Jump to content

Bitcoin and other crypto-The CR thread

GRHorn

By GRHorn
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

Captainant

Captainant 27637

Posted
Posted
20 minutes ago, Hefeweizen said:

At least you can eat this one.

 

 I am pretty convinced now that the one utility I saw in crypto, which was avoiding exchange commissions in foreign currencies, is totally ruined by the volatility in the coins.  My brother used BTC because of this but lately he’s been acknowledging he’d be better off just accepting the skim from a currency trader.

Not to mention the transaction fees themselves which are part of the protocol and incentive mechanism for miners

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

wildcat09
wildcat09

Planning for the collapse of society by dumping all his money into a “currency” that he needs an electronic device and the internet to access remains the funniest idea GR Horn has ever and will ever h

Hornius Emeritus
Hornius Emeritus

Dude should spend like 20 bucks at Supercuts.

wildcat09
wildcat09

"I purchased a blog post" is one of the saddest things I think I've ever read.

Posted Images

  • 1 month later...
bernorange

bernorange 8359

Posted
Posted
Quote

A recent top economic advisor for President Joe Biden, Daleep Singh, told U.S. senators on Tuesday that the administration was in active pursuit of a digital dollar as a means to crowd out private cryptocurrencies ...

https://www.coindesk.com/policy/2023/02/28/ex-biden-adviser-said-administration-was-pushing-for-digital-dollar/

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bernorange

bernorange 8359

Posted
Posted
Quote

March 2, 2023

Re: Prudential Impact of Staff Accounting Bulletin 121

Dear Vice Chair Barr, Chairman Gruenberg, Chairman Harper, and Mr. Hsu:

We write regarding Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Staff Accounting Bulletin 121 (“SAB 121”) published on April 11, 2022. SAB 121 was intended to clarify the accounting treatment of digital assets safeguarded by custodians, exchanges, and other platforms engaged in digital asset activities.1 However, SAB 121 places customer assets at greater risk of loss if a custodian becomes insolvent or enters receivership, violating the SEC’s fundamental mission to protect customers.

Our concern stems from SAB 121’s directive that companies recognize a liability and a corresponding offset on their balance sheets, measured at the fair value of the customer custodial digital assets.2 A recent decision in the Celsius bankruptcy, which classified all Celsius’ customers as unsecured creditors, and therefore at the back of the line to recover their assets, highlights the legal risk of effectively forcing customer custodial assets to be placed on balance sheet.3 Additionally, SAB 121 upends decades of precedent regarding the accounting treatment of custodial assets for banks, credit unions and other regulated financial institutions.

Federal Reserve Board Chair Powell noted this shift away from traditional custodial practices in testimony before the Senate Banking Committee on June 22, 2022.4 Typically, custodial assets receive off-balance sheet accounting treatment. This is largely because customers retain ownership of their custodial assets and financial institutions are not permitted to conduct proprietary trading with customer assets.5 As emphasized in comment letters, SAB 121 “deviates from existing accounting treatment of safeguarded assets held in a custodial capacity, which does not result in assets or liabilities reported on the custodian’s balance sheet.”6

Furthermore, the breadth of the “digital asset” definition in SAB 121 covers any “digital asset that is issued and/or transferred using distributed ledger or blockchain technology using cryptographic techniques.”7 The scope of assets covered by this broad definition, whether virtual currency, stablecoins, or even tokenized equities, is unclear. This is concerning because a more nuanced hierarchy for this asset class which considers the opportunities and risks of digital assets with different functions is necessary. For example, the Bank for International Settlements’ Prudential Treatment of Crypto Assets framework differentiates between various types of digital assets for bank capital purposes.8

Since SAB 121 purports to require banks, credit unions and other financial institutions to effectively place digital assets on their balance sheets, it would trigger a massive capital charge. This in turn is likely to prevent these prudentially regulated entities from engaging in digital asset custody. To the contrary, we should be encouraging prudentially regulated financial institutions, like banks and credit unions, to provide digital asset services precisely because they are subject to the highest standards of capital, liquidity, recovery and resolution, custody, cyber-security, and risk management.

In sum, the effect of SAB 121 is to deny millions of Americans access to safe and secure custodial arrangements for digital assets. For these reasons, please respond to the following questions regarding the impact of SAB 121 on banks, credit unions, and other financial institutions:

(1) Was your agency contacted by the SEC prior to the issuance of SAB 121? If so, please identify the staff members consulted by the SEC and provide copies of written feedback, if any, provided to SEC staff.

(2) Has the SEC indicated that it will modify or withdraw SAB 121 in light of widespread comments that the Bulletin is flawed?

(3) What are the legal and supervisory reasons off-balance sheet treatment of custodial assets has historically been the norm for banks and credit unions?

(4) Has your agency directed banks and other financial institutions within your jurisdiction to comply with the terms of SAB 121 for the purposes of capital adequacy, business plan change approvals, reporting and other supervisory matters? If not, do you plan to do so?

(5) Does SAB 121 conflict with your agency’s input regarding the Basel Committee on Bank Supervision’s Prudential Treatment for Crypto Asset exposures, in so far as the definition of “digital asset” under SAB 121 also encompasses Group 1a, Group 1b, and Group 2 digital assets under the Prudential Treatment framework?

(6) Do you agree that the capital charge for banks, credit unions, and other financial institutions under SAB 121 is prohibitive?

(7) Do you agree that SAB 121 potentially weakens consumer protection by preventing well-regulated banks, credit unions, and other financial institutions from providing custodial services for digital assets?

We would appreciate a response no later than March 16, 2023. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

https://www.lummis.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/Prudential-Impact-of-SAB-121-Letter.pdf

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bernorange

bernorange 8359

Posted
Posted
Quote

Amid the worst banking crisis since 2008, four Republicans in the U.S. Senate, led by Senator Bill Hagerty (R-TN), have written a letter to the heads of several federal banking regulatory agencies asking them to explain the coordinated effort to crack down on crypto-related banking providers in recent months.

The letter was addressed to Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) Chair Marty Gruenberg, and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) Chair Michael Hsu, seeking further insights into recent statements made by the banking regulators that have called for heightened supervision of crypto-related activities.

“These releases have caused banks to reevaluate their decision to provide banking services to the crypto sector, resulting in crypto firms’ bank accounts being unexpectedly closed,” the Senators wrote. “This coordinated behavior seems disturbingly reminiscent of Operation Choke Point… an Obama Administration initiative where federal regulators applied pressure on financial institutions to cut off financial services to certain licensed, legally operating industries simply because certain regulators and policymakers disfavored those industries.”

The result of an investigation into Operation Choke Point found that businesses were illegally targeted by government officials, and the FDIC was forced to take steps to clarify that banks are allowed to provide services to legal businesses and provide enhanced training to its examiners.

“Unfortunately, nearly four years after the enhanced training, banking regulators seem to be reverting to old practices,” the letter said. “Even if the actions towards the crypto economy emanate from different regulatory concerns – it appears that the desired outcome from the banking regulators is similar to that of Operation Choke Point – the de-banking of the crypto industry in America.”
...

https://www.kitco.com/news/2023-03-10/Senators-say-regulators-are-de-banking-the-crypto-sector-in-America.html

Letter:
https://www.hagerty.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Hagerty-Chokepoint-Letter-FINAL.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bernorange

bernorange 8359

Posted
Posted

Related to my previous post (emphasis is mine):

Quote

On Friday, Signature Bank customers spooked by the sudden collapse of Silicon Valley Bank withdrew more than $10 billion in deposits, a board member told CNBC.

That run on deposits quickly led to the third-largest bank failure in U.S. history. Regulators announced late Sunday that Signature was being taken over to protect its depositors and the stability of the U.S. financial system.

The sudden move shocked executives of Signature Bank, a New York-based institution with deep ties to the real estate and legal industries, said board member and former congressman Barney Frank. Signature had 40 branches, assets of $110.36 billion and deposits of $88.59 billion at the end of 2022, according to a regulatory filing.
...
According to Frank, Signature executives explored "all avenues" to shore up its situation, including finding more capital and gauging interest from potential acquirers. The deposit exodus had slowed by Sunday, he said, and executives believed they had stabilized the situation.

Instead, Signature's top managers have been summarily removed and the bank was shuttered Sunday. Regulators are now conducting a sales process for the bank, while guaranteeing that customers will have access to deposits and service will continue uninterrupted.
...
For his part, Barney, who helped draft the landmark Dodd-Frank Act after the 2008 financial crisis, said there was "no real objective reason" that Signature had to be seized.

"I think part of what happened was that regulators wanted to send a very strong anti-crypto message," Frank said. "We became the poster boy because there was no insolvency based on the fundamentals."

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/03/13/signature-bank-third-biggest-bank-failure-in-us-history.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bernorange

bernorange 8359

Posted
Posted (edited)
Quote

Signature Bank is on the market after being shuttered by state regulators on Sunday, but any potential buyer reportedly has to agree to a major caveat: no crypto.

Reuters first reported the development on Wednesday evening, citing sources familiar with the matter.

The New York-based bank’s weekend closure came two days after the collapse of another bank, the California-based Silicon Valley Bank (SVB), and less than a week after the closure of another California-based bank, Silvergate Bank. All three of the now-defunct banks were known as being crypto-friendly financial institutions.

Signature Bank, whose crypto clients accounted for a quarter of its deposits, was reportedly under investigation by the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) for potentially lax monitoring that may have enabled money laundering.
...

https://www.coindesk.com/policy/2023/03/16/signature-banks-prospective-buyers-must-agree-to-give-up-all-crypto-business-report/

Quote

...
On Tuesday, Tom Emmer, Majority Whip of the U.S. House of Representatives, sent a letter to Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) chair Martin Gruenberg, calling on the FDIC head to answer the question as to whether the agency has specifically instructed banks not to provide services to crypto firms.

“Recent reports indicate that Federal financial regulators have effectively weaponized their authorities over the last several months to purge legal digital asset entities and opportunities from the United States,” Emmer wrote.

The representative cited the recent comments from former House Financial Services Committee chair Barney Frank, co-author of the Dodd-Frank Act, who said during an interview on Monday that the targeted nature of these regulatory efforts is meant to send the message that crypto is toxic and should be avoided.

“If this is the case, these actions to weaponize recent instability in the banking sector, catalyzed by catastrophic government spending and unprecedented interest rate hikes, are deeply inappropriate and could lead to broader financial instability,” Emmer wrote.

Emmer’s letter mentioned the joint statement released by the Fed, FDIC and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency in January that discouraged banks from holding crypto or serving crypto clients, the Feds public statement issued in February that “seemingly turned this perspective into a final” without a public comment period and the Biden Administration’s “Roadmap to Mitigate Cryptocurrenices’s Risks” as further evidence of a coordinated effort to malign the industry.

“In under a week, regulatory statement-driven market fear drove mass withdrawals at the few remaining banks that provide legal crypto firms access to financial services,” Emmer said. “The Administration’s demonstrated effort to choke off digital assets from the United States financial system is a lazy and destructive regulatory strategy that is stagnating innovation and subjecting American users of digital assets to less sophisticated regulatory jurisdictions.”

Emmer added that while Congress is focused on working across the aisle to develop nonpartisan legislative solutions for the crypto community, “Reports indicate that this Administration may be driven by a political agenda that has already harmed everyday Americans.”

The Congressman has called on the FDIC to officially answer whether it has instructed banks under its supervision to not provide crypto firms banking services, and if so, to explain the analysis for this instruction and “the goal of the instruction if not to discourage banks from servicing digital asset clients.”

Emmer also wants the FDIC to indicate whether it has explicitly or implicitly communicated with any banks that “their supervision will be more onerous in any way if they take on new (or maintain existing) digital asset clients.”
...
Emmer is calling on Gruenberg and the FDIC to answer these questions no later than 5:00 p.m. on March 24.
...

https://www.kitco.com/news/2023-03-15/Rep-Emmer-accuses-the-U-S-government-of-colluding-to-cut-off-crypto-from-the-banking-industry.html

Edited by bernorange
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bullneck

Bullneck 19073

Posted
Posted

 

Quote

On Tuesday, Tom Emmer, Majority Whip of the U.S. House of Representatives, sent a letter to Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) chair Martin Gruenberg, calling on the FDIC head to answer the question as to whether the agency has specifically instructed banks not to provide services to crypto firms.

Quote

Emmer is calling on Gruenberg and the FDIC to answer these questions no later than 5:00 p.m. on March 24.

^^ Oooh, wow.  Impressive!!

Some dumbass R angry that responsible people are behaving responsively.  He even uses the word "weaponize."  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45889

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Possibly the dumbest video you will see today.

I'll admit, when you wrote that I thought "Oh, there goes Hugo again, being all hyperbolic".

And then I watched the video.

Holy shit.  I hope that's a bit (pun intended).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dahobbs

Dahobbs 17526

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, The Royal We said:

What the fuck? Is that real?

Pretty sure it is meant as sarcastic commentary on how people talk about electric vehicles vs crypto-mining. It is still profoundly stupid in that regard, but just in a different way.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bernorange

bernorange 8359

Posted
Posted
Quote

What happens when America’s purported “paper of record” promulgates an unabashedly biased hit piece against Bitcoin’s so-called “climate impact”, replete with shoddy reporting, wrong data, logical fallacies and even doctored photographs?

The public, fed up with being spoon-fed increasingly nonsensical propaganda under the guise of “news” turns the spotlight back on the outlet, highlighting the New York Times very real destruction of habitats, ecosystems and life giving, carbon reducing trees.

...

https://bombthrower.com/nytimes-hit-piece-backfires-as-stopthepresses-movement-erupts-on-social-media/#

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bernorange

bernorange 8359

Posted
Posted
Quote

Committee Republicans Blast Chair Gensler’s Misrepresentation of Non-Existent Digital Asset Trading Platform Registration Process
Gensler continues to try to force trading platforms to “come in and register,” while failing to provide a workable process

Washington, April 18, 2023 -

In advance of today’s hearing, all Republicans on the House Financial Services Committee—led by Chairman Patrick McHenry (NC-10)—sent a letter to Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Chair Gary Gensler. Republicans are slamming the Commission’s approach to digital asset regulation and attempts to force digital asset trading platforms to “come in and register” under the ill-fitting national securities exchange (NSE) framework. Republicans are urging Chair Gensler to work with Congress to develop clear rules of the road for digital assets that foster innovation and protect investors.
 
Read the full letter here.

Read key excerpts from the letter below:
 
“We write regarding the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) approach to the digital asset ecosystem under your tenure. To date, the SEC has forced digital asset market participants into regulatory frameworks that are neither compatible with the underlying technology nor applicable because the firms’ activities do not involve an offering of securities. Both approaches hamper the digital asset ecosystem’s ability to realize the unique benefits the new technology offers, which harms consumers, investors, and the economy as a whole.
 
“As Chair, you have acknowledged that digital asset trading platforms do not perfectly fit under existing laws and regulations. You have been outspoken in your push for digital asset trading platforms to ‘come in and register’ under the national securities exchange (NSE) framework. Yet, at the same time, you have failed to provide a path that allows digital asset trading platforms to register. As you know, many digital assets are developed for the purpose of being used within a developing system, are capable of being used in non-securities transactions, and are meant to be consumed and used in the protocol for which it was designed. Existing regulations under the NSE framework do not contemplate these features.
 
“Given an NSE can only list securities that have been offered in compliance with the securities laws, the inability to register makes the current NSE framework ill-suited for digital asset trading platforms. Moreover, the lack of clarity provided by the SEC as to what digital assets are considered securities also limits what an NSE can list. It is not clear whether a NSE could list non-securities assets even if such assets were otherwise in compliance with the law.
 
“Without clear rules of the road, your push for firms to ‘come in and register’ is a willful misrepresentation of the SEC’s non-existent registration process. The only entity to blame for the lack of registrants is the SEC itself. The SEC should take this opportunity to work with Congress to ensure innovators and investors have the regulatory clarity and protections that they deserve.

“We look forward to continuing our discussion on these critical issues.”

https://financialservices.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=408705

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
bernorange

bernorange 8359

Posted
Posted
Quote

The U.S. House Financial Services Committee and House Agriculture Committee will put together legislation to oversee the crypto sector in the "next two months" after holding joint public hearings starting May, said Rep. Patrick McHenry (R–N.C.), chair of the House Financial Services Committee.

When asked whether such a bill could be signed by President Joe Biden in the next 12 months, McHenry told a crowd at CoinDesk's Consensus 2023 event, "yes." The key lawmaker was quick to provide a rider that it's always a challenge to legislate something new into existence.

"What we plan to do over the next two months is report a deal out," McHenry said, adding that the bill will address both securities and commodities regimes and issues that are hard to fix on either side.

Sen. Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.), the other panellist during the session, said she looked forward to coordinating those efforts with McHenry, adding that the House had a better chance than the Senate at getting legislation through earlier. She said if the House moves first on crypto, it would "improve our chances" in the Senate.

"We have tried to keep partisan tinge off this subject," Lummis said. "This is a bipartisan subject we need to address before the 2024 election."
...

https://www.coindesk.com/policy/2023/04/28/us-house-will-have-crypto-bill-in-2-months-mchenry/

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bernorange

bernorange 8359

Posted
Posted
Quote

...
Senator Elizabeth Warren's (D-Mass.) controversial Digital Asset Anti-Money Laundering Act (DAAMLA) was originally introduced in December and did not go anywhere. It was met with little fanfare and considerable criticism.

Smith, however, provided a glimmer of hope for the industry during the panel, saying that a pro-crypto "army," including the Blockchain Association, are fighting "in Washington every day" for the industry. "There's a reason that Elizabeth Warren has stalled her bill that's because she lost co-sponsors," Smith said. "And that was because of the lobbying effort and education effort that went on," from the pro-crypto groups."
...

https://www.coindesk.com/policy/2023/04/28/crypto-industry-is-absolutely-at-war-against-gensler-warren-blockchain-association-ceo-smith-says/

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mullet Free

Mullet Free 40

Posted
Posted
16 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Lol, imagine championing an endorsement by Robert Kennedy Jr. Who's next, the unabomber?

Championing his “endorsement” is a stretch. I do think it is noteworthy that a candidate that is polling at around 20% against a sitting President is defending it though.   

  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mchookem

mchookem 16322

Posted
Posted

i still watch Real Time on occasion and i tuned in a couple weeks ago bc Austin homeboy Ben McKenzie was going to be on and i thought he might have a new movie or show that I'd like (having been a fan of both The OC and Southland, the best cop show nobody watched). i have always liked him very much.

imagine my surprise...he was there to discuss crypto! y'all likely know this but i did not...he is a total ANTI-bitcoin fanboy, to the point at which he has actually co-written a book due out in July on the topic. i was both surprised and impressed with his appearance, he seems very sincere about honestly wanting to educate/warn people about the ponzi scheme/risks of crypto. he also really seems to know what he's talking about... again, i had no idea, but apparently he's appeared all over tv, SXSW, even testifying to Congress on the topic. he is certainly the first person to break it down in such a way that i finally 'got it'.

the discussing of NFTs was laughably mindblowing 😮 ...you paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for 'a receipt for a link to a jpeg' 😄 

anyway... here's a clip.

i'm even more of a fan now 🙂

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Captainant

Captainant 27637

Posted
Posted
15 hours ago, mchookem said:

i still watch Real Time on occasion and i tuned in a couple weeks ago bc Austin homeboy Ben McKenzie was going to be on and i thought he might have a new movie or show that I'd like (having been a fan of both The OC and Southland, the best cop show nobody watched). i have always liked him very much.

imagine my surprise...he was there to discuss crypto! y'all likely know this but i did not...he is a total ANTI-bitcoin fanboy, to the point at which he has actually co-written a book due out in July on the topic. i was both surprised and impressed with his appearance, he seems very sincere about honestly wanting to educate/warn people about the ponzi scheme/risks of crypto. he also really seems to know what he's talking about... again, i had no idea, but apparently he's appeared all over tv, SXSW, even testifying to Congress on the topic. he is certainly the first person to break it down in such a way that i finally 'got it'.

the discussing of NFTs was laughably mindblowing 😮 ...you paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for 'a receipt for a link to a jpeg' 😄 

anyway... here's a clip.

i'm even more of a fan now 🙂

Bill Maher sucks ass, but this is a great clip lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 105071

Posted
Posted

Yes. It’s very important for Americans to have the unfettered freedom to send funds to support whatever cause they want. Why, just the other day, my bank would not execute my attempted wire transfers to the “Help ISIS obtain missiles that can hit the US” fund and the “Sponsor a car bomb to blow up a western embassy of your choice” fund.

My meaningful dissent was quashed. Absolute freedom to transfer value to people actively warring against the US via crypto is the key, and must be protected. Right?

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...