NEM: New Economy Movement - Bitcoinist.com

The New Economy Movement & The Smart Asset Blockchain /r/Bitcoin

The New Economy Movement & The Smart Asset Blockchain /Bitcoin submitted by ABitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

The New Economy Movement & The Smart Asset Blockchain /r/Bitcoin

The New Economy Movement & The Smart Asset Blockchain /Bitcoin submitted by cryptoanalyticabot to cryptoall [link] [comments]

Bay Area - New Economy Movement (NEM) Bitcoin 3.0 (Sausalito, CA)

Bay Area - New Economy Movement (NEM) Bitcoin 3.0 (Sausalito, CA) submitted by ShawnLeary to OurNEM [link] [comments]

I bought $1k of the Top Ten Cryptos on January 1st, 2018. Result? -74%

I bought $1k of the Top Ten Cryptos on January 1st, 2018. Result? -74%

EXPERIMENT - Tracking Top 10 Cryptos of 2018 - Month 31 -74%
See the full blog post with all the tables here.
tl;dr: purchased $100 of Top Ten Cryptos in Jan. 2018, haven't sold or traded, repeated in 2019 and 2020, update y'all monthly. July was very strong for crypto. For 2018 Top Ten: ADA finished the month on top. ETH and XRP also very strong. Overall, BTC still waaaay in the lead and is approaching break even point. Three cryptos (IOTA,NEM, DASH) have lost over 90% of value. Over three years, cryptos outperforming S&P if I'd taken a similar approach.

Month Thirty One – Down 74%

Summary after 31 months
Crypto came roaring back in July after an almost all-red June. Each crypto in the 2018 Top Ten finished July at a significantly higher value, led by ADA which ended the month +57%.

Question of the month:

Which member of all three Top Ten Crypto Index Fund Experiments turned 5 years old in July?

A) Bitcoin B) Ethereum C) Bitcoin Cash D) XRP
Scroll down for the answer.

Ranking and July Winners and Losers

Not a ton of movement for the 2018 Top Ten group this month. Cardano and XRP both climbed one position while NEM gained two, clawing itself back into the Top Thirty. Dash headed in the other direction, dropping two places in the rankings.
Considering all that has changed in the world of crypto since the beginning of 2018, it’s interesting to note that only four out of the ten cryptos that started 2018 in the Top Ten have dropped out. NEM, Dash, IOTA, and Stellar have been replaced by Binance Coin, Tether, BSV, and newcomer CRO.
July Winners – It was a very strong month: all cryptos made significant gains in July. But for the third month in a row ADA outperformed the field, gaining +57% in July. ETH finished a close second, up +55% followed by XRP which gained +52%.
July Losers – Even during a good month, NEM can’t catch a break. Its +23% gain made it the worst performer of the 2018 Top Ten.
How has your favorite crypto fared over the first 31 months of the 2018 Top Ten Crypto Index Fund Experiment?
Bitcoin still has the most monthly wins (7) but look at this: thanks to its strong 2020 including three straight monthly wins, Cardano is now right behind BTC with 6 monthly wins. Which project has the most monthly losses? NEM stands alone with 6. Every crypto has at least one monthly win and Bitcoin is unique as the only cryptocurrency that hasn’t lost a month. It came close this month, gaining “only” +26%.

Overall update – BTC approaching break even point, second place ETH in the lonely middle, NEM still worst performing.

Although it wasn’t able to keep pace with its peers in July, BTC continues to slowly but surely approach its break even point. It is down about $1,500 (-12%) since my purchase in January 2018. My initial investment of $100 thirty-one months ago is now worth about $88.
Even though Ethereum has lost half of its value since the experiment began, it is all alone in second place: no other crypto is close.
NEM seems comfortable in its usual place, down at the bottom. It has lost -94% over the life of the experiment. That initial $100 investment in NEM is now worth $5.78. Dash and IOTA join NEM as the only three cryptos in the Top Ten that have lost at least -90% of their value since January 2018.

Total Market Cap for the entire cryptocurrency sector:


Total market cap since Jan 2018
The crypto market added about $82B in July, making up a ton of ground. The last time we saw a similar level in terms of overall crypto market cap was way back in the fifth month of the 2018 Top Ten Experiment: May 2018.

Bitcoin dominance:

Le Bitdom since January 2018
Since Bitcoin receives much of the attention in the press, it may surprise the casual observer to learn that Bitcoin Dominance dropped quite a bit in July, especially considering BitDom had been stuck at roughly the same level for most of 2020. This signals an interest in altcoins and a willingness to buy into riskier cryptos.
Some context: since the beginning of the experiment, the range of Bitcoin dominance has been quite wide: we saw a high of 70% BitDom in September 2019 and a low of 33% BitDom in February 2018.

Overall return on investment since January 1st, 2018:

The 2018 Top Ten Portfolio gained over $70 in July 2020. If I cashed out today, my $1000 initial investment would return about $260, down -74% from January 2018.
This sounds horrible but don’t hang yourself with a celibate rope: the 2018 return on investment is back where it was about a year ago. Take a look at the ROI over the life of the experiment, month by month, for some context:
Yes, you may notice that the 2018 Top Ten portfolio has finished over half of the first thirty one months down at least -80%, but it’s nice to see the low -70s for a change.
So the Top Ten Cryptos of 2018 are down -74%. What about the 2019 and 2020 Top Tens? Let’s take a look:
So overall? Taking the three portfolios together, here’s the bottom bottom bottom line:
After a $3000 investment in the 2018, 2019, and 2020 Top Ten Cryptocurrencies, my combined portfolios are worth $3,6965 ($260+ $1,722 +$1,713).
That’s up about +23% for the three combined portfolios, compared to -10% last month. It also marks the highest ROI of the three combined portfolios since I added this metric this year. The previous high was +13% back in January 2020.
Having trouble visualizing? Don’t worry, I got what you need:
Combined ROI
So, a +23% gain by dropping $1k on whichever cryptos were in the Top Ten on January 1st for three straight years, fine. But what if I’d done the same with just one crypto? Bitcoin always wins, right? Thanks to Reddit user u/sebikun for the idea for a new metric and let’s take a look:
3-year club ROI
As you can see, only five cryptos have remained in the Top Ten for all three years: BTC, ETH, XRP, BCH, and LTC. Best one to have gone all in on at this point in the Experiment? Ethereum, which would have nearly doubled. Worst choice? If I went with XRP, I would have been down -23%.

Comparison to S&P 500:

I’m also tracking the S&P 500 as part of the experiment to have a comparison point with other popular investments options. The US economy continued to recover in July: the S&P 500 is back up to pre-COVID levels. The initial $1k investment into crypto on January 1st, 2018 would have been worth about $220 had it been redirected to the S&P.
But what if I took the same invest-$1,000-on-January-1st-of-each-year approach with the S&P 500 that I’ve been documenting through the Top Ten Crypto Experiments? Here are the numbers:
  • $1000 investment in S&P 500 on January 1st, 2018: +$220
  • $1000 investment in S&P 500 on January 1st, 2019: +$310
  • $1000 investment in S&P 500 on January 1st, 2020: +$10
Taken together, here’s the bottom bottom bottom line for a similar approach with the S&P:
After three $1,000 investments into an S&P 500 index fund in January 2018, 2019, and 2020, my portfolio would be worth $3,540.
That is up over+18% since January 2018, compared to a +23% gain of the combined Top Ten Crypto Experiment Portfolios.
That’s a 5% swing in favor of the Top Ten Crypto Portfolios! As you’ll see in the table below, this is the first time since I started recording this metric that crypto has outperformed the S&P had I taken a similar investment approach. This is a big turnaround from the 22% difference in favor of the S&P just last month.

3 x $1k crypto vs. S&P

Implications/Observations:

The 2018 Top Ten Cryptos have consistently under-performed when compared to the overall crypto market. This month, for example, the total market cap is down -29% from January 2018 compared to the -74% loss for the cryptos that began 2018 in the Top Ten. At no point in the first 31 months of the Experiment has this investment strategy been successful: the 2018 Top Ten as a group have under-performed the overall market every single month.
This of course suggests that I would have done a bit better if I’d picked every crypto, or different cryptos: throwing that $1k on January 1st, 2018 to Bitcoin, for example, would have lost me -12% instead of -74%.
On the other hand, this bit of diversification has served me well compared to going all in on NEM, Dash, or IOTA, all of which are down at least -90%.
The follow-on Top Ten experiments in 2019 and 2020 have seen similar, but not identical, results. There have been a few examples of the Top Ten approach outperforming the overall market in the first 19 months of the parallel 2019 Top Ten Crypto Experiment. And up until the last few months of the most recent 2020 Top Ten Index Fund group of cryptocurrencies, this approach had outperformed the overall market 100% of the time.

Conclusion:

Crypto had an undoubtedly strong month in July, green across the board. Was this just a happy blip, are we in for some consolidation, or are we on the way up? Stay tuned.
Final words: take care of each other, wear your mask, wash your hands.
Thanks for reading and for supporting the experiment. I hope you’ve found it helpful. I continue to be committed to seeing this process through and reporting along the way. Feel free to reach out with any questions and stay tuned for progress reports. Keep an eye out for my parallel projects where I repeat the experiment twice, purchasing another $1000 ($100 each) of two new sets of Top Ten cryptos as of January 1st, 2019 then again on January 1st, 2020.

And the Answer is…

B) Ethereum
Ethereum celebrated its 5 year anniversary on July 30th, 2020.
submitted by Joe-M-4 to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

Rough days transcript: the best is yet to come, kill the old system, BUIDL time, we live in a DeFi bubble, power to the edges, voting challenge and rembeber you're in control kids!

Hi everybody, Charles Hoskinson here, live from warm sunny Colorado! Always warm, always sunny, sometimes Colorado. I got my Massey Ferguson hat on. Take that off, see, my hair's all messed up. One of these days and we'll lose all that hair.
It's a rough day today and that markets are terrible down 20 percent for most people and every now and then I talk about price. I rarely do but in general let's talk about the macro. You know crypto is a unique phenomenon. It's a unique thing and these are crazy times. I remember just a few months back when coronavirus first came out and we saw basically everything just bottom out everybody went crazy. They went to cash all asset classes. Just went to hell in a handbasket and I did a video and I said guys our best days are ahead of us as an ecosystem and as an industry and what happened everything got better over time. People started getting more optimistic. You know the reality is that we are seeing an old industry die right now, the legacy financial system.
I just read Biden's tax plan. He wants to treat capital gains as ordinary income and put another 12 and a half percent on top of that. All this stuff and at the end of the day all these new taxes amount to a trillion or so extra dollars I think per year in income... Takes six years to the make back what they printed out of thin air for coronavirus and are willing to print again which begs the question why do we even pay taxes anymore if we can just print money out of thin air? We have a whole movement of people: the AOC crowd wake up every day and they say modern monetary theory, the actual supply, doesn't matter. All that matters is how much can we print and get away with it. This is where we're at as an economy right now and globally speaking a lot of other nations agree with this. So, given that the whole world, the leadership of the world, talking about negative interest rates, they're talking about predatory financial systems hyperinflation. Just print money, modern monetary theory, just print as much cash as you want and we look to the cryptocurrency industry, and god, we got a lot of problems...
I think this (week's market) collapse is probably because one of the most prominent exchanges in South Korea got hit. They got shut down by the South Korean government and they at one time were responsible for a big part of the Kimchi premium and you know what? Korean government might shut down a few more Korean exchanges and usually the market based these things in. We got crazy yield farming weird stuff going on in the DeFi space. All these other local events and their blips they don't really matter that much just like corona in the long term won't matter too much in terms of the markets. What matters is the trend and where are we going. I had a meeting with some people this morning and we talked about revolutionizing the healthcare industry and getting things better in terms of supply chains. I had another meeting with a soon-to-be former Wyoming state representative about how we're going to get governments to adopt blockchain technology. I talk every day to governors, heads of state, congressmen, senators, mayors. Some cities, sometimes very large cities, with millions of people and they all say the same thing. We need help, we need solutions, we're damn tired of the way that the old system is running. You know what? if we don't solve it a lot of people are going to get hurt or continue to be hurt.
The common theme that we all have is no one's happy. Look at the black-lives-matter protests, taking their philosophy of the organization aside, the rank and file people are there not because they love Marxism. They're there because they're unhappy with the way society is and why shouldn't they be? When my grandfather, got his first job, on my mom's side, out of the Korean war, he was a lineman and he made enough money from that job to have seven kids and have his wife stay at home. No college degree, fresh out of high school, fresh out of marine demolitions and a lineman. Five boys and two girls and he could take care of that family and save money every month. Have a car and a house and that was his standard of living. How many people in the middle class today in the United States or Europe for that matter have the ability on a single person's salary to raise seven children and have the wife or the husband stay at home? How many people, not many, why? because our monetary system has failed us. The inflationary policy has created a situation where the Jeff Bezos can have 200 billion dollars and make windfall profits every year regardless of how bad the economy is. The everyday people they don't get a pay increase, so in a lot of cases they don't get to keep their job and their money deteriorates in value a lot more than three percent per year.
Our industry has principles in that we worship the math and the protocols and the stable monetary policy. These types of things, and as corrupt as some of the exchanges can be, and some of the bad actors are, all movements suffer from these warts, and they're finite and temporary. You run out of them. At some point self-regulation kicks in or standards kick in and these bad actors flush out and what's left behind is a crucible that contains the truth of the matter which is: we're going to win as an industry. There's just no doubt in my mind. You have bad days in the market, you have damn good days in the market, you get addicted to the good ones and you hate the bad ones but at the end of the day it's only going in one direction which is crypto is going to eat the world: every voting system, every property registration system, every monetary system, the next 25 to 50 years is going to be running on the tech we build and others build and running with the principles of power to the edges.
This is the great challenge of our time. To do it in a way that it's fair, transparent, open and doesn't allow a government to co-opt it. It's gonna be a lot of fights here. The least of our concerns and matters are a red day and every now and then I like making these videos to remind people why I'm here and why you should be here too. As toxic as the trolls could be and these other people can be, none of them really matter. Markets don't really matter, what matters are the principles and the purpose behind what we do and you have to ask yourself are you happy with the way that society is? Are you happy with the money in your pocket? Are you happy with the political leadership representing your nations? Are you happy with your future and do you honestly believe if we keep doing the things that we did and continue to do that the future is going to be better or do you think it's going to be worse or stagnant?
I think too many people have woken up and they realize that if we continue doing the things that we do the future is going to be a bad place and they don't want that to happen. We're voting with our wallets, we're voting with our feet and we as a collective industry are waking up and figuring out how to build something better and there's some good days and bad days along the way. Today's a bad one but there are going to be good days tomorrow just like I told you back when corona made everything go into free fall and I told you before and I warned you about with ICO mania.
We're in a DeFi bubble right now, there's no doubt in my mind about that. I saw it in 2017 with ICO mania. I see it here and there's probably going to be worse days ahead in that respect but the trend is always the same and never forget that and never forget that real people are actually adopting these systems and using them. Every day we see more and more and every day that movement grows and what's so humbling is that I know a lot of you are here with me. It used to be pretty lonely space to be in a few years back. You know, the conferences, they didn't have many people. My first bitcoin meetup group in 2011 in Colorado is at the gypsy house cafe I think, in Denver. I registered for the event I showed up. Two people registered myself and another guy and the other guy didn't show up so I had coffee with myself. Compare that with the Shelley summit that we had in July of 2020. 10 000 attendees, 10 000 from all across the world, compare that to where we are at today just nine years later pretty amazing if you think about how fast things have grown and how many fertile beautiful ideas exist in this industry and what this industry is doing for the world as a whole.
That is why we're going to win because at the end of day who can argue against freedom? Who can argue against liberty? Who can argue against putting people in control? The only way you can is when you believe people are stupid, people are evil, people are incapable and I suppose that's a philosophical difference between those who currently lead and the people who want to replace them. The people in charge right now of the world, the big banks, the fortune 500 companies, the media, Hollywood... These things, they're very cynical, people who believe in the worst in us they look at everyday people who sustain and disgust and say these people if left to their own devices will be chaos. These people, if left to govern themselves will burn everything to the ground and destroy everything and every single time I have ever seen a bad event happen what the news doesn't show you and what those people don't talk about is how we come together and help each other out. Someone gets injured in the streets more often than not people show up and help them, people need a helping hand. Someone always shows up more often than not and this is no different. I don't believe the political process is effective anymore in any modern democracy. They've all been co-opted, perhaps they always were but what I do believe is that we can come together and change things economically which is what we're doing.
It's messy building our own money, it is messy building our own industry, it is messy. We make a lot of mistakes along the way. We lose a lot along the way, we collect some scars too while we're at it but progress every year keeps being made. The technology every year keeps getting better. Today, right here right now, provably secure proof of stake protocols are in circulation. They were a fantasy five years ago now they're a fact of life today. Right here right now snarks have evolved by an order of magnitude in every category from validation time to efficiency to proof size in all favorable ways which opens up all kinds of new applications and scalability and privacy. Today, right here right now, layer 2 protocols are more advanced than they have ever been in our industry's history giving us the ability to build payment systems that scale to billions of people. Today, right here right now, we are seeing massive innovations in governance and a fertile environment for things like approval voting, threshold voting, preference voting, quadratic voting, that will enable us to build all kinds of new treasuries and governance systems that eventually will scale to nation states.
As the politicians of today argue whether the post office can properly count paper ballots that people mail we are building voting systems with state-of-the-art cryptography living on phones where you can vote. It's just a tap of a button and enjoy more security than we have ever imagined before. That is the future this movement, is enabling humanity money flowing at the speed of thought and the speed of thought making new money. How can you compete with that? You can't unless you bring people down with cynicism and disdain and ultimately what competing vision do they offer? That you all should be in chains? That we should just be wage slaves? We should just accept that every year our money deteriorates in value? That we should just accept that the rich will get richer the poor get poorer? Every now and then they throw us table scraps and when we get real angry they usurp the movements and then install their own leadership to basically take those movements from us as we've seen so many times before and we will see again. I'm sorry that's not a road I want to walk down and I'm willing to ride rocky waters, crazy markets, crazy people in unlimited FUD and trolling but I will never apologize for believing in the best in people and I will never apologize for believing that if only we give everyone around us the tools to save themselves and society that they can do it.
They don't need great leaders and charisma. No one needs someone to tell them what to do. We all know what to do. We all know how to make the world a better place. We just have to be trusted enough to do it ourselves. You know what for the first time ever we did with bitcoin and then we did it again with ethereum and now we're doing it again with Cardano and we as a movement will continue to do it.
I believe our best days are ahead of us and every day I wake up and there's more people marching with me in that respect and one day it'll be millions and one day it'll be billions and one day all those cynics will be gone, replaced with optimists, who once again believe that tomorrow is going to be better than today and that we're going to leave the world just a little bit better than the way we found it. So, every now and then on a tough day I like making a little message and letting you guys all know it's going to be better and you know what? it will be. Just have to have faith that it will be. So, hold the line, hold strong and have faith in each other and go do something, build something, start something.
Got a lot of podcasts on the way, a lot of things coming down the pipe. For the dc-fund, a lot of opportunities to actually innovate. Multi assets are coming, soon Plutus is coming, soon guys are going to be able to build a lot. Start thinking today what's the business plan? What would you like to change, small or large. You don't complain about voting. Change voting. Your own organization, maybe you belong to a club, do a blockchain-based voting system. Maybe you have some political influence? Have a primary, democrat or republican, or your local primary or country for selecting candidates done with blockchain-based voting. Maybe you want to build a new financial product? Think about it, figure it out. There's so much there, it's all there, it's ready to go, it's for you to take and build and innovate with.
Every day I wake up I try to make the platforms better. I try to push the technology a little further along. I try to hire great people and bring them into our industry. Cardano brought the Haskell industry into the cryptocurrency space. Cardano brought a lot of academics who had never thought about cryptocurrencies into the cryptocurrency space and we made our problems their problems and as a consequence they started solving them in ways we could have never done before. Most importantly Cardano brought a lot of you into the cryptocurrency space and you never thought you'd have this level of control and freedom over the fabric of society in the direction of the human race. Don't let that slip through your fingers. Figure out what you want to do with that super power. Might be small, might be big. I dreamed big, you can dream big too, even if you want to just dream small. Every person counts, every action counts up to the hill. Y'all matter to me and to each other and we're all in this together, never forget that! So, hard day, rough day, tomorrow will be a better one. The day after will even be better. See you guys soon, take care...
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qM192wAV4LA
On Kimchi premium: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/k/kimchi-premium.asp
EDIT: title typo -> rembeber -> remember :)
submitted by stake_pool to cardano [link] [comments]

Networking and Trust

I'd like to pose a hard problem that I have no solutions for, for your consideration and discussion in case anyone else does:
Any movement that competes with others, or among its members, especially if it has an underground component, suffers from difficulties with establishing trust and finding like-minded members.
Groups often use shibboleths - slang or phrases meant to exclude outsiders - to identify an in-group as a kind of filter, but this demands that a group grow organically over time and be constantly vigilant about outside penetration. Usually this also involves tests of some kind. In groups that are less ethically-minded, tests would be gratuitously breaking some law as proof that one is not law enforcement, but this is not a Green Hat way to be and does not scale well anyway.
For what seems like a non-sequitur - block chains are a hot new(ish) thing. But they're not directly a way to solve this problem. They solve another problem, which is a way to make a distributed ledger that does not require any central authority. The problem with blockchains, particularly for cryptocurrency, is that their value converges on the cost of electricity itself for the computations. This is because they require one to do a certain amount of computational work in order to add to the chain, making it impossible beyond a certain scale for one party to take over more than half the nodes and create a fake consensus about the truth. This means that if bitcoin took over the world economy through wide adoption, our entire economy would be driven by gratuitous energy consumption. Bitcoin already consumes as much power as a medium sized country. This has the potential to worsen global energy problems in a myriad of ways.
To tie the two together - a great unsolved problem is finding an alternative to blockchain's proof of work element as a way to enforce the integrity of a distributed ledger. One promising way is to use "proof of stake" instead of "proof of work" - you can prevent cheap duplication of identities to have someone take over half the nodes and "vote" in a false truth by weighting the votes towards those with some proof that they have more stake in the game, such as those with more holdings or those with seniority. But this has the potential for takeover by an oligarchy - those with stake could potentially cheat and further exclude those without as much.
The other, and I think most promising, way is with a web of trust. Instead of proof of stake, it's proof of trust. The more people who know and can vouch for you, the better. However, it's possible for someone to create a bunch of bots that all "vouch" for them, etc., so making a web of trust that's in any way anonymous becomes quite difficult. And there's the question of whether it's purely a numbers game, where those with many friends again become the powerful, or whether it's about just some minimum threshold of credible friends, and whether the credibility of those who vouch for you is itself accounted for as a weight...
I think that smaller societies of people, such as small towns and clubs and groups, do this kind of thing organically, and that reputation within a community IS a decentralized currency much like bitcoin in that people exchange favors with real economic value, but it scales poorly unless mathematically systematized in some fashion.
These are some rather rambling thoughts on the general problem of how people can organize effectively in the internet age, without relying on some central authority to enforce rules or keep a tally, whether it is a blacklist of members, or a ledger of holdings, or whatever else. It's not an easy thing, and I'm not an expert, but I think it may be one of the central problems of our age.
Discuss!
submitted by manifestsilence to GreenHatHacking [link] [comments]

Unpopular opinion - the economy has to become dynamic in order for it to have any longevity (and other musings on the progression)

Ain't no one gonna read this but here it goes!
The issue of progression has recently been gaining some traction in the community with Klean and DeadlySlob covering this topic recently.
Now any solution to this has an inherent issue associated with it - it'll be uncomfortable to someone. Whatever is done, it'll negatively affect someone, just by the fact of change alone. You cannot make something better by not changing anything. So anything you do or don't do, you will alienate a portion of your playerbase.
Early/Mid-game vs Late game.
Early and mid game is lauded, late game is considered boring. But why? For startes, firefights last longer, require more skill, movement, tactics and outsmarting your opponent. You value your life, you feel respect even for the shittiest of bullets. You have a feeling that the kill is earned. Guns have tons of recoil so you need to pick your shots. It's... I know it's illegal... but it's fun.
Late game however is plagued with a number of issues. Gear gets dominated by very similar loadouts that cover approx 10% of the gear in the game. There's nowhere to progress as you've reached the ceiling. The excitement from killing a kitted player diminishes as time goes as the economy saturates. People start being picky with their loot and only the good stuff brings any sort of satisfaction. The hideout provides a steady, predictable stream of income.
You let it run long enough it becomes a mindless PVP battleground.
Side note - the black and white fallacy of the makeup of the community.
Casuals vs hardcores. Rats vs Chads. Whenever a discussion pops up this dichotomy is always present. "Feature X hurts casuals but doesn't bother hardcore gamers playing 8h a day". No. Like anything in life the population of EFT is subject to the bellcurve distribution. There are hardcore sweaties grinding out the kappa within a week and there are also sunday gamers. Then there's everything else in between. Let's keep that in mind.
You don't need to be a streamer or play the game as a full time job to make money. We have a discord for 30+ yr old gamers with families and all of us were swimming in roubles and gear after 3 months of the past wipe. Sure it takes us longer than streamers, but still.
The meta
Taking weapons as an example. Different items have different stats (recoil, ergonomics, etc), some are obviously better than others which obviously makes them more sought after. There are also different ammo types for every caliber. Then lastly we come to the guns which directly tie into the first point, by their base stats and how much those can be brought down/up by attachments.
If you have a plethora of items that have different stats, there's sure to be an optimal loadout. If that optimal loadout is always available at an attainable price to the point where you can run it consistently, then there's really no reason to run anything less. This is the meta and at the moment it's basically a synonym for best in slot.
Appealing to a greater good such as gameplay variety is in vain because people will do everything to put themselves in the best possible position. If that means running whatever flavor of meta weapon that is - VAL, M4, FAL alongside top tier lvl 5 or 6 armor over and over and over and over again, so be it. We all know that's not the only way to get by in EFT, but all else being equal - top gear puts you on equal footing at minimum.
Trash contextualizes treasure. A rare item is not rare if everyone is running it. It's a normal item.
Gear minmaxing combined with a ceiling in progression create a situation where the game becomes stale, people get bored and we get chants for a wipe to releave the pressure.
Wipes
Wipes however, even at set intervals, are not the solution. Every wipe, in the absence of something fundamentally new, gives you (rapidly) diminishing returns. Doing the same quests over and over is an absolute drag. It's my 7th wipe and this time around I've really hit a brick wall with them. Now imagine doing them every 3 months. Maybe just do an inventory and trader level wipe? Yeah, that's just skipping one part of it and arriving at the same point but even quicker, considering how quickly you can make money.
The endpoint being - having enough money to run anything you want all the time without the fear of getting broke. Or in the abstract, having a big enough cushion to make any blow from a bad streak become inconsequential.
All of that is just a perpetuation of the same sawtooth progression. Grind, saturate, wipe, grind, saturate, wipe.
Side note - persistent character vs wiped character
I know there have been talks about having two characters - one persistent that's not wiped and one seasonal that is. On paper this might look like a good solution, but there are some problems.
POE players would have to chip in, but I reckong, that in a way this might become a form of matchmaking - the persistent character would be a mode for "sunday" players, while the wiped one for the sweats. I mean, maybe that's the way to go, but if the game is to gave any longevity, the persistent character will eventually face the same issues as the current game, it'll just take longer to develop.
Unpopular opinion - The economy is just a set of time and effort gated unlocks.
There have been multiple ideas to prolong a wipe, but in my view the fundamental issue with those is that they're based off the same linear progression - start from scratch and acumulate wealth until saturation. Some of these ideas include restricting labs till level X, locking behind a quest or just disabling it for a month. The problem with these is that it's just delaying the inevitable, while also giving a direct buff to those who get there first as they'll have the place virtually to themselves.
What follows is also the concept of "starting mid wipe", which essentially means that the gear disparity is so big that the further into a wipe, the more difficult it is to catch up. That effort is directly correlated with experience - the more experience you have the easier it is for you to reset or jump in midwipe. Extending a wipe potentially alleviates that by giving people more opportunity to catch up, but also pushes away from coming back/into the game if they recognize that it had passed their personal breakpoint where it's too hard / frustrating.
Perpetual mid-game
So out of all of that, a clearer picture emerges. We have to somehow find a solution to always have something to work for, but also not give the impression that you're up against an impenetrable wall.
That means that the game needs to pivot around something colloquially known as mid game. How would we define mid-game? That's another debate, but for the sake of the argument we could define that as something in the range of:
That would be the sort of mean loadout you can run on a consistent basis and you'd see the majority of the time. From the sentiment across the community, this seems to be the most enjoyable state of the game, where the sweetspot is in terms of protection and vulnerability, but allowing a lot of headroom for both variety and
Solutions
Now we must have to remember that there's a number of changes inbound that will alleviate some of the issues:
But those are sill far on the horizon.
The uncomfortable reality is that in order to truly balance that you have only a few choices. One is to go down the route of typical FPS tropes where every weapon type is perfectly balanced (i.e. shotguns powerfull but limited range, smg's low recoil, high ROF but weaker, dmrs powerful but high recoil and low ROF, etc). I don't think this will be ever a thing in the game.
Another one is to make attachments roughly equal and just attribute the differences to the tacticool visual factor. This would be realistic in a way, but would take away from the game.
The last one is to price them out. Literally. I'm of the unpopular opinion that endgame should not be a stage, it should be a state.
Dynamic pricing
I know I know, last time it failed spectacularly. However, that was a different flea market and the implementation was poorly thought out. Since it didn't have a pivot point to relate to it caused widespread inflation of even the most basic items and was prone to manipulation.
However the concept in principal has proven itself to work - M995 was essentially priced out of existence and forced people to look for alternatives like M855A1 or M856A1 or different calibers alltogether. Even the sweaties of sweats got a bit excited when they killed someone with 3 60rounders filled with M995. See where I'm going with this?
The execution was poor and poorly thought out.
But how about a different implementation? Adjust the prices based on how much an item is (or is not) bought compared to other items of the same item type. Most popular items' price (of a specific category) increases, while the least popular one decreases.
This could also be coupled with (or as an alternative) an additional rarity factor which would sort of specify how volatile the price is. Continuing the ammo example M995 would have the highest rarity factor and would be very prone to price increases, while the likes of M855 would be considered common and have a much more stable price.
Obviously this would be subject to long term trends and would not happen overnight. But the main aim is to dynamically scale the economy to the general wealth of the playerbase around a certain pivot point which we established before as the mid-game.
This would be a quite significant blow to the uberchads as they would unironically struggle to maintain a profit from their runs. And yes, some of them would still probably be able to pull this off, but remember what we said about the bell curve? It's just about making them so insignificant in the global player pool that they'd be a very rare occurance.
Global item pools
This idea has been floated around by Nikita some time ago but we have no ETA on this. In short - for some items, there is only a set amount that is present in circulation. For example there are only X amount of ReapIR's in the entire economy - spawns, traders, player stashes. If everyone hoards them in their stashes - thats where they'll remain. They don't spawn on maps, they're not sold on traders. Only until they're lost they get reinjected into the item pool.
This idea should be reserved only for the absolute top tier OP items. Something that you'd get all giddy if found/looted and you'd contemplate taking it out.
Side note, the X amount should scale to the active playerbase, which could be something like a weekly or biweekly moving average of people actively playing the game in a set period.
Insurance
This one is a bit controversial but also attributes to some of the in game inflation and gear recirculation. If you run a large squad, even if one of you dies, there's a high chance someone will survive and secure others' gear. And even if all of you die, something's bound to come back.
This might be a bit controversial, but I think group size should have a debuff to the chance of getting your gear back the higher the bigger your squad size, for example an incremental 10% chance for each additional squadmate.
Hideout adjustments
Right now fuel consumption is static no matter how much stuff is going on. What if the fuel consumption rate was tied to the size of your bitcoin farm and the amount of crafting going on.
Additionally hideout appliances could wear out and require maintenance, which would grant them performance debuffs like increased crafting time.
Dynamic stocks.
Right now stocks are predictable. You have the same amount of items at a set interval. Things like traders missing some items or not getting a restock due to broken supply lines, which can be cheekily tied into...
Dynamic global events/quests
Such as as getting rid of scavs on a particular location to remove the roadblock. These might be done per player or as a global event where everyone has to chip in.
Summary
The subject is difficult and solutions are not simple, but what I do know is that eventually Tarkov will have settle into an identity which will come with a sacrifice either at the expense of vision or mainstream popularity.
Thank you for coming to my TEDTalk. I'd like to give a heartfelt thank you to the 5 people that read this wall of text.
submitted by sunseeker11 to EscapefromTarkov [link] [comments]

Meet Brock Pierce, the Presidential Candidate With Ties to Pedophiles Who Wants to End Human Trafficking

thedailybeast.com | Sep. 20, 2020.
The “Mighty Ducks” actor is running for president. He clears the air (sort of) to Tarpley Hitt about his ties to Jeffrey Epstein and more.
In the trailer for First Kid, the forgettable 1996 comedy about a Secret Service agent assigned to protect the president’s son, the title character, played by a teenage Brock Pierce, describes himself as “definitely the most powerful kid in the universe.” Now, the former child star is running to be the most powerful man in the world, as an Independent candidate for President of the United States.
Before First Kid, the Minnesota-born actor secured roles in a series of PG-rated comedies, playing a young Emilio Estevez in The Mighty Ducks, before graduating to smaller parts in movies like Problem Child 3: Junior in Love. When his screen time shrunk, Pierce retired from acting for a real executive role: co-founding the video production start-up Digital Entertainment Network (DEN) alongside businessman Marc Collins-Rector. At age 17, Pierce served as its vice president, taking in a base salary of $250,000.
DEN became “the poster child for dot-com excesses,” raising more than $60 million in seed investments and plotting a $75 million IPO. But it turned into a shorthand for something else when, in October of 1999, the three co-founders suddenly resigned. That month, a New Jersey man filed a lawsuit alleging Collins-Rector had molested him for three years beginning when he was 13 years old. The following summer, three teens filed a sexual-abuse lawsuit against Pierce, Collins-Rector, and their third co-founder, Chad Shackley. The plaintiffs later dropped their case against Pierce (he made a payment of $21,600 to one of their lawyers) and Shackley. But after a federal grand jury indicted Collins-Rector on criminal charges in 2000, the DEN founders left the country. When Interpol arrested them in 2002, they said they had confiscated “guns, machetes, and child pornography” from the trio’s beach villa in Spain.
While abroad, Pierce had pivoted to a new venture: Internet Gaming Entertainment, which sold virtual accessories in multiplayer online role-playing games to those desperate to pay, as one Wired reporter put it, “as much as $1,800 for an eight-piece suit of Skyshatter chain mail” rather than earn it in the games themselves. In 2005, a 25-year-old Pierce hired then-Goldman Sachs banker Steve Bannon—just before he would co-found Breitbart News. Two years later, after a World of Warcraft player sued the company for “diminishing” the fun of the game, Steve Bannon replaced Pierce as CEO.
Collins-Rector eventually pleaded guilty to eight charges of child enticement and registered as a sex offender. In the years that followed, Pierce waded into the gonzo economy of cryptocurrencies, where he overlapped more than once with Jeffrey Epstein, and counseled him on crypto. In that world, he founded Tether, a cryptocurrency that bills itself as a “stablecoin,” because its value is allegedly tied to the U.S. dollar, and the blockchain software company Block.one. Like his earlier businesses, Pierce’s crypto projects see-sawed between massive investments and curious deals. When Block.one announced a smart contract software called EOS.IO, the company raised $4 billion almost overnight, setting an all-time record before the product even launched. The Securities and Exchange Commission later fined the company $24 million for violating federal securities law. After John Oliver mocked the ordeal, calling Pierce a “sleepy, creepy cowboy,” Block.one fired him. Tether, meanwhile, is currently under investigation by the New York Attorney General for possible fraud.
On July 4, Pierce announced his candidacy for president. His campaign surrogates include a former Cambridge Analytica director and the singer Akon, who recently doubled down on developing an anonymously funded, $6 billion “Wakanda-like” metropolis in Senegal called Akon City. Pierce claims to be bipartisan, and from the 11 paragraphs on the “Policy” section of his website it can be hard to determine where he falls on the political spectrum. He supports legalizing marijuana and abolishing private prisons, but avoids the phrase “climate change.” He wants to end “human trafficking.” His proposal to end police brutality: body cams.
His political contributions tell a more one-sided story. Pierce’s sole Democratic contribution went to the short-lived congressional run of crypto candidate Brian Forde. The rest went to Republican campaigns like Marco Rubio, Rick Perry, John McCain, and the National Right to Life Political Action Committee. Last year alone, Pierce gave over $44,000 to the Republican National Committee and more than $55,000 to Trump’s re-election fund.
Pierce spoke to The Daily Beast from his tour bus and again over email. Those conversations have been combined and edited for clarity.
You’re announcing your presidential candidacy somewhat late, and historically, third-party candidates haven’t had the best luck with the executive office. If you don’t have a strong path to the White House, what do you want out of the race?
I announced on July 4, which I think is quite an auspicious date for an Independent candidate, hoping to bring independence to this country. There’s a lot of things that I can do. One is: I’m 39 years old. I turn 40 in November. So I’ve got time on my side. Whatever happens in this election cycle, I’m laying the groundwork for the future. The overall mission is to create a third major party—not another third party—a third major party in this country. I think that is what America needs most. George Washington in his closing address warned us about the threat of political parties. John Adams and the other founding fathers—their fear for our future was two political parties becoming dominant. And look at where we are. We were warned.
I believe, having studied systems, any time you have a system of two, what happens is those two things come together, like magnets. They come into collision, or they become polarized and become completely divided. I think we need to rise above partisan politics and find a path forward together. As Albert Einstein is quoted—I’m not sure the line came from him, but he’s quoted in many places—he said that the definition of insanity is making the same mistake or doing the same thing over and over and over again, expecting a different result. [Ed. note: Einstein never said this.] It feels like that’s what our election cycle is like. Half the country feels like they won, half the country feels like they lost, at least if they voted or participated.
Obviously, there’s another late-comer to the presidential race, and that’s Kanye West. He’s received a lot of flak for his candidacy, as he’s openly admitted to trying to siphon votes away from Joe Biden to ensure a Trump victory. Is that something you’re hoping to avoid or is that what you’re going for as well?
Oh no. This is a very serious campaign. Our campaign is very serious. You’ll notice I don’t say anything negative about either of the two major political candidates, because I think that’s one of the problems with our political system, instead of people getting on stage, talking about their visionary ideas, inspiring people, informing and educating, talking about problems, mentioning problems, talking about solutions, constructive criticism. That’s why I refuse to run a negative campaign. I am definitely not a spoiler. I’m into data, right? I’m a technologist. I’ve got digital DNA. So does most of our campaign team. We’ve got our finger on the pulse.
Most of my major Democratic contacts are really happy to see that we’re running in a red state like Wyoming. Kanye West’s home state is Wyoming. He’s not on the ballot in Wyoming I could say, in part, because he didn’t have Akon on his team. But I could also say that he probably didn’t want to be on the ballot in Wyoming because it’s a red state. He doesn’t want to take additional points in a state where he’s only running against Trump. But we’re on the ballot in Wyoming, and since we’re on the ballot in Wyoming I think it’s safe—more than safe, I think it’s evident—that we are not here to run as a spoiler for the benefit of Donald Trump.
In running for president, you’ve opened yourself up to be scrutinized from every angle going back to the beginning of your career. I wanted to ask you about your time at the Digital Entertainment Network. Can you tell me a little bit about how you started there? You became a vice president as a teenager. What were your qualifications and what was your job exactly?
Well, I was the co-founder. A lot of it was my idea. I had an idea that people would use the internet to watch videos, and we create content for the internet. The idea was basically YouTube and Hulu and Netflix. Anyone that was around in the ‘90s and has been around digital media since then, they all credit us as the creators of basically those ideas. I was just getting a message from the creator of The Vandals, the punk rock band, right before you called. He’s like, “Brock, looks like we’re going to get the Guinness Book of World Records for having created the first streaming television show.”
We did a lot of that stuff. We had 30 television shows. We had the top most prestigious institutions in the world as investors. The biggest names. High-net-worth investors like Terry Semel, who’s chairman and CEO of Warner Brothers, and became the CEO of Yahoo. I did all sorts of things. I helped sell $150,000 worth of advertising contracts to the CEOs of Pepsi and everything else. I was the face of the company, meeting all the major banks and everything else, selling the vision of what the future was.
You moved in with Marc Collins-Rector and Chad Shackley at a mansion in Encino. Was that the headquarters of the business?
All start-ups, they normally start out in your home. Because it’s just you. The company was first started out of Marc’s house, and it was probably there for the first two or three months, before the company got an office. That’s, like, how it is for all start-ups.
were later a co-defendant in the L.A. County case filed against Marc Collins-Rector for plying minors with alcohol and drugs, in order to facilitate sexual abuse. You were dropped from the case, but you settled with one of the men for $21,600. Can you explain that?
Okay, well, first of all, that’s not accurate. Two of the plaintiffs in that case asked me if I would be a plaintiff. Because I refused to be a part of the lawsuit, they chose to include me to discredit me, to make their case stronger. They also went and offered 50 percent of what they got to the house management—they went around and offered money to anyone to participate in this. They needed people to corroborate their story. Eventually, because I refused to participate in the lawsuit, they named me. Subsequently, all three of the plaintiffs apologized to me, in front of audiences, in front of many people, saying Brock never did anything. They dismissed their cases.
Remember, this is a civil thing. I’ve never been charged with a crime in my life. And the last plaintiff to have his case dismissed, he contacted his lawyer and said, “Dismiss this case against Brock. Brock never did anything. I just apologized. Dismiss his case.” And the lawyer said, “No. I won’t dismiss this case, I have all these out-of-pocket expenses, I refuse to file the paperwork unless you give me my out-of-pocket expenses.” And so the lawyer, I guess, had $21,000 in bills. So I paid his lawyer $21,000—not him, it was not a settlement. That was a payment to his lawyer for his out-of-pocket expenses. Out-of-pocket expenses so that he would file the paperwork to dismiss the case.
You’ve said the cases were unfounded, and the plaintiffs eventually apologized. But your boss, Marc Collins-Rector later pleaded guilty to eight charges of child enticement and registered as a sex offender. Were you aware of his behavior? How do you square the fact that later allegations proved to be true, but these ones were not?
Well, remember: I was 16 and 17 years old at the time? So, no. I don’t think Marc is the man they made him out to be. But Marc is not a person I would associate with today, and someone I haven’t associated with in a very long time. I was 16 and 17. I chose the wrong business partner. You live and you learn.
You’ve pointed out that you were underage when most of these allegations were said to take place. Did you ever feel like you were coerced or in over your head while working at DEN?
I mean, I was working 18 hours a day, doing things I’d never done before. It was business school. But I definitely learned a lot in building that company. We raised $88 million. We filed our [form] S-1 to go public. We were the hottest start-up in Los Angeles.
In 2000, you left the country with Marc Collins-Rector. Why did you leave? How did you spend those two years abroad?
I moved to Spain in 1999 for personal reasons. I spent those two years in Europe working on developing my businesses.
Interpol found you in 2002. The house where you were staying reportedly contained guns, machetes, and child pornography. Whose guns and child porn were those? Were you aware they were in the house, and how did those get there?
My lawyers have addressed this in 32 pages of documentation showing a complete absence of wrongdoing. Please refer to my webpage for more information.
[Ed. Note: The webpage does not mention guns, machetes, or child pornography. It does state:“It is true that when the local police arrested Collins-Rector in Spain in 2002 on an international warrant, Mr. Pierce was also taken into custody, but so was everyone at Collins-Rector’s house in Spain; and it is equally clear that Brock was promptly released, and no charges of any kind were ever filed against Brock concerning this matter.”]
What do you make of the allegations against Bryan Singer? [Ed. Note: Bryan Singer, a close friend of Collins-Rector, invested at least $50,000 in DEN. In an Atlantic article outlining Singer’s history of alleged sexual assault and statutory rape, one source claimed that at age 15, Collins-Rector abused him and introduced him to Singer, who then assaulted him in the DEN headquarters.]
I am aware of them and I support of all victims of sexual assault. I will let America’s justice system decide on Singer’s outcome.
In 2011, you spoke at the Mindshift conference supported by Jeffrey Epstein. At that point, he had already been convicted of soliciting prostitution from a minor. Why did you agree to speak?
I had never heard of Jeffrey Epstein. His name was not on the website. I was asked to speak at a conference alongside Nobel Prize winners. It was not a cryptocurrency conference, it was filled with Nobel Prize winners. I was asked to speak alongside Nobel Prize winners on the future of money. I speak at conferences historically, two to three times a week. I was like, “Nobel Prize winners? Sounds great. I’ll happily talk about the future of money with them.” I had no idea who Jeffrey Epstein was. His name was not listed anywhere on the website. Had I known what I know now? I clearly would have never spoken there. But I spoke at a conference that he cosponsored.
What’s your connection to the Clinton Global Initiative? Did you hear about it through Jeffrey Epstein?
I joined the Clinton Global Initiative as a philanthropist in 2006 and was a member for one year. My involvement with the Initiative had no connection to Jeffrey Epstein whatsoever.
You’ve launched your campaign in Minnesota, where George Floyd was killed by a police officer. How do you feel about the civil uprising against police brutality?
I’m from Minnesota. Born and raised. We just had a press conference there, announcing that we’re on the ballot. Former U.S. Senator Dean Barkley was there. So that tells you, when former U.S. Senators are endorsing the candidate, right?
[Ed. note: Barkley was never elected to the United States Senate. In November of 2002, he was appointed by then Minnesota Governor Jesse Venture to fill the seat after Sen. Paul Wellstone died in a plane crash. Barkley’s term ended on Jan. 3, 2003—two months later.]
Yes, George Floyd was murdered in Minneapolis. My vice-presidential running mate Karla Ballard and I, on our last trip to Minnesota together, went to visit the George Floyd Memorial. I believe in law and order. I believe that law and order is foundational to any functioning society. But there is no doubt in my mind that we need reform. These types of events—this is not an isolated incident. This has happened many times before. It’s time for change. We have a lot of detail around policy on this issue that we will be publishing next week. Not just high-level what we think, not just a summary, but detailed policy.
You said that you support “law and order.” What does that mean?
“Law and order” means creating a fair and just legal system where our number one priority is protecting the inalienable rights of “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” for all people. This means reforming how our police intervene in emergency situations, abolishing private prisons that incentivize mass incarceration, and creating new educational and economic opportunities for our most vulnerable communities. I am dedicated to preventing crime by eliminating the socioeconomic conditions that encourage it.
I support accountability and transparency in government and law enforcement. Some of the key policies I support are requiring body-cams on all law enforcement officers who engage with the public, curtailing the 1033 program that provides local law enforcement agencies with access to military equipment, and abolishing private prisons. Rather than simply defund the police, my administration will take a holistic approach to heal and unite America by ending mass incarceration, police brutality, and racial injustice.
Did you attend any Black Lives Matter protests?
I support all movements aimed at ending racial injustice and inequality. I​ have not attended any Black Lives Matter protests.​ My running-mate, Karla Ballard, attended the March on Washington in support of racial justice and equality.
Your platform doesn’t mention the words “climate change.” Is there a reason for that?
I’m not sure what you mean. Our policy platform specifically references human-caused climate change and we have a plan to restabilize the climate, address environmental degradation, and ensure environmental sustainability.
[Ed. Note: As of writing the Pierce campaign’s policy platform does not specifically reference human-caused climate change.]
You’ve recently brought on Akon as a campaign surrogate. How did that happen? Tell me about that.
Akon and I have been friends for quite some time. I was one of the guys that taught him about Bitcoin. I helped make some videogames for him, I think in 2012. We were talking about Bitcoin, teaching him the ropes, back in 2013. And in 2014, we were both speaking at the Milken Global Conference, and I encouraged him to talk about how Bitcoin, Africa, changed the world. He became the biggest celebrity in the world, talking about Bitcoin at the time. I’m an adviser to his Akoin project, very interested in the work that he’s doing to build a city in Africa.
I think we need a government that’s of, for, and by the people. Akon has huge political aspirations. He obviously was a hugely successful artist. But he also discovered artists like Lady Gaga. So not only is he, himself, a great artist, but he’s also a great identifier and builder of other artists. And he’s been a great businessman, philanthropist. He’s pushing the limits of what can be done. We’re like-minded individuals in that regard. I think he’ll be running for political office one day, because he sees what I see: that we need real change, and we need a government that is of, for, and by the people.
You mentioned that you’re an adviser on Akoin. Do you have any financial investments in Akoin or Akon City?
I don’t believe so. I’d have to check. I have so much stuff. But I don’t believe that I have any economic interests in his stuff. I’d have to verify that. We’ll get back to you. I don’t believe that I have any economic interests. My interest is in helping him. He’s a visionary with big ideas that wants to help things in the world. If I can be of assistance in helping him make the world a better place, I’m all for it. I’m not motivated by money. I’m not running for office because I’m motivated by power. I’m running for office because I’m deeply, deeply concerned about our collective future.
You’ve said you’re running on a pro-technology platform. One week into your campaign last month, a New York appeals court approved the state Attorney General’s attempt to investigate the stablecoin Tether for potentially fraudulent activity. Do you think this will impact your ability to sell people on your tech entrepreneurship?
No, I think my role in Tether is as awesome as it gets. It was my idea. I put it together. But I’ve had no involvement in the company since 2015. I gave all of my equity to the other shareholders. I’ve had zero involvement in the company for almost six years. It was just my idea. I put the initial team together. But I think Tether is one of the most important innovations in the world, certainly. The idea is, I digitized the U.S. dollar. I used technology to digitize currency—existing currency. The U.S. dollar in particular. It’s doing $10 trillion a year. Ten trillion dollars a year of transactional volume. It’s probably the most important innovation in currency since the advent of fiat money. The people that took on the business and ran the business in years to come, they’ve done things I’m not proud of. I’m not sure they’ve done anything criminal. But they certainly did things differently than I would do. But it’s like, you have kids, they turn 18, they go out into the world, and sometimes you’re proud of the things they do, and sometimes you shake your head and go, “Ugh, why did you do that?” I have zero concerns as it relates to me personally. I wish they made better decisions.
What do you think the investigation will find?
I have no idea. The problem that was raised is that there was a $5 million loan between two entities and whether or not they had the right to do that, did they disclose it correctly. There’s been no accusations of, like, embezzlement or anything that bad.
[Ed. Note: The Attorney General’s press release on the investigation reads: “Our investigation has determined that the operators of the ‘Bitfinex’ trading platform, who also control the ‘tether’ virtual currency, have engaged in a cover-up to hide the apparent loss of $850 million dollars of co-mingled client and corporate funds.”]
But there’s been some disclosure things, that is the issue. No one is making any outrageous claims that these are people that have done a bunch of bad—well, on the internet, the media has said that the people behind the business may have been manipulating the price of Bitcoin, but I don’t think that has anything to do with the New York investigation. Again, I’m so not involved, and so not at risk, that I’m not even up to speed on the details.
[Ed note: A representative of the New York State Attorney General told Forbes that he “cannot confirm or deny that the investigation” includes Pierce.]
We’ve recently witnessed the rise of QAnon, the conspiracy theory that Hollywood is an evil cabal of Satanic pedophiles and Trump is the person waging war on them. You mentioned human trafficking, which has become a cause for them. What are your thoughts on that?
I’ve watched some of the content. I think it’s an interesting phenomenon. I’m an internet person, so Anonymous is obviously an organization that has been doing interesting stuff. It’s interesting. I don’t have a big—conspiracy theory stuff is—I guess I have a question for you: What do you think of all of it, since you’re the expert?
You know, I think it’s not true, but I’m not running for president. I do wonder what this politician [Georgia congressional candidate Marjorie Taylor Greene], who’s just won her primary, is going to do on day one, once she finds out there’s no satanic cabal room.
Wait, someone was running for office and won on a QAnon platform, saying that Hollywood did—say what? You’re the expert here.
She won a primary. But I want to push on if we only have a few minutes. In 2006, your gaming company IGE brought on Steve Bannon as an investor. Goldman later bought out most of your stock. Bannon eventually replaced you as CEO of Affinity. You’ve described him as your “right-hand man for, like, seven years.” How well did you know Bannon during that time?
Yes, so this is in my mid-twenties. He wasn’t an investor. He worked for me. He was my banker. He worked for me for three years as my yield guide. And then he was my CEO running the company for another four years. So I haven’t worked with Steve for a decade or so. We worked in videogame stuff and banking. He was at Goldman Sachs. He was not in the political area at the time. But he was a pretty successful banker. He set up Goldman Sachs Los Angeles. So for me, I’d say he did a pretty good job.
During your business relationship, Steve Bannon founded Breitbart News, which has pretty consistently published racist material. How do you feel about Breitbart?
I had no involvement with Breitbart News. As for how I feel about such material, I’m not pleased by any form of hate-mongering. I strongly support the equality of all Americans.
Did you have qualms about Bannon’s role in the 2016 election?
Bannon’s role in the Trump campaign got me to pay closer attention to what he was doing but that’s about it. Whenever you find out that one of your former employees has taken on a role like that, you pay attention.
Bannon served on the board of Cambridge Analytica. A staffer on your campaign, Brittany Kaiser, also served as a business director for them. What are your thoughts on their use of illicitly-obtained Facebook data for campaign promotional material?
Yes, so this will be the last question I can answer because I’ve got to be off for this 5:00 pm. But Brittany Kaiser is a friend of mine. She was the whistleblower of Cambridge Analytica. She came to me and said, “What do I do?” And I said, “Tell the truth. The truth will set you free.”
[Ed. Note: Investigations in Cambridge Analytica took place as early as Nov. 2017, when a U.K. reporter at Channel 4 News recorded their CEO boasting about using “beautiful Ukranian girls” and offers of bribes to discredit political officials. The first whistleblower was Christopher Wylie, who disclosed a cache of documents to The Guardian, published on Mar. 17, 2018. Kaiser’s confession ran five days later, after the scandal made national news. Her association with Cambridge Analytica is not mentioned anywhere on Pierce’s campaign website.]
So I’m glad that people—I’m a supporter of whistleblowers, people that see injustice in the world and something not right happening, and who put themselves in harm’s way to stand up for what they believe in. So I stand up for Brittany Kaiser.
Who do you think [anonymous inventor of Bitcoin] Satoshi Nakamoto is?
We all are Satoshi Nakamoto.
You got married at Burning Man. Have you been attending virtual Burning Man?
I’m running a presidential campaign. So, while I was there in spirit, unfortunately my schedule did not permit me to attend.
OP note: please refer to the original article for reference links within text (as I've not added them here!)
submitted by Leather_Term to Epstein [link] [comments]

I bought $1k of the Top Ten Cryptos on January 1st, 2018. Result? Down -81%

I bought $1k of the Top Ten Cryptos on January 1st, 2018. Result? Down -81%

EXPERIMENT - Tracking Top 10 Cryptos of 2018 - Month 30 - Down -81%
See the full blog post with all the tables here.
Way too long/don't like words: Halfway through 2020 report: Cardano wins for second straight month, BTC still way ahead overall, ETH alone in second place. NEM (poor, poor, NEM) still in basement, down -95% since Jan 2018. Markets still going up despite world on fire. 3 x $1k investments in crypto in 2018, 2019, 2020 are down -10% total. Made a few new tables for your viewing enjoyment.

Month Thirty – Down 81%

After two consecutive strong months, the 2018 Top Ten Crypto Index Fund Portfolio lost some ground in June. In a sea of red, there was one bright spot: Cardano finished the month up +9%.
Only ADA in the green

Question of the month:

The 2018 Crypto Index Fund Experiment began January 1st, 2018. Which of the Top Ten cryptos performed best at the end of year one?

A) Bitcoin B) Ethereum C) Bitcoin Cash D) Stellar
Scroll down for the answer.

Ranking and June Winners and Losers

There was a lot of movement with the 2018 Top Ten group this month. For the second month in a row, Cardano made the most upward progress, climbing two positions to reclaim its spot in the Top Ten at #9. By basically finishing the month flat, IOTA picked up one spot in the standings as well. Heading the other direction, XRP, NEM, Dash, and Stellar each fell one place in the rankings.
Thanks to Cardano’s strong month, the overall drop out rate shrank to 40%. In other words, four out of the six cryptos that started 2018 in the Top Ten have dropped out. NEM, Dash, IOTA, and Stellar have been replaced by Binance Coin, Tether, BSV, and newcomer Crypto.com Coin (oh, hello CRO, where did you come from?).
June Winners – Winner, singular: ADA, for the second month in a row, up +9% while the rest of the field sank or held ground. After a great spring, Cardano’s summer is off to a strong start.
June Losers – For the second month in a row, XRP was the worst performer, down -15.9%. Close behind was Dash, down -15.6% in June.
How has your favorite crypto fared over the first 30 months of the 2018 Top Ten Crypto Index Fund Experiment? Most monthly wins (7): Bitcoin followed by Cardano with 5 monthly wins. The most monthly losses? A tie between Stellar and NEM, both with 5. All cryptos have at least one monthly win and Bitcoin stands alone as the only crypto that hasn’t lost a month (although it came close in January 2020 when it gained “only” +31%).

Overall update – BTC returning twice as much second place ETH, NEM in basement.

Although down -30% since January 2018, BTC is still well ahead of the rest of the pack. My initial investment of $100 is now worth about $70.
Ethereum is all alone in second place, down -68%, the initial $100 investment worth about $30.
NEM (down -95%) is still in last place. That initial $100 investment in NEM? Now worth $4.71.

Total Market Cap for the entire cryptocurrency sector:

The crypto market as a whole lost about $21B in June. This is down over half from January 2018 when the market was worth roughly $575B.

Bitcoin dominance:

After three months of zero movement, Bitcoin dominance finally declined, but not by much. It’s been stuck in the mid-60s to low-70s range for the past year.
Since the beginning of the experiment, the range of Bitcoin dominance has been quite wide: we saw a high of 70% BitDom in September 2019 and a low of 33% BitDom in February 2018.

Overall return on investment since January 1st, 2018:

The 2018 Top Ten Portfolio lost about $20 bucks in June 2020. If I cashed out today, my $1000 initial investment would return about $187, down -81% from January 2018.
Here’s the ROI over the life of the experiment, month by month:
Ah, a sea of red
After a brief dip last month into the negative seventies, we’re back down to the very familiar negative eighties.
Fun fact: over the course of the 2.5 years since the beginning of the 2018 Top Ten Index Fund Experiment, the portfolio has finished over half of the first thirty months down at least -80%.
Tracking the Top Ten cryptos from January 1st, 2018 has been an undoubtedly painful exercise so far. But what about 2019 and 2020 when I repeated the experiment? Let’s take a look:
So overall? Taking the three portfolios together, here’s the bottom bottom bottom line:
After a $3000 investment in the 2018, 2019, and 2020 Top Ten Cryptocurrencies, my combined portfolios are worth $2,710‬.
That’s down about -10% for the three combined portfolios. That’s compared to about +4% last month. Better than a few months ago (aka the zombie apocalypse) where it was down -24%, but not yet back at January (+13%) or February (+6%) levels.
Having trouble keeping up? Yeah, me too. You know what that means?!?!?! NEW TABLE DROP!!
Combined ROI of all three portfolios
Ah, that’s better. Much better.

Comparison to S&P 500:

I’m also tracking the S&P 500 as part of the experiment to have a comparison point with other popular investments options. Even though the US economy is still reeling from the COVID shock, the stock market (as measured by the S&P) continued to recover in June. The initial $1k investment into crypto on New Year’s Day 2018 would have gained about $170 had it been redirected to the S&P.
Alright, let’s compare all three years of the crypto investments to hypothetical US stock market investments. Taking the same drop-$1,000-per-year-on-January-1st-of-each-year approach with the S&P 500 that I’ve been documenting through the Top Ten Crypto Experiments would yield the following:
  • $1000 investment in S&P 500 on January 1st, 2018: +$170
  • $1000 investment in S&P 500 on January 1st, 2019: +$240
  • $1000 investment in S&P 500 on January 1st, 2020: -$40
Taken together, here’s the bottom bottom bottom line for a similar approach with the S&P:
After three $1,000 investments into an S&P 500 index fund in January 2018, 2019, and 2020, my portfolio would be worth $3,370.
That is up over+12% since January 2018, compared to -10% of the combined Top Ten Crypto Experiment Portfolios.
That’s about a 22% swing in favor of the stock market, the widest so far this year. Last month, there was only a 6% difference in favor of the stock market. Here’s another new table that shows an emerging pattern:
Three Top Ten Crypto Portfolios vs. hypothetical identical approach with S&P 500

Implications/Observations:

The 2018 Experiment’s focus of solely holding the Top Ten Cryptos has not (and has never been) a winning approach when compared to the overall crypto market. The total market cap is down -54% from January 2018 compared to the -81% for the cryptos that began 2018 in the Top Ten.
This of course implies that I would have done a bit better if I’d picked every crypto, or different cryptos: throwing that $1k to Bitcoin, for example, would have me down by -30% instead of -81%.
On the other hand, this bit of diversification has served me well compared to putting all my eggs in NEM‘s -95% basket, for example.
To reiterate, at no point in this experiment has this investment strategy been successful: the initial 2018 Top Ten have under-performed each of the first thirty months compared to the market overall.
Repeating the Top Ten experiments in 2019 and 2020 has resulted in a slightly different story. There are a few examples of this approach outperforming the overall market in the parallel 2019 Top Ten Crypto Experiment. And for the most recent 2020 Top Ten Index Fund group of cryptocurrencies, this approach had outperformed the overall market 100% of the time…up until the last two months.

Conclusion:

We’re half way through a very strange year, where it seems we’re playing Biblical Plague Bingo. The US market have more or less bounced back from the shock, crypto markets to a lesser degree. What’s next for crypto in an extremely unpredictable year?
Final word: Be excellent to each other.
If you made it this far, thanks for reading and for supporting the experiment. I hope you’ve found it helpful. I continue to be committed to seeing this process through and reporting along the way. Feel free to reach out with any questions and stay tuned for progress reports. Keep an eye out for my parallel projects where I repeat the experiment twice, purchasing another $1000 ($100 each) of two new sets of Top Ten cryptos as of January 1st, 2019 then again on January 1st, 2020.

And the Answer is…

D) Stellar
Even though it finished the year down -66%, Stellar outperformed the rest of the 2018 Top Ten Index Fund Experiment Cryptos after the first 12 months. Second place on January 1st, 2019 was Bitcoin, down -71%.
submitted by Joe-M-4 to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

Dissecting the Parasitocracy

Instead of honest democracy or free-market meritocracy, we truly live under rule by parasites. (This term is not meant to be derogatory but to be apt. I suppose many, if not most of us, would opt to be one of the parasites, if given the choice.)
Trying to describe how the financial and political elites receive unearned wealth and power can get complicated very quickly. To find a simple but rigorous theory to cover most major features of the beast requires looking at it the right way.
By and large, how it works is that:
The elites use state power to prop up the values of money, debt, and other financial assets artificially, to benefit those who issue them, i.e. themselves. When some over-valued asset eventually must crash, the entire economy suffers the loss of jobs, business and savings.
 
Example: The Bank Account
Public illusion. A commercial-bank 'deposit' is as good as money. You will get all your money back, any time you want.
Reality. 'Deposits' are really loans to the bank which lends them to borrowers, some of whom may never pay them back. Another danger is that savers may ask for their money at any time, while loans by the bank tend to have longer-term maturities.
How to bridge myth and reality. An truly free-market system would drive banks to communicate expectations openly. A simple example could be having 'depositors' expect to lose money if the bank makes bad loans. The problem with such an honest system, of course, is that top politicians and bankers wouldn't benefit much, since people would likely put much less money in banks.
The confidence trick. The government props up the illusion, while it can. Classic tools over the centuries include allowing banks to collude by rescuing each other in a crisis, bailing banks out with public money, and providing deposit insurance. If this gives bankers the incentives to take too much risk, bankers redeem themselves by being a lender to the government. Since both sets of elites benefit, what problem is there? (In recent decades investment banks and money market funds have formed a shadow banking system which plays an equivalent role. While the last US commercial-bank bust happened in the 1980s' savings-and-loan crisis, the last shadow-bank variety occurred in 2007-8.)
Analysis. While credit is indeed crucial to economic growth, to use government power to prop up the values of loans to banks, and then to rely on bureaucrats and their rules to limit risk-taking by bankers is a distortion of the credit market. It is the driver of much human misery. Central planning, somehow, always benefits the few at the expense of the many, even if it claims to do just the opposite.
 
Example: Government Bonds
Public illusion. The 'full faith and credit' of the government stands behind the IOU it issues to you. Your IOU is as good as money.
Reality. Since much public debt is almost as trusted as money, incurring this debt is almost as good as printing money. Politicians thus have an incentive to maximize the issuance of debt to receive free political capital, even if this destabilizes their own system in the long run. Public debt all over the world goes only up. Even though powerful governments can keep their debt bubbles going for a century or more, those incentives mean that their IOUs will eventually lose value, one way or another.
How to bridge myth and reality. Even aside from the moral problems of 'money' creation and putting burden on people who can't yet vote, public debt should at least be allowed to sink or swim in the capital markets. If a government incurs too much debt, savers would be incentivized to punish it by demanding a higher yield, and politicians would in turn be incentivized to cut back borrowing.
The confidence trick. When savers get too wary of public debt, the central bank steps in to buy it with freshly printed money, thus propping up the value of these IOUs. This is done in the name of 'monetary policy,' either by buying public debt directly as 'open market' operations, or, more frequently, by supplying banks with cheap new money so they will buy it. Most of the time, savers can't fight city hall, and will thus tend to buy and hold IOUs, further limiting the downside risk of their values. This entire system thus amounts to a bubble.
Analysis. It doesn't matter how powerful a government is -- Public debt always crashes eventually. The dominant global empires of Spain, the Netherlands, and Britain were destroyed by this crash in their days. (In the case of Britain the relevant 'public debt' took the form of paper pound sterling that was officially an IOU for a fixed amount of gold.) No one believes US debt is really payable with anything close to the purchasing power savers and foreign central banks used to buy it, although by the time its value can no longer be propped up, most politicians and voters who have benefited from issuing it will have been gone.
 
Example: Money
Public illusion. Central banks issue and destroy currency to manage economic output for the benefit of the public. At least in the West, proper management has resulted in low and constant inflation that has justified the public's evident trust in currency's value.
Reality. The real job description of the central bank is to safeguard the state-bank alliance. It holds power over the most central asset, money, in order to discourage both politicians and bankers from issuing assets too fast and thus endangering the system. The goal is well-paced harvesting of the fruits of real work. Over the decades, prices only move in one direction: up.
How to bridge myth and reality. Unfortunately, there is no way to remove the incentives to abuse the issuance of money while the state or a banking cartel has any role in the issuance.
The confidence trick. The problem of holding up the public's trust in currency was solved in a simple fashion by the classical gold and silver standards in their day, while the authorities had enough precious metals to back their paper. Today, the central bank needs to keep the return on 'safe' assets (e.g. short-term Treasuries, insured deposits) above the return on non-state-issued assets, i.e. gold, silver and Bitcoin. (Recent books like 'Gold Wars' and 'The Gold Cartel' have come up with good evidence of central-bank suppression of precious metal prices by trading derivatives.) In this it seems to succeed most of the time, but fail spectacularly at other times. It also needs to keep the return on 'safe' assets below the return on risky assets like stocks, over the long term. The goal of both operations is to use state power to force savers to take risks and help prop up the bubble economy. (Ever wonder why financial crisis always seems to come back?) When you hear of 'tightening' or 'loosening' the money supply, this control is what's really going on. So, it's not that the public trusts currency; most feel they have no choice.
Analysis. It's not, as most mainstream economists claim, that state-controlled money is required for modern economic growth. The Italian Renaissance and Scottish 'free-banking' era were counter-examples. It's really the other way round. The real productivity of the modern world gives value to the financial assets issued by the elites, and thus help sustain their financial inflation, at least until the perverse incentives destabilizes the system anyway. In the Middle Ages, money was physical gold and silver -- when there was no wealth to extract, the state couldn't create its financial inflation.
 
Final Thoughts
A key feature of this system is that it doesn't matter if you understand it. You still must gamble, or risk your savings being eaten away by inflation. The gamble by the public as a whole is certain to end in loss, since the elites will always destabilize asset values to the point of collapse. The lose-lose proposition works the same way as literal highway robbery -- you can certainly hold on to your money; you just can't keep your life at the same time.
That said, there are times when the elites are likely to be forced to devalue their money, and with it all other conventional assets, against gold, silver and Bitcoin, in order to hold on to power. This makes it statistically profitable to hold non-state-issued assets at those times. (An analogy would be standing at the front of the line to redeem deposits for cash during a bank run, or to redeem pound sterling for gold at the Bank of England just before Britain was forced off the gold standard.) Necessarily, only a minority will profit from this bet, but its existence is a healthy incentive that pushes the elites to minimize financial inflation.
This devaluation is conceptually the same as 'banana republics' having to devalue their currency against the dollar because they've printed too much. The typical way to do this is to strongly deny any prospect of devaluation until the very moment, devalue as fast as possible (and devalue enough to keep their system stable for a while,) and deny any further devaluations in future. So, it's perhaps no accident that the price movements of gold, silver and Bitcoin have been long and gradual declines most of the time, punctuated by sharp rises over short periods, and rising overall over the long term.
The system is an 'open conspiracy.' Instead of secrecy, it relies on a combination of state power and ignorance by the public. The only sustainable path to achieving a healthy and just system is for the public to wake up. But the devaluation of its issued money against non-state monies shows that, in a subtle but profoundly real sense, the system is a paper tiger. Since the power of the modern imperial system depends necessarily on various alliances of self-interest as well as the perception of its support for classically liberal ideals, if enough people, and people in the right places, refuse to be intimidated, or expose its nature, the system must make concessions, and make the world perhaps a little better.
This possibility of piecewise progress exists in all corners of the system, at most times. Here, then, is where our hope must be for the future. It will be a long battle indeed, and we must be prepared for the entire duration.
submitted by BobK72 to conspiracy_commons [link] [comments]

Weekly Wrap 23/10

Market News
Bitcoin reached yearly highs this week as the price dislocated from moves in traditional markets, breaking beyond the $12,500 level set in August before ending the week more than 12% up. The bullish mood was boosted by news of PayPal’s plans to enable cryptocurrencies to be bought, sold and spent through its online wallets. The move will make digital assets a viable payment method for its 346 million active accounts and 26 million merchants worldwide. Altcoins initially lost ground as Bitcoin led the rally but, as expected, saw stronger performance as Bitcoin cooled off.
Traditional markets were largely driven by the implications of accelerating pandemic second waves in Europe (with curfews and other restrictions being ramped up), as well as parts of the US. This market-negative news was countered somewhat by growing prospects for further stimulus for the hard-hit Eurozone economy. On the US stimulus front, a Tuesday deadline set by the Democrats came and went and negotiations are ongoing, with some holding out hope that a weekend agreement can be reached. However, pre-election stimulus prospects are still weak with the Republican-controlled Senate showing major opposition, despite promising to at least consider any bill.
The US dollar found itself under pressure from the euro and British pound as the UK returned to the Brexit negotiating table and further European stimulus was priced in, but bounced slightly Thursday as expectations for timeous inflationary US stimulus waned. Gold mirrored dollar movements, rising to mid-week before falling to end the period flat.
Global stocks, as well as the US S&P500 suffered under the combined weight of the pandemic threat, fears of a no-deal Brexit, and downgraded US stimulus expectations. The tech-dominated US Nasdaq index was again the exception, benefiting from some safe-haven flows and above-expectation earnings announcements from a host of companies - this despite the US government bringing a bi-partisan antitrust lawsuit against Google, which only managed to weigh on US tech early in the week.
Industry News
Market Indicators
Other News
submitted by Camaa to cryptotwenty [link] [comments]

Weekly Wrap 23/10

Market News
Bitcoin reached yearly highs this week as the price dislocated from moves in traditional markets, breaking beyond the $12,500 level set in August before ending the week more than 12% up. The bullish mood was boosted by news of PayPal’s plans to enable cryptocurrencies to be bought, sold and spent through its online wallets. The move will make digital assets a viable payment method for its 346 million active accounts and 26 million merchants worldwide. Altcoins initially lost ground as Bitcoin led the rally but, as expected, saw stronger performance as Bitcoin cooled off.
Traditional markets were largely driven by the implications of accelerating pandemic second waves in Europe (with curfews and other restrictions being ramped up), as well as parts of the US. This market-negative news was countered somewhat by growing prospects for further stimulus for the hard-hit Eurozone economy. On the US stimulus front, a Tuesday deadline set by the Democrats came and went and negotiations are ongoing, with some holding out hope that a weekend agreement can be reached. However, pre-election stimulus prospects are still weak with the Republican-controlled Senate showing major opposition, despite promising to at least consider any bill.
The US dollar found itself under pressure from the euro and British pound as the UK returned to the Brexit negotiating table and further European stimulus was priced in, but bounced slightly Thursday as expectations for timeous inflationary US stimulus waned. Gold mirrored dollar movements, rising to mid-week before falling to end the period flat.
Global stocks, as well as the US S&P500 suffered under the combined weight of the pandemic threat, fears of a no-deal Brexit, and downgraded US stimulus expectations. The tech-dominated US Nasdaq index was again the exception, benefiting from some safe-haven flows and above-expectation earnings announcements from a host of companies - this despite the US government bringing a bi-partisan antitrust lawsuit against Google, which only managed to weigh on US tech early in the week.
Industry News
Market Indicators
Other News
submitted by Camaa to InvictusCapital [link] [comments]

Hi! I'm the solo developer of a social media platform, new religious movement, and religious organization. I've been working on this since early 2019. I've only told a few dozen people about it and I'm looking for feedback. Please ask me anything. Thanks!

TLDR: I made this website. I think it's pretty innovative and helpful. https://churchofearth.org/

About the need for this post.

A lot of this text was originally to be posted to changemyview because I'm looking to be challenged on my assumptions here, and my approach. I checked with the mods there and I can't find a way not to post it as promotion (which would violate the subreddit rules). The I considered posting it in philosophy and IAmA and it was a similar answer. To be clear: I support their decisions to not allow this post. There's a lot of reasons to be concerned about someone running up and saying "Hey! Do you wanna hear about my religion?" and I have total respect for anyone who says "No."
I reached out to casualiama a few hours ago and haven't heard back. If they decide to lock or remove this I support their decision and will try another subreddit.
I welcome lots and lots of questions about this project, I believe this project will be helpful, but I am open to having my view about the viability of this project changed. This is a big weird thing and I've been focusing on it alone for long time. This work has probably had a big impact on my objectivity.
This didn't used to exist and maybe it doesn't need to. Or maybe it has some irredeemable flaw that I've failed to consider. I don't want to see this get launched if that's the case. The main cost of this project has been my time, and I've learned enough while doing it to justify the time spent on it even if I'm convinced this project isn't viable.
I can't make any more progress alone and I need new people to get involved. This can change and it can evolve as it grows because I've tried to build it to be guided by new people. I hope that I've done a good job of building it that way.
The fastest way to learn about this in order to ask me questions is by visiting the website.
https://churchofearth.org/
(I sure hope that this post does well and I've set up the site well enough to accommodate the traffic.)
(This text will contain many links to the website)
(I'm really nervous about this)

Why have I done this?

I would describe this effort as coming out of the part of my brain that would be firing if I were an active survivalist/doomsday prepper. In 2019 I became very concerned about the state of the world, especially as I thought about what it will look like for the remainder of my life. It seemed logical to amass skills and resources in order to protect myself and the people around me. I had never focused on my own survival because I've lived a life of privilege, and then I realized that there were scenarios where my privilege would not protect me.
During that research phase I came to the conclusion that I couldn't just turn inward. As people turn inward our shared challenges become harder to address. I started looking more into the good work people were doing all over the world. I looked outward for inspiration.
There's lots of folks doing lots of amazing work trying to solve our shared challenges. At every level of society, in every region, in big ways and small ways. This is often a very helpful world.
I started researching things and became less pessimistic about the future of our world. This doesn't mean there aren't a pile of challenges for us to solve, it means that I'm better able to see the people trying to solve our shared challenges. When I couldn't see them (and wasn't looking for them) the future of our world seemed much worse. I still see the darkness, and it's scary and overwhelming and huge, but now I see more light.
This project represents what I was able to build with the skills and experience I had. This project started out as just a social media platform intended to connect people who wanted to help. While I was building that I discovered a faith within myself about the future. The new religious movement is the structure I've built to help grow this faith. It's based on religious humanism, which has been a thing for several hundred years.
I stopped working heavily on this project in late 2019, and formally stopped on February 1st of 2020. I started it up again in April of 2020. There's a short post about it here.

The new religious movement

The Church of Earth is a non-theistic, religious humanist movement focused on building a more helpful world and the worship of current and future generations. Worshiping future generations can allow us to focus deliberately on trying to build a world where everyone thrives.
In order to thrive we all need access to water, food, information, energy, support and freedom. We all need different level of these things to thrive and we all want to thrive. The Church of Earth is founded on the view that we are different and equal.
The core values of the Church of Earth are intended to help you and the world around you.
People who feel the faith of the Church of Earth are called Helpers. There are no rituals to join this faith, although anyone can make rituals. Anyone can identify themselves as a Helper. Don't judge them by who they say they are, judge them by what they do. In their acts of faith they should be trying to help you, and only if you consent to their help.
This faith is optional. No one can be forced to adopt this faith. You can't force a more helpful world on people, you can only help them build it.

The social media platform

The social media platform is built to help people grow this religion. It allows them to focus on activities that relate to the core beliefs of the Church of Earth. People do not need to share this faith to use this platform or use its features. The platform is anonymous. There are no user profiles. Every type of module can inspire almost any other type of module. The modules all have different functionality. This platform is complex software.
Social Media Platforms like Facebook and Twitter are designed to be simple and addictive. Those are deliberate design choices intended to serve the goals of the organizations that built them. These goals relate to revenue generation through the use of user data. This organization has different goals, and one of those goals involves promoting hard work.
There will be a learning curve with this platform. I'm the only one who has used it so far and I've probably failed to consider a lot of things. This platform will change over time as more skills and knowledge improve its construction. This platform can be considered one of our great works.
I can tell you right now people will find a number of bugs on the platform. I am expecting something unexpected, critical, and stressful to happen once people start visiting this site. Please be kind and patient with this platform, and with me. I'm very tired.
Upvotes/Downvites/Likes/Dislikes:
The purpose of this platform is to help grow a more helpful world. The upvote/downvote button labels are: This is Helpful and This is Not Helpful. Everything added to this platform should be helpful, every post includes fields where you can describe who you're trying to help, and why. There are a limited number of votes that can be given every day. Creating content increases your votes for the day.
The platform has the following modules:
The Gospel of the Church of Earth
All of the content we create can be connected in a big, anonymous web of helpfulness. Any content type can inspire any other content type, except for prayers. Prayers can only be answered (publicly or privately depending on the type of prayer.) Blog posts by the Church of Earth can inspire content from users. The goals of the Church of Earth appear in the same module as the goals of individual users of this platform.
Intentions
When you post something you have to say who you think you're helping, and why. You also need to select a subcategory like "I am being thoughtful" or "I am being creative" or "I am being inspirational" or "I am being critical". This will help other users understand how to react to you in a way that contributes to meaningful interactions.
It's just me right now, so that's pretty funny and awkward
The platform is live. Anyone can create content. Accounts can only create one piece of content until their first contribution receives a vote by another user saying "This is Helpful". There are currently no users on the platform. I've created content but there's no one to say if it's helpful so I'm still a pending user.
On September 24th, 1 year after I first posted the 3 core beliefs to the site, 5% of all pending users will be selected at random and added to the site. Those people will then be able to use the site, but their profiles will not indicate they were among the First Five. My account isn't any more likely to be added than anyone else.
This is an act of faith. It doesn't take a lot of people to make big things happen and we're all capable of amazing things. That is the message this platform has been designed to share.
Note: That doesn't mean there won't be an effort to understand the impact of spam comments, or content that violates the terms of service for this site. They'll be transparent though. It's unreasonable to think that people won't do silly things with a site like this on the internet. Silly things are fun. One of the "intentions" of the site is "the be creative".

The religious organization

This organization will have a different look depending on how successful it is. I've built it in the hope it will see a meaningful amount of adoption, but all of that can be scaled down and still be helpful. Even if it's just me feeling this way for the rest of my life I consider it a meaningful improvement to my worldview and personality.
I'm fairly confident some unknown quantity of other people will also see the value in this and that we can build something together.
The Church of Earth organization is the least planned out because it needs to be developed by people with greater specialization than me. The main points are this:
Here's an infographic about this.
The organization will be structured like a nonprofit and will prioritize pursuing goals that align with the 3 core beliefs of the Church of Earth faith. It will require donations, but the hope is that it will eventually develop revenue to be self sufficient.
I have some ideas for revenue generation. They're not super innovative, they're just taking relevant things and doing them in a way that promotes the faith of the Church of Earth as it operates as a nonprofit entity in a capitalist economy. This business model is well developed in North America by other religious institutions. These are the best ideas I've come up with, but none of them can proceed until I find people more qualified than me to do this. It's very likely that I've failed to consider elements of these proposals.

What should you know about me?

I wish I could be like Satoshi Nakamoto. That's the pseudonym of the person who created Bitcoin. We don't know for sure who actually created the code. They just worked on it, put it out there, and it went on to become something amazing and complex.
I spent a long time trying to figure out how to do that with the Church of Earth. I absolutely love everything about this project but I want to minimize my involvement in it. I also think there will be negative impacts on me, and this organization, if people focus on me instead of the faith. The Church of Earth is about what everyone can do, together. I'm no more special than anyone else. I'm terribly imperfect.
I'm also a 39 year old white Canadian guy. While I've faced many struggles I've lived a life of privilege. I don't speak for everyone, or to everyone. No one can. People face problems I couldn't even consider. My ability to help those people directly is limited, but I have the skillset required to build something that would allow others to help them.
The world is hard, and harsh, and frustrating, and scary. It's also wonderful and amazing and beautiful.
I think that if we all work together we can spend the rest of our lives deliberately building a better world for everyone, in big ways and small ways.
Knowing that's happening makes me happy and it motivates me to work harder. I wasn't a religious person until I discovered this faith within myself. This faith has allowed me to focus myself towards something that I believe is helpful to my community. I think it can do the same for others.
What do you think? Thanks for reading. Ask me anything, please.
submitted by ChurchOfEarth to casualiama [link] [comments]

Conservatives think liberty is the right to be a health risk.

https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/great-conservative-migration-and-what-it-means-future
In rural areas in particular we enjoy far more freedom and the majority of people have no interest in abiding by lockdown restrictions. We ignore them. A friend of mine recently had family visit from California and they were astonished at how 'normal' daily life was in Montana. They said just being able to go to a restaurant and eat there, or walk into a store without being forced to wear a mask was a strange feeling, as if they were visiting a foreign nation.
This is saddening to me. The coronavirus is certainly not worth this loss of liberty.
I suspect that the conservative migration will lead to some interesting side-effects. First and foremost there will be continued attempts to stop it. Eventually, states like California will try to implement measures beyond tax punishment. They may even try to exploit the pandemic as a rationale for locking down state borders in the name of “protecting citizen health”. I would not be surprised if hard-left states actively try to physically stop residents from moving away.
As the economy continues to decline and stagflation strikes, likely very hard in 2021 regardless of who is in the White House (you can thank the Federal Reserve for that), price increases will eventually prevent Americans from being able to relocate anyway. But, for the next six months at least I think the migration will continue to grow.
The congregation of conservatives today is perhaps the first time in a long time that we have sought to build a unified front for preserving the American way of life, free from big government, free from bureaucracy and free from socialist subversion. Without the migration, we have zero chance of achieving this, but there are some who will argue against it.
How is that working out? https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/06/05/fact-check-comparison-covid-19-data-state-politics-false/5252816002/
Coronavirus seems to be rapidly growing in conservative and rural areas: https://www.usnews.com/news/healthiest-communities/articles/2020-04-30/coronavirus-cases-deaths-growing-at-faster-rates-in-rural-areas
I have noticed that certain conservatives and moderates are claiming that by leaving places like California or New York the movement is “abandoning the fight” and exposing those regions to complete takeover. News Flash for these folks: You already lost those states. You lost that fight. They have been taken over. And, if you understand strategy in the slightest, you will wrap your heads around the need for a strategic withdrawal so that you can live to fight more winnable battles another day.
This mentality reminds me of the people that were arguing that conservatives should not start their own social media platforms “because the real fight is on Twitter and Facebook”. This is naive thinking. Those platforms are OWNED by the extreme left, and there is no one on these websites that will be convinced by your arguments no matter how reasonable or factual. It's time to build alternatives that are more free and stop wasting our energies on lemmings that cannot be saved.
Yeah about that bias: https://www.techdirt.com/blog/?tag=anti-conservative+bias
So no one is really censoring you moron.
What I find most fascinating about the current migration is that it's bringing together conservatives and moderates or “classical liberals” that have been alienated by modern social justice movements. In my opinion most moderate liberals are actually conservatives or libertarians and they're just not ready to admit it yet, but I'm glad to see these people working together.
The fight that is coming will require us to ally with people that do not necessarily share ALL our views, and that's okay. The goal is to get to the truth, and to use what works best and to maintain a set of shared cultural principles that value freedom. Americans aren't relocating anymore out of convenience or economic incentives – it's actually rather inconvenient and expensive to relocate these days. They aren't moving due to climate or job availability or wages. They are moving because they have a shared desire to be free. It's really that simple.
And, the sooner free peoples band together, the safer we will be from the statists and tyrants of the world. If that means the US is broken apart for a time in the process, then so be it. It's better than having the entire country fall because rational people were isolated from each other.
Again infection rates are rising in your enclaves: https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/reports/2020/07/27/488129/congress-must-help-rural-america-respond-coronavirus/
Also apparently you guys are downplaying the infection rates: https://www.texastribune.org/2020/09/16/texas-coronavirus-positivity-rate-data-method/
https://www.umt.edu/news/2020/07/073020disa.php
From a commentor: https://gab.com/Saboteur365/posts/104918338905018697
Conservative states have nothing to worry about – The lefties are too dumb to relocate. They're going to sit within the rotting corpses of the states they killed and pretend it smells like roses. This is what they do; when they are wrong or when they have failed they double and triple down. It's their defining characteristic.
Despite the economy being a result of Trump's stupidity? https://news.bitcoin.com/data-shows-the-us-economy-was-collapsing-5-months-before-the-coronavirus-outbreak/
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/news/2020/06/03/485806/5-ways-trump-administrations-policy-failures-compounded-coronavirus-induced-economic-crisis/
From the comments:
"The problem with Cali is that they threw open the borders and welcomed in the scum of all these other countries. Millions of people that do not speak English and that are illiterate flooded over the border. Sex traffickers, thieves, rapists and murders were then given sanctuary and granted free reign to prey upon everybody else without any fear of arrest. Theft of up to $950 per day was decriminalized so that the State wouldn't be bothered with feeding all these immigrants as well as the homeless drug zombies that flooded in from all around the country. After all, everything (food, healthcare, needles and a campsite) was now free. You can hang out at the beach all day long, shoot heroin in front of the police. Take a big steamy dump on the sidewalk (saw a woman that had to be at least 70 do this) and then go steal whatever you wish.
That is the problem with California - you need to wake up."
Right...https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/news/2019/02/05/465825/7-top-immigration-lies-trump-administration/
submitted by ryu289 to skeptic [link] [comments]

Why we need to think more carefully about what money is and how it works

Most of us have overlooked a fundamental problem that is currently causing an insurmountable obstacle to building a fairer and more sustainable world. We are very familiar with the thing in question, but its problematic nature has been hidden from us by a powerful illusion. We think the problem is capitalism, but capitalism is just the logical outcome of aggregate human decisions about how to manage money. The fundamental problem is money itself, or more specifically general purpose money and the international free market which allows you to sell a chunk of rainforest and use the money to buy a soft drink factory. (You can use the same sort of money to sell anything and buy anything, anywhere in the world, and until recently there was no alternative at all. Bitcoin is now an alternative, but is not quite what we are looking for.) The illusion is that because market prices are free, and nobody is forced into a transaction, those prices must be fair – that the exchange is equitable. The truth is that the way the general money globalised free market system works means that even though the prices are freely determined, there is still an unequal flow of natural resources from poor parts of the world to rich parts. This means the poor parts will always remain poor, and resources will continue to accumulate in the large, unsustainable cities in rich countries. In other words, unless we re-invent money, we cannot overturn capitalism, and that means we can't build a sustainable civilisation.
Why does this matter? What use is it realising that general purpose money is at the root of our problems when we know that the rich and powerful people who run this world will do everything in their power to prevent the existing world system being reformed? They aren't just going to agree to get rid of general purpose money and economic globalisation. It's like asking them to stop pursuing growth: they can't even imagine how to do it, and don't want to. So how does this offer us a way forwards?
Answer: because the two things in question – our monetary system and globalisation – look like being among the first casualties of collapse. Globalisation is already going into reverse (see brexit, Trump's protectionism) and our fiat money system is heading towards a debt/inflation implosion.
It looks highly likely that the scenario going forwards will be of increasing monetary and economic chaos. Fiat money systems have collapsed many times before, but never a global system of fiat currencies floating against each other. But regardless of how may fiat currencies collapse, or how high the price of gold goes in dollars, it is not clear what the system would be replaced with. Can we just go back to the gold standard? It is possible, but people will be desperately looking for other solutions, and the people in power might also be getting desperate.
So what could replace it? What is needed is a new sort of complementary money system which both
(a) addresses the immediate economic problems of people suffering from symptoms of economic and general collapse and
(b) provides a long-term framework around which a new sort of economy can emerge – an economy which is adapted to deglobalisation and degrowth.
I have been searching for answers to this question for some time, and have now found what I was looking for. It is explained in this recently published academic book, and this paper by the same professor of economic anthropology (Alf Hornborg). The answer is the creation of a new sort of money, but it is critically important exactly how this is done. Local currencies like the Bristol Pound do not challenge globalisation. What we need is a new sort of national currency. This currency would be issued as a UBI, but only usable to buy products and services originating within an adjustable radius. This would enable a new economy to emerge. It actually resists globalisation and promotes the growth of a new sort of economy where sustainability is built on local resources and local economic activity. It would also reverse the trend of population moving from poor rural areas and towns, to cities. It would revitalise the “left behind” parts of the western world, and put the brakes on the relentless flow of natural resources and “embodied cheap labour” from the poor parts of the world to the rich parts. It would set the whole system moving towards a more sustainable and fairer state.
This may sound unrealistic, but please give it a chance. I believe it offers a way forwards that can
(a) unite disparate factions trying to provoke systemic change, including eco-marxists, greens, posthumanists and anti-globalist supporters of “populist nationalism”. The only people who really stand to lose are the supporters of global big business and the 1%.
(b) offers a realistic alternative to a money system heading towards collapse, and to which currently no other realistic alternative is being proposed.
In other words, this offers a realistic way forwards not just right now but through much of the early stages of collapse. It is likely to become both politically and economically viable within the forseeable future. It does, though, require some elements of the left to abandon its globalist ideals. It will have to embrace a new sort of nationalism. And it will require various groups who are doing very well out of the current economic system to realise that it is doomed.
Here is an FAQ (from the paper).
What is a complementary currency? It is a form of money that can be used alongside regular money.
What is the fundamental goal of this proposal? The two most fundamental goals motivating this proposal are to insulate local human subsistence and livelihood from the vicissitudes of national and international economic cycles and financial speculation, and to provide tangible and attractive incentives for people to live and consume more sustainably. It also seeks to provide authorities with a means to employ social security expenditures to channel consumption in sustainable directions and encourage economic diversity and community resilience at the local level.
Why should the state administrate the reform? The nation is currently the most encompassing political entity capable of administrating an economic reform of this nature. Ideally it is also subservient to the democratic decisions of its population. The current proposal is envisaged as an option for European nations, but would seem equally advantageous for countries anywhere. If successfully implemented within a particular nation or set of nations, the system can be expected to be emulated by others. Whereas earlier experiments with alternative currencies have generally been local, bottom-up initiatives, a state-supported program offers advantages for long-term success. Rather than an informal, marginal movement connected to particular identities and transient social networks, persisting only as long as the enthusiasm of its founders, the complementary currency advocated here is formalized, efficacious, and lastingly fundamental to everyone's economy.
How is local use defined and monitored? The complementary currency (CC) can only be used to purchase goods and services that are produced within a given geographical radius of the point of purchase. This radius can be defined in terms of kilometers of transport, and it can vary between different nations and regions depending on circumstances. A fairly simple way of distinguishing local from non-local commodities would be to label them according to transport distance, much as is currently done regarding, for instance, organic production methods or "fair trade." Such transport certification would of course imply different labelling in different locales.
How is the complementary currency distributed? A practical way of organizing distribution would be to provide each citizen with a plastic card which is electronically charged each month with the sum of CC allotted to him or her.
Who are included in the category of citizens? A monthly CC is provided to all inhabitants of a nation who have received official residence permits.
What does basic income mean? Basic income is distributed without any requirements or duties to be fulfilled by the recipients. The sum of CC paid to an individual each month can be determined in relation to the currency's purchasing power and to the individual's age. The guiding principle should be that the sum provided to each adult should be sufficient to enable basic existence, and that the sum provided for each child should correspond to the additional household expenses it represents.
Why would people want to use their CC rather than regular money? As the sum of CC provided each month would correspond to purchases representing a claim on his or her regular budget, the basic income would liberate a part of each person's regular income and thus amount to substantial purchasing power, albeit restricted only to local purchases. The basic income in CC would reduce a person's dependence on wage labor and the risks currently associated with unemployment. It would encourage social cooperation and a vitalization of community.
Why would businesses want to accept payment in CC? Business entrepreneurs can be expected to respond rapidly to the radically expanded demand for local products and services, which would provide opportunities for a diverse range of local niche markets. Whether they receive all or only a part of their income in the form of CC, they can choose to use some of it to purchase tax-free local labor or other inputs, and to request to have some of it converted by the authorities to regular currency (see next point).
How is conversion of CC into regular currency organized? Entrepreneurs would be granted the right to convert some of their CC into regular currency at exchange rates set by the authorities.The exchange rate between the two currencies can be calibrated so as to compensate the authorities for loss of tax revenue and to balance the in- and outflows of CC to the state. The rate would thus amount to a tool for determining the extent to which the CC is recirculated in the local economy, or returned to the state. This is important in order to avoid inflation in the CC sector.
Would there be interest on sums of CC owned or loaned? There would be no interest accruing on a sum of CC, whether a surplus accumulating in an account or a loan extended.
How would saving and loaning of CC be organized? The formal granting of credit in CC would be managed by state authorities and follow the principle of full reserve banking, so that quantities of CC loaned would never exceed the quantities saved by the population as a whole.
Would the circulation of CC be subjected to taxation? No.
Why would authorities want to encourage tax-free local economies? Given the beneficial social and ecological consequences of this reform, it is assumed that nation states will represent the general interests of their electorates and thus promote it. Particularly in a situation with rising fiscal deficits, unemployment, health care, and social security expenditures, the proposed reform would alleviate financial pressure on governments. It would also reduce the rising costs of transport infrastructure, environmental protection, carbon offsetting, and climate change adaptation. In short, the rising costs and diminishing returns on current strategies for economic growth can be expected to encourage politicians to consider proposals such as this, as a means of avoiding escalating debt or even bankruptcy.
How would the state's expenditures in CC be financed? As suggested above, much of these expenditures would be balanced by the reduced costs for social security, health care, transport infrastructure, environmental protection, carbon offsetting, and climate change adaptation. As these savings may take time to materialize, however, states can choose to make a proportion of their social security payments (pensions, unemployment insurance, family allowance, etc.) in the form of CC. As between a third and half of some nations' annual budgets are committed to social security, this represents a significant option for financing the reform, requiring no corresponding tax levies.
What are the differences between this CC and the many experiments with local currencies? This proposal should not be confused with the notion, or with the practical operation, of local currencies, as it does not imply different currencies in different locales but one national,complementary currency for local use. Nor is it locally initiated and promoted in opposition to theregular currency, but centrally endorsed and administrated as an accepted complement to it. Most importantly, the alternative currency can only be used to purchase products and services originating from within a given geographical range, a restriction which is not implemented in experiments with Local Exchange Trading Systems (LETS). Finally, the CC is provided as a basic income to all residents of a nation, rather than only earned in proportion to the extent to which a person has made him- or herself useful in the local economy.
What would the ecological benefits be? The reform would radically reduce the demand for long-distance transport, the production of greenhouse gas emissions, consumption of energy and materials, and losses of foodstuffs through overproduction, storage, and transport. It would increase recycling of nutrients and packaging materials, which means decreasing leakage of nutrients and less garbage. It would reduce agricultural intensification, increase biodiversity, and decrease ecological degradation and vulnerability.
What would the societal benefits be? The reform would increase local cooperation, decrease social marginalization and addiction problems, provide more physical exercise, improve psycho-social and physical health, and increase food security and general community resilience. It would decrease the number of traffic accidents, provide fresher and healthier food with less preservatives, and improved contact between producers and consumers.
What would the long-term consequences be for the economy? The reform would no doubt generate radical transformations of the economy, as is precisely the intention. There would be a significant shift of dominance from transnational corporations founded on financial speculation and trade in industrially produced foodstuffs, fuels, and other internationally transported goods to locally diverse producers and services geared to sustainable livelihoods. This would be a democratic consequence of consumer power, rather than of legislation. Through a relatively simple transformation of the conditions for market rationality, governments can encourage new and more sustainable patterns of consumer behavior. In contrast to much of the drastic and often traumatic economic change of the past two centuries, these changes would be democratic and sustainable and would improve local and national resilience.
Why should society want to encourage people to refrain from formal employment? It is increasingly recognized that full or high employment cannot be a goal in itself, particularly if it implies escalating environmental degradation and energy and material throughput. Well-founded calls are thus currently made for degrowth, i.e. a reduction in the rate of production of goods and services that are conventionally quantified by economists as constitutive of GDP. Whether formal unemployment is the result of financial decline, technological development, or intentional policy for sustainability, no modern nation can be expected to leave its citizens economically unsupported. To subsist on basic income is undoubtedly more edifying than receiving unemployment insurance; the CC system encourages useful community cooperation and creative activities rather than destructive behavior that may damage a person's health.
Why should people receive an income without working? As observed above, modern nations will provide for their citizens whether they are formally employed or not. The incentive to find employment should ideally not be propelled only by economic imperatives, but more by the desire to maintain a given identity and to contribute creatively to society. Personal liberty would be enhanced by a reform which makes it possible for people to choose to spend (some of) their time on creative activities that are not remunerated on the formal market, and to accept the tradeoff implied by a somewhat lower economic standard. People can also be expected to devote a greater proportion of their time to community cooperation, earning additional CC, which means that they will contribute more to society – and experience less marginalization – than the currently unemployed.
Would savings in CC be inheritable? No.
How would transport distances of products and services be controlled? It is reasonable to expect the authorities to establish a special agency for monitoring and controlling transport distances. It seems unlikely that entrepreneurs would attempt to cheat the system by presenting distantly produced goods as locally produced, as we can expect income in regular currency generally to be preferable to income in CC. Such attempts would also entail transport costs which should make the cargo less competitive in relation to genuinely local produce, suggesting that the logic of local market mechanisms would by and large obviate the problem.
How would differences in local conditions (such as climate, soils, and urbanism) be dealt with?It is unavoidable that there would be significant variation between different locales in terms of the conditions for producing different kinds of goods. This means that relative local prices in CC for agiven product can be expected to vary from place to place. This may in turn mean that consumption patterns will vary somewhat between locales, which is predictable and not necessarily a problem. Generally speaking, a localization of resource flows can be expected to result in a more diverse pattern of calibration to local resource endowments, as in premodern contexts. The proposed system allows for considerable flexibility in terms of the geographical definition of what is categorized as local, depending on such conditions. In a fertile agricultural region, the radius for local produce may be defined, for instance, as 20 km, whereas in a less fertile or urban area, it may be 50 km. People living in urban centers are faced with a particular challenge. The reform would encourage an increased production of foodstuffs within and in the vicinity of urban areas, which in the long run may also affect urban planning. People might also choose to move to the countryside, where the range of subsistence goods that can be purchased with CC will tend to be greater. In the long run, the reform can be expected to encourage a better fit between the distribution of resources (such as agricultural land) and demography. This is fully in line with the intention of reducing long-distance transports of necessities.
What would the consequences be if people converted resources from one currency sphere into products or services sold in another? It seems unfeasible to monitor and regulate the use of distant imports (such as machinery and fuels) in producing produce for local markets, but as production for local markets is remunerated in CC, this should constitute a disincentive to invest regular money in such production processes. Production for local consumption can thus be expected to rely mostly – and increasingly – on local labor and other resource inputs.

submitted by anthropoz to sustainability [link] [comments]

A M - YouTube Economic Turmoil and the rise of Bitcoin and Privacy Coins What is NEM Harvesting. Mining XEM. How to mine cryptocurrency NEM. NEM - Blockchain for Enterprises; 10 Years of Bitcoin NEM's Smart Asset Blockchain Explained

About New Economy Movement (XEM) Used by other blockchain platforms like Bitcoin and Ethereum, harvesting is an alternative mining process. NEM’s harvesting method allows a user to link their account to an existing supernode. Then it lends that account’s POI score to the supernode to increase the block harvesting without increasing the ... Fueled by a theme known as the “New Economy Movement,” the Singapore-based non-profit organization NEM Foundation is on an ambitious quest to promote their blockchain technology throughout the world. NEM sprouted via an alpha version in June of 2014, before eventually pursuing an official beta launch in of March 2015. Fueled by a theme known as the “New Economy Movement,” the Singapore-based non-profit organization NEM Foundation is on an ambitious quest to promote their blockchain technology throughout the world. NEM sprouted via an alpha version in June of 2014, before eventually pursuing an official beta launch in of March 2015. NEM was created by a Bitcoin Talk forum user known as “Utopian Future ... One of these projects is called NEM (New Economy Movement) which offers something entirely different from Bitcoin. Also read: NEM: New Economy Movement. New Economy Movement: Equal Opportunity. The balance of power in this world has shifted dramatically over the recent decades; the so-called “1%” controls all the power and wealth, while the rest of us have to work tooth and nail to make ... These are as follows: Bitcoin; Bitcoin Cash; Ethereum; Ethereum Classic; Dash; Ripple; Litecoin; Stellar; NEO; and EOS. The motto at eToro is “Cryptos Needn’t Be Cryptic” and the team are always trying to educate users about cryptocurrencies, through blogs, videos and other helpful resources. And to make trading even more straightforward eToro has two pioneering tools – CopyTrader and ...

[index] [18713] [42584] [26737] [37043] [24160] [3860] [7544] [31710] [10989] [46388]

A M - YouTube

Matthew Zipkin speaks with the Core Development team behind the New Economy Movement (NEM). New Economy Movement NEM ist eine Mischung aus Ethereum, Neo und Bitcoin. 🎁*10€ Gutschein** Öffne die Beschreibung für mehr 🎁 -----... CC; 9:22. Komodo Coin auf deutsch Dezentrale ICOs ... News Bits on: ­ - Inside Bitcoins New York - Bitcoinist.net Receives Significant VC Investment -­ New Economy Movement Focuses on Equal Opportunities Sources... Bitcoin was born out of a financial crisis. For a lot of the people who weren’t there during the early days of bitcoin, it may not be as viscerally real to them why bitcoin created so many ... New Economy Movement (NEM) is a smart asset blockchain. XEM (pronounced "zem") is the native currency of the NEM smart asset blockchain. Each smart asset consists of four parts. 1. NEM Addresses ...

#