellites. Double standards. The same will happen in Lebanon. The West is backing Israel as it did Zelensky's Nazi junta. And there is no reason to expect a change in this position (especially since Trump, while clearly despising Zelensky, is a staunch supporter of Israel).
But what does Netanyahu really want? The mental stress he is suffering does nothing to explain the real objectives of this war, which is only escalating. The fact is that Israel's situation on the eve of the Gaza war was generally stable. The main threat was demographics, since Israeli society is only a small ethno-religious island in the middle of an Arab sea; and it remains so even with the high birth rate not only of Orthodox Jews (haredim), but also of secular families. Even so, this number remains incomparably small compared to the Palestinians of the two bands and the population of the neighboring Arab countries, related to the Palestinians both ethnically and confessionally. In such a situation, it is not possible to strengthen Israel's position in the region, much less to colonize Palestinian lands with Israeli settlers. If this status quo were to be maintained, the State of Israel, as a State of the Jews, would be doomed to disappear after a certain period of time, even by virtue of demographics. All the more unthinkable is the realization of the right-wing Zionist project of Greater Israel from sea to sea. There is simply not enough population to colonize or develop these territories in the face of such a dense Arab mass surrounding them. In Gaza, we see the true objective of their attack: the physical genocide of Palestinians with forced displacement to drive those who survive out of Israel. As grisly as it sounds, this makes sense for Israel, being unable to abruptly change its own demographics it is still capable of destroying the Palestinian population, hampering their existence and the ethnic codes of its own eschatology.
However, all of the above would be hasty and unrealistic if it were not for the expectation that something extraordinary will happen and that this something will change the destiny of the world. This extraordinary event is not a “black swan”, but a real event: the coming of Mashiach. According to Jewish beliefs, before the coming of Mashiach (although, according to other versions, after his arrival, which explains the existence of anti-Zionist currents among Orthodox Jews), the Jews must return en masse to the Promised Land from all parts, proclaiming Jerusalem as their capital, and then demolish the Al-Aqsa Mosque (the second most important shrine of Islam) to build in its place the Third Temple. Then the Messiah will come and all the nations of the world will worship him, for his authority will be absolute. This will be the time when the Jewish world empire will be established and the Jews, as the chosen ones, will rule all nations with a rod of iron. This is more or less the program openly advocated by the religious Zionists of Netanyahu's inner circle: Itamar Ben-Gvir, Bezalel Smotrich and their spiritual leaders Rav Kook, Meyer Kahane and Rabbi Dov Lior. Palestinian genocide according to this interpretation is a minor side effect due to the fundamental nature of the coming event. These are precisely those who support Netanyahu. The construction of Greater Israel and the eschatological wars they have unleashed make sense as a preparation for the coming of Mashiach. And it is no accident that Hamas has dubbed its terrorist incursion the “Al-Aqsa Flood.” It should also be noted that it is among the Shiites that this scenario of the demolition of the Al-Aqsa mosque and the beginning of the final war with the forces of the Dajjal (Antichrist) in the Holy Land appears clearly defined by several eschatological hadiths. In other words, Armageddon, in its truest sense, is breaking out in the Middle East: the End Times war. This is how Netanyahu and his entourage see it, but also, from a different perspective, religious Shiites. Of course, secular Israelis, who believe only in shekels and individual comfort, are quick to launch demonstrations against their own government. And secular Shiite circles - especially businessmen and young people - know absolutely nothing about eschatological hadith. But history is not run by them, as we can see, but by people with a greater awareness of the end of the world and the events they have unleashed.
The second explanation for the war in the Middle East is geopolitical in nature. The main dilemma of our time is the following: the unipolar world, i.e. the single hegemony of the West, is doing its best not to end and is setting the world on fire. Meanwhile, the multipolar world is raising its voice loudly and each of the civilizations existing in the world is insisting on strengthening its sovereignty and thus claiming its independence from the collective West, which inevitably leads to a struggle against hegemony. The first front of this war is Ukraine, where the Nazi regime in Kiev, established, equipped and supported by the collective West, is at war against us, Russia as a sovereign Orthodox-Eurasian civilization, one of the most important poles of the multipolar world and flagship of the anti-hegemonic struggle. The West is waging this war using foreign troops, but is preparing to attack Russia directly. In this context, the Middle East is yet another theater of the same war of the unipolar world against the multipolar world.
While in the eyes of Netanyahu and Zionists who believe in eschatology (Israel and the destiny of the Jewish people is inextricably linked to the coming of the Messiah as the center of the world) for Western globalists Israel is nothing more than a tool in their struggle to maintain their global hegemony. The Islamic world, which rejects liberal values, is seen as an antagonistic civilization. The collective West is gradually being drawn into a war against it. At the same time, the Shiites are the ideological vanguard of Islamic civilization, so the West's attacks fall mainly on them. The West hopes to use Israel to strike at one of the poles - the Islamic world - of the multipolar world. That is why Washington is now strengthening its alliances with its Sunni vassals, mainly the UAE. Washington does not believe in the Mashiach (but who knows?), however, opening a war front against the Islamic civilization, using militant Zionism and the Greater Israel project, is a perfect target for the globalists.
Next will come Taiwan and the outbreak of another conflict with one of the poles of the multipolar world: China. Again, the collective West will rely on regional vassals - Taiwan itself, Japan, South Korea - and try to push India into this conflict. Although India is another pole in the multipolar world, this whole move could precipitate a radicalization of decolonization and growing anti-Westernism in New Delhi, implying greater sovereignty for this country. The West carried out a color revolution against the pro-Indian government of Bangladesh led by Sheikh Hasina. Obviously, other war fronts are also being prepared in Africa and Latin America, as well as in various regions of the Islamic world. All these scenarios will decide the fate of the coming world order: either the West will retain its hegemony or the multipolar world will become a reality and the West will become one of several civilizations entitled to vote, but deprived of its status as hegemon and even world leader. But for the moment we are in the second phase: on the threshold of a major war in the Middle East.
Before figuring out how we should deal with this second front of the great changes taking place in world geopolitics, it is necessary to clearly understand the objectives of the global participants in this conflict and not to have unnecessary illusions about the rational and mystical-religious motives of the main forces at play. Today we need geopolitical realism that calmly and moderately takes into account all the fundamental factors of the complex situation in which Russia and all of humanity find themselves. Emotions must be set aside in favor of a cool-headed assessment of what is happening, including those dimensions that we were not used to taking into account during the Soviet and liberal era. In the past, everything was explained by ideology, economics, energy and the struggle for resources. All this is still present today, but it is certainly not the main problem. Eschatological, civilizational and planetary-geopolitical considerations carry much more weight. For too long we have studied matter and neglected the world of ideas. Yet it is ideas that move the world.
https://www.geopolitika.ru/es/article/un-segundo-frente-de-la-nueva-guerra-mundial-acaba-de-ser-abierto
In today's world, everyone is a propagandist...
And I can agree more with some than with others, in this case I agree with the Dugin analysis, I have my own criteria....
WTF Happened In Feb 2023?
Scams and spam on Bitcoin pose multifaceted threats to the integrity and efficiency of the network. This particular wave of spam started from a bug exploit in Feb 2023. Such abuse not only disrupts the network's primary function as a peer-to-peer electronic cash system but also compromises its long-term viability and value proposition.
While spam may attempt to evade through technical manoeuvres, proactive measures, such as updating default filters, remain crucial to mitigating its impact and preserving Bitcoin's sound monetary properties. To find out more and what we can do about it, read more below.
https://wtfhappenedinfeb2023.com/
Good morning. War in the Middle East has, quite rightly, pushed markets and finance off the FT’s homepage and most-read rankings. But the world of money keeps on turning. Email and tell us what is going on while the world’s attention is elsewhere: robert.armstrong@ft.com and aiden.reiter@ft.com.
Your regular liquidity update
Unhedged looks at liquidity conditions every couple of months, because we are convinced — at least in the abstract — by what we can loosely call the liquidity theory of markets: that when there is an increasing amount of cash around, investors try to get rid of the stuff, an attempt that pushes asset prices up. Similarly when the cash tide rolls out, asset prices will tend to fall. This stands in contrast to the fundamental theory of markets, where asset prices fluctuate around a stable mean set by the present value of their future cash flows.
The problem is that liquidity is not at all easy to track. The amount of cash in the system is hard to quantify, and showing how and when it affects prices is tricky.
With that somewhat uneasy introduction, let’s have a look at current conditions. Back in June, we looked at the popular federal liquidity proxy, which consists of:
The Fed’s balance sheet, or the Treasuries and agency securities it has bought out of the market, replacing them with cash
Plus the bank term funding program, a Fed cash facility for banks
Minus the Fed’s reverse repo balances, which the Fed uses to control it’s policy rate by pulling cash out of the system overnight
Minus the Treasury’s general account, which represents taxes collected but not yet distributed — that is, cash pulled out of the system
Charts of the proxy alongside the S&P 500 were very popular in 2021 and 2022, when the two moved together. But they have stopped doing so, and the divergence has only grown since we wrote in June. Federal liquidity is falling outright and the market continue to rise:
https://m.primal.net/LGNO.png
The pure theory of federal liquidity, aka “printer go Brr,” (or is it “Brrr”? We need a style ruling on this) is looking worse all the time.
Several readers have argued that the liquidity proxy ought to include something else: Treasuries and agency securities held on bank balance sheets. The idea is that while government bond issuance has no net effect on liquidity (government has more cash; private sector has less), when the bond is owned by a bank, it is matched by a deposit on the liability side of the bank’s balance sheet — and the amount of money in the financial system is increased. For example: the government writes me a stimulus cheque for $1,000. I deposit the money in a bank, and the bank uses the deposit to buy a Treasury. There are now more deposits (money) in the system. If I’d just received the check and bought the Treasury directly, there would be no impact on liquidity.
The level of government bonds on bank balance sheets has been rising this year, from about $4tn to about $4.4tn. But adding this to the Federal liquidity proxy is not enough to make it correlate — even roughly — with the sharp rise in the stock market over the past year:
https://m.primal.net/LGNP.png
Perhaps we need a different, and preferably wider, measure of liquidity. Readers have urged me to simply look at US bank reserves held at the Fed as a measure of extra cash sloshing around the system. But those have been drifting down this year too, in the opposite direction as the market:
https://m.primal.net/LGNR.png
So let’s go simpler still, and just look at the money supply. Here is M2:
https://m.primal.net/LGNS.png
At least M2 is rising. But only very gently. Can that really explain the strength of this rally?
Given the refusal of the US big-cap stock index — the biggest, deepest reservoir of risk assets in the world — to line up neatly with all these measures of liquidity, can the liquidity theory of asset prices be salvaged? Here are some options:
We could argue that liquidity operates on assets with (to use a neat phrase I just came up with myself) long and variable lags. What matters, in other words, is the huge increase in the total level of liquidity from 2020 to 2022 (and even in the years following the great financial crisis), rather than the changes in liquidity over shorter periods. That massive level continues to echo through markets in an uneven way. I find this idea quite appealing, though it has a downside. It deprives the liquidity theory of its predictive power. It says “there was a huge burst of money, and that will keep asset prices high for some unknown period of time.” Probably true, not very useful.
We could argue that prices are anticipating an increase in liquidity that will be driven by Fed rate cuts. As rates fall, that should all else equal increase credit creation (indeed total bank credit has been rising gently since early this year). And credit creation is money creation. We’ll have to see if this plays out; if there is a recession, it won’t.
We would argue that the most important form of liquidity creation is government deficit spending, which is and has been very high and overwhelms every other measure. I also find this view appealing, but if this is right, why not just dispense with all the liquidity talk and say, contentedly, “so long as deficits stay high corporate profits will stay high and the market will rise”?
One can build a still more comprehensive, more global account of liquidity. This is what, for example, Michael Howell at CrossBorder capital does. He thinks that while central banks are withdrawing liquidity (not only in the US, but also in Japan, Europe and the UK; China is the exception), there are several offsetting factors. For example: as rates fall, sovereign bond values rise, meaning financial market players can borrow more against them, adding to liquidity. Reinforcing this effect is the fact that bond volatility has been falling (somewhat unevenly) since early August. When bond volatility is low, borrowers need fewer bonds as collateral for loans.
We could argue that the effect of liquidity is damped right now because there is low velocity of money in the financial system. That is, there is a lot of cash around, but it is just sitting there in money market funds earning a decent yield, rather than chasing risk assets. This theory would imply that as rates and cash yields fall, the liquidity effect on asset prices will reassert itself. But unless you have a good measure of velocity of money within the financial system specifically (as opposed to velocity of money in the economy in general, for which there are standard measures) then this is just hand-waving at something that sounds like “animal spirits” or “greed.” And if sentiment is the decisive factor, we should just talk about sentiment.
Which of these approaches do readers prefer? Are there others? Or should we abandon the liquidity theory altogether?
nostr:note134p7830kq0p3hl0ewzs6ewehp0ggt34kgy3c8qd9dfcel2ds4ufqmvs8dq
This is a fork of the official Boltz Web App served at boltz.exchange, which allows non-custodial swaps between different layers of Bitcoin. It adds the ability to list backend APIs in addition to Boltz's, so that a user can get a better deal.
Any node can now run boltz-backend and compete with Boltz at SwapMarket.
In addition to potentially lower costs, executing Bitcoin swaps via SwapMarket reduces centralization in this domain and helps avert regulatory pressure on Boltz.
https://swapmarket.github.io
Yes, although I am not a traditional believer, I do not believe in god as the leader they sell us, I do not believe in religious institutions either, I would say that I do not believe in god either, and if there is a god it is something much more transcendental, something like the creator of the universe, in my case I simply believe in God as I respect my ancestors and my culture.
And isn't god a leader?
Yes, although I am not a traditional believer, I do not believe in god as the leader they sell us, neither do I believe in religious institutions, I would say that I do not believe in god either, and if there is a god it is something much more transcendental, something like the creator of the universe, in my case I simply believe in god as respect for my ancestors and my culture.
Traditional communism and modern statism try to make people not believe in anything, religion and culture are the fabric that binds us as human beings in the same values and objectives.
Men and women without goals and beliefs are the perfect fuel on which modern statism feeds.
So if the state tells me that I don't have to believe in god, I will do it with more strength, I believe in god, god dictates my destiny, god is almighty and omnipresent, even if that god is my conscience, it makes no difference, because I believe either in myself or in god.
nostr:note15dln2wq94ma5xprnlwfzwxt6udpjp5hmkl5wkd3kl39jxrevttrs9yk8pl
#Agorism is the solution.
Before bitcoin we had a space vendivility problem with money. To have good spatial marketability we had to use government regulated and controlled bank accounts. Physical money is only good for small local markets, but now we have a digital currency that is uncensorable and unconfiscable with which to transact internationally.
We have to create parallel markets to the state in which it cannot interfere and generate wealth.
The environment affected by a nuclear power plant can be seen in a photo, to show the environment affected by a field of wind generators would require thousands of photos.
All right, environmentalists, most of you have never set foot in the mountains in your life and do not realize the damage you are doing.
https://m.primal.net/LDeX.pngnostr:note169d0hel5wwltrnlxxr2ypfgxc2054fjf8eprtksrrvf88jxtsv4qfv9gvu
Stop subsidizing the production of wind and solar energy.
It is as easy as not to get their dirty hands in the energy sector, although unfortunately the energy sector worldwide is an oligopoly in the shadow of the states.
The environment affected by a nuclear power plant can be seen in a photo, to show the environment affected by a field of wind generators would require thousands of photos.
All right, environmentalists, most of you have never set foot in the mountains in your life and do not realize the damage you are doing.
https://m.primal.net/LDeX.pngnostr:note169d0hel5wwltrnlxxr2ypfgxc2054fjf8eprtksrrvf88jxtsv4qfv9gvu
Los políticos de la nueva era solo saben llamar fascista a quien no comulga con ellos, han prostituido la palabra, ahora carece de significado, al igual que otros términos como racista, homófobo, machista, antisemita, nazi, etc. que usan para desacreditar la contrario.
Protegeros de estos parásitos con #Bitcoin, que no puedan financiarse creando dinero de la nada, que no puedan confiscarte tu riqueza y en la medida de lo posible intenta evitar pagar impuestos.
https://m.primal.net/LDdB.mp4
Oddbean new post about login | logout
Notes by Cyph3rp9nk | export
Good morning. War in the Middle East has, quite rightly, pushed markets and finance off the FT’s homepage and most-read rankings. But the world of money keeps on turning. Email and tell us what is going on while the world’s attention is elsewhere: robert.armstrong@ft.com and aiden.reiter@ft.com. Your regular liquidity update Unhedged looks at liquidity conditions every couple of months, because we are convinced — at least in the abstract — by what we can loosely call the liquidity theory of markets: that when there is an increasing amount of cash around, investors try to get rid of the stuff, an attempt that pushes asset prices up. Similarly when the cash tide rolls out, asset prices will tend to fall. This stands in contrast to the fundamental theory of markets, where asset prices fluctuate around a stable mean set by the present value of their future cash flows. The problem is that liquidity is not at all easy to track. The amount of cash in the system is hard to quantify, and showing how and when it affects prices is tricky. With that somewhat uneasy introduction, let’s have a look at current conditions. Back in June, we looked at the popular federal liquidity proxy, which consists of: The Fed’s balance sheet, or the Treasuries and agency securities it has bought out of the market, replacing them with cash Plus the bank term funding program, a Fed cash facility for banks Minus the Fed’s reverse repo balances, which the Fed uses to control it’s policy rate by pulling cash out of the system overnight Minus the Treasury’s general account, which represents taxes collected but not yet distributed — that is, cash pulled out of the system Charts of the proxy alongside the S&P 500 were very popular in 2021 and 2022, when the two moved together. But they have stopped doing so, and the divergence has only grown since we wrote in June. Federal liquidity is falling outright and the market continue to rise: https://m.primal.net/LGNO.png The pure theory of federal liquidity, aka “printer go Brr,” (or is it “Brrr”? We need a style ruling on this) is looking worse all the time. Several readers have argued that the liquidity proxy ought to include something else: Treasuries and agency securities held on bank balance sheets. The idea is that while government bond issuance has no net effect on liquidity (government has more cash; private sector has less), when the bond is owned by a bank, it is matched by a deposit on the liability side of the bank’s balance sheet — and the amount of money in the financial system is increased. For example: the government writes me a stimulus cheque for $1,000. I deposit the money in a bank, and the bank uses the deposit to buy a Treasury. There are now more deposits (money) in the system. If I’d just received the check and bought the Treasury directly, there would be no impact on liquidity. The level of government bonds on bank balance sheets has been rising this year, from about $4tn to about $4.4tn. But adding this to the Federal liquidity proxy is not enough to make it correlate — even roughly — with the sharp rise in the stock market over the past year: https://m.primal.net/LGNP.png Perhaps we need a different, and preferably wider, measure of liquidity. Readers have urged me to simply look at US bank reserves held at the Fed as a measure of extra cash sloshing around the system. But those have been drifting down this year too, in the opposite direction as the market: https://m.primal.net/LGNR.png So let’s go simpler still, and just look at the money supply. Here is M2: https://m.primal.net/LGNS.png At least M2 is rising. But only very gently. Can that really explain the strength of this rally? Given the refusal of the US big-cap stock index — the biggest, deepest reservoir of risk assets in the world — to line up neatly with all these measures of liquidity, can the liquidity theory of asset prices be salvaged? Here are some options: We could argue that liquidity operates on assets with (to use a neat phrase I just came up with myself) long and variable lags. What matters, in other words, is the huge increase in the total level of liquidity from 2020 to 2022 (and even in the years following the great financial crisis), rather than the changes in liquidity over shorter periods. That massive level continues to echo through markets in an uneven way. I find this idea quite appealing, though it has a downside. It deprives the liquidity theory of its predictive power. It says “there was a huge burst of money, and that will keep asset prices high for some unknown period of time.” Probably true, not very useful. We could argue that prices are anticipating an increase in liquidity that will be driven by Fed rate cuts. As rates fall, that should all else equal increase credit creation (indeed total bank credit has been rising gently since early this year). And credit creation is money creation. We’ll have to see if this plays out; if there is a recession, it won’t. We would argue that the most important form of liquidity creation is government deficit spending, which is and has been very high and overwhelms every other measure. I also find this view appealing, but if this is right, why not just dispense with all the liquidity talk and say, contentedly, “so long as deficits stay high corporate profits will stay high and the market will rise”? One can build a still more comprehensive, more global account of liquidity. This is what, for example, Michael Howell at CrossBorder capital does. He thinks that while central banks are withdrawing liquidity (not only in the US, but also in Japan, Europe and the UK; China is the exception), there are several offsetting factors. For example: as rates fall, sovereign bond values rise, meaning financial market players can borrow more against them, adding to liquidity. Reinforcing this effect is the fact that bond volatility has been falling (somewhat unevenly) since early August. When bond volatility is low, borrowers need fewer bonds as collateral for loans. We could argue that the effect of liquidity is damped right now because there is low velocity of money in the financial system. That is, there is a lot of cash around, but it is just sitting there in money market funds earning a decent yield, rather than chasing risk assets. This theory would imply that as rates and cash yields fall, the liquidity effect on asset prices will reassert itself. But unless you have a good measure of velocity of money within the financial system specifically (as opposed to velocity of money in the economy in general, for which there are standard measures) then this is just hand-waving at something that sounds like “animal spirits” or “greed.” And if sentiment is the decisive factor, we should just talk about sentiment. Which of these approaches do readers prefer? Are there others? Or should we abandon the liquidity theory altogether? nostr:note134p7830kq0p3hl0ewzs6ewehp0ggt34kgy3c8qd9dfcel2ds4ufqmvs8dq