NYT

No_Message_7976

Whether it was exactly 200 or exactly 2,000 misses the point. Mass freezing people’s bank accounts, for protesting the against government, is a dangerous abuse of power. Protest & free-speech are vital elements for a democracy to function. You may think what the government did is fine because it doesn’t affect you. But if the government tried to restrict your income & dismantle your way-of-life, then you’d probably care a lot more. Do you have specific sources to back up your figures? Most of the figures reported appear to be leaked by the Canadian govt themselves & are therefore likely to be substantially biased to the downside. According to [NYT](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/22/world/americas/canada-protest-finances.html) it was at least ~219 bank accounts plus other CAD accounts including those of crowdfunding websites/pp’s which held $3.8m. But these NYT numbers were only preliminary (partial time period), and they did not state a final number of accounts affected. If you consider that hundreds more people had their crowdfunding payments blocked, then you have ~thousands of accounts with payments blocked (and somewhere >219 accounts frozen).

Individual2020

These fund managers charge high fees to basically follow the S&P, and clients won’t be interested until the NYT and legacy media talks more positively about Bitcoin.

spanishdictlover

The NYT has been out of touch for years.

OxbridgeDingoBaby

Even with their views on the ETFs aside, the NYT has fallen so far down in journalistic standards. Not as bad as the likes of Business Insider mind you, but it’s a shame nonetheless.

Hitchie_Rawtin

He listed futures on FTX a few days before it released, pumped the price much higher than the IOUs were selling for beforehand, delayed withdrawals from FTX once the token went live and dumped the ever loving shit out of it in about less than a week. This is the guy who might be jailed for a century by getting his hedge fund to pump shitcoins while he was borrowing user funds and lending it to them, but if you want to make up some other reason for the insane launch price and deep drop while the ICO and airdropped tokens are unlocking monthly on a vesting schedule which doesn't finish until summer of 2025 then go for it. The Arkham Intelligence report was written by an absolute unknown who's written nothing else and appears to've vanished, then that was repeated ad nauseum by everybody and the NYT of all things, who've suspiciously decided to defend a lawyer (who's now dropped his timewasting lawsuits) who was [caught on camera saying he'd get ICP and Solana tangled up with the SEC on behalf of AVAX](https://cryptoleaks.info/case-no-3)

veryAverageCactus

I have a NYT subscription, there is no such article.

basic_user321

This is a fake article. There is no such headline on NYT website. And no such journalist also. Authors' last name Mehmers, is this some sort of word play for meme'er? As in meme...

DackNBills878

Do you have a link to the article? I couldn't even find it in the NYT opinion sections. Looks like the journalist maybe took it down after being ratio'd on Twitter

nomorebonks

They ran the price up with perpetual trading prior to genesis - clearly visible on the charts. In bed with NYT too to run hit pieces. You’re just ignorant of the facts.

ScientificBeastMode

I would 100% use this feature. I rarely ready the NYT, for example, but I occasionally find something I want to read, and I usually just bounce when I realize it’s the NYT and they want me to sign up for a subscription. If I could pay a tiny amount per article, I would do that in a heartbeat.

obsidience

I read a lot of news and there are a few news orgs that I always avoid: * Washing Post (WaPo) * New York Times (NYT) * The Atlantic I avoid because I often see slanted material from them, bordering on propaganda... But that's just my humble opinion.

clue5tick

Aw, gee! Paywalled from the NYT. What's the picture of the chick about?

Alternative_Log3012

lol. “Liz just wants to be a mother instead of going to prison” - NYT 2022

ClotworthyChute

Keep in mind the New York Times is only afloat because they got an emergency “second mortgage” from billionaire Carlos Slim. The NYT is the last place to expect to get financial news or advice.

itsTomHagen

NYT reporters have no problems with spreading bullshit.

RajivChaudrii

I remember the NYT tried to play the race card on bitcoin and claim that it was preferred by white males, completely ignoring that India, South America, and Africa have some of the highest adoption rates. The NYT really is garbage now.

lotrfan2004

Yesss. Fuck NYT and establishment journalism. People treat these patwalled fucks like the arbiters of truth. They absolutely have an agenda and simply protect the old order establishment.

boiledpangolin

To read this guy's columns, you'd have to subscribe to the NYT. That should tell you everything you need to know.

Individual2020

You mean the US targeting the medium. The purpose of the WSJ and the NYT is to condition US lawmakers to pass draconian laws in the middle of the night. So that’s what we should see coming.

cassiopeiamedusa

830am NYT

cassiopeiamedusa

A couple actually this week starting today. 830am NYT

maurymarkowitz

Hi, I'm a **Wikipedia admin** and author of **several thousand articles**, including **a number of Featured Articles**. I mostly write about highly technical topics like [fusion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Ignition_Facility) and [obscure programming languages](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JOSS), so I have a feeling of what this article might *want* to look like. I've read the article, and while the body is basically randomly distributed factoids, it does have some good information. But it's just all over the place. I'm not sure there's really any "good" layout that would fix it. But overall, I think the tone of the body is fine - yeah there's negativity, but its isolated to the negativity parts, which seems fine. And the history section strikes me as rather good indeed. I think the "real problem" is the introduction. It's the only thing the vast majority of readers will actually read, in the 90% range. And the lede is absolutely terrible. It doesn't describe that the blockchain *does*, how coins come to exist, the whole purpose of the "block" part of the chain... but it does say something utterly random about the library of congress for some reason. The lede is the most important part of the article. This is why I spend so much time trying to get them *just* right. I'm patting myself on the back here, but I believe this is what they are supposed to be like: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZETA\_(fusion\_reactor)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZETA_(fusion_reactor)) I have looked over the edit history and comments, and the complaints I see in this thread are vacuous. The edits are being reverted because they are bad edits and the page is locked because there are so many bad edits that they can't keep up. I mean, the last complaint on the talk page, which is where it should be, is entitled "I find your this to be biased heavily". Ummm, ok... Please don't blame the admins for following the rules. Yes, those rules are arcane and... large... but so are most rule sets. The sort of name calling and accusations seen in this thread, do you think that advanced your cause? In any event... I'm willing to take a stab at fixing the lede. I think the thing it most desperately needs is a description of how coins come to exist, how transactions get into the chain, and how you use those two as form of/replacement for currency. The rest can be distilled into a single para at the end. I *hate* having to quote multiple sources for this sort of thing, I think that simply confuses the reader. So to start: **What is the best mainstream press article you've read on the** ***mechanics*** **of BT? No, not some bitcoin related web site, an article in something like the WSJ or NYT or similar that you read it and said "yeah, this author gets it".** Send me your links and I'll try to find the wheat among the chaff and see what we can do with that.

btc_clueless

NYT writes "[Crypto goes on trial](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/02/technology/ftx-sam-bankman-fried-trial.html)" meaning Sam Bankman-Fried. God, am I tired of the media reporting about crypto.

Probably_notabot

Crypto goes on trial? Oh fuck off NYT. SBF is a degenerate conman, he’s the one on trial here.

oopssomething

According to the New York Times we still have to wait a million years minus 60 years before we will be able to fly an airplane. I really don't get why people see the NYT as an authority, its just someone's job to fill the pages every day, doesnt really matter with what as long as it sells.

keithwee0909

My educated guess is that BTC will outlast the NYT

Pibo1987

I wonder if the people who covered Bitcoin for the NYT in its early years eventually got curious and bought some. It would have been ironic but, at the same time, how to resist the temptation?

soyelvorph

If BTC was interesting enough to occupy a space in the NYT back in the days, then it was a promising thing to observe at the time. Future has proven it right.

xylem_pholem

We saw it much earlier than NYT

Rl67rl

U.S. on Track to Add $19 Trillion in New Debt Over 10 Years. -NYT

SenseiRaheem

[From an NYT article](https://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/25/us/liberty-dollar-creator-awaits-his-fate-behind-bars.html): "Working from the magazine’s office, Mr. von NotHaus lived in a mobile home and promoted his nascent currency to “patriot groups”" Ah, yes, patriot groups. A facade for racist, fascist, unregulated militia groups. Oath Keepers, gravy seals, meal team sixers, etc.

ricozuri

Thanks for write-up. Makes sense to post to NYT classifieds in 1991 as internet was in its infancy.

BeatsMeByDre

Still no idea what that means...what can I do with that string of letters in the NYT?

Flat_Establishment_4

With about 50%+ renewable energy sources and growing compared to Argentinas less than 2%. But hey, totally the same thing. Keep reading the NYT.

Squidot47

Think of it like other media content—do you want to pay $10 per month for NYT, Washington Post, and Forbes etc? Or 10 cents per article, automatically deducted from a wallet attached to browser with one click authorization?

BrewsAndBurns

Of course the NYT times would call one company attempting something a "craze". This project was doomed from the start, and the scanner orb is only part of it from what I understand.

Savi321

Well, I am happy "NYT gets the drift"... ;)

0xTurkish

You don’t even have to change platforms to see it. When the bozos on Reddit stop the FUD that means the NYT coverage has become favorable

stormdelta

More like not being taken seriously _anymore_. The NYT had a _front-page_ article (yes article, not OP/ED) on their front page last year that shilled cryptocurrency.

Blooberino

NYT is not news, it's propaganda.

Jenn2895

Wait until the NYT finds out moons made us all billionaires 😂

d-law

NYT hasn't been a serious newspaper for quite a while.

partymsl

Of course the NYT would be promoting such a scam.

rockiellow

NYT being a sell out? \*acts surprised\*

JNisher

Doesn’t seem like a sponsorship to me. Weird that NYT would cover this though… they usually avoid crypto

5ushii

Well, I guess we just have to wait till one of us buy NYT over 🤷‍♂️

AloofJuice

It's a badge of honor to not be taken seriously by NYT. They have a long history of cucking themselves for power and the establishment on both sides of the aisle. They, like other Big Media, are a shining example why analysts don't get most of their information from the public information trough. Anyone here remember "WMD's in Iraq"?

Mudhutted

Yes, for now. However when the degens in this sub pool their profits and buy the NYT we dictate the crypto sentiment.

ECore

NYT is nothing more than a liberal establishment shill.

CryptoLoser-XXL

I don't mind that NYT does not take crypto serious, as long as they don't take crypto serious I don't have to be afraid I pay to much for my BTC.

Ben_Dover1234

I feel like the NYT crossword is aimed at an older audience who doesn't really care or know about cryptocurrency; better to laugh than not understand.

WineMakerBg

Fu*k NYT. Intelligent wording on those riddles though.

Giga79

I don't think banks are doing very well, they could be doing far better. My uncertainty is all with the long term sustainability of modern banking or even fiat, it's what specifically pushed me into crypto. We just lived through the greatest wealth transfer that's ever occured throughout all of human history. Did you get any, or are you just paying for it through inflation like me? We had several very large banks fail this and last year, from memory they were the #2 and #3 and #4 largest bank failures in US history. Dissecting SVB for example, they followed direction from the Central Bank which was to invest in long term bonds under guidance interest rates were absolutely not going up - within a year rates went up 80x from the floor, faster than ever in history with zero precedent to determine how that will play out in the economy. SVB's bonds became practically worthless due to reckless Central Bank planning, which lead to their failure.. I mean reckless as in nobody knew if their failure would cascade into a widespread bank runs in which *every* bank (except for the largest 3) would fail, but sure do it anyway. The reserve ratio, how much money a bank has to own to lend out $100, is set at **0%** currently and has been for 3 years. Meaning with a $5 deposit your bank is allowed to mint a fresh $1,200,000 into thin air to allow someone to borrow to buy their 5th house. If the housing market (really, any market) has a correction now and the borrower defaults you become liable for their debt, not the bank who receives more new money as that simply devalues their debts (your purchasing power). Why would anyone want a *0%* reserve requirement? Who is there to regulate this? This can only lead to more systematic fraud, the economic incentives are entirely misaligned. If it helps imagine this scheme existing somewhere in crypto, how long you think until a person abused it? Don't get me started on hedge funds, penny stocks/startups, pension funds, Mr Musk.. All I can see is corruption sometimes. Crypto is only an ideology, and decentralized crypto is a shared ideology, nothing like an establishment. If an establishment begins to go 'off track' there's little to zero anyone can do to stop it, best said by Eisenhower in his famous speech. If an ideology goes 'off track' it's much more simple to self-organize it back the 'right way'. For example Bitcoin minted 20 billions coins once, that was not part of its ideology so everyone agreed to roll it back like it never happened. Meanwhile the bank (with the treasury) minted $20 *trillion*, which surely was not part of anyone's ideology yet they could not be stopped regardless. That $20T lead to rampant corruption surrounding PPP loans that *everyone* foresaw due to their hilariously loose requirements, and all of that debt was forgiven anyway (paid back with interest by you, instead) by the very same people meant to keep things regulated and sane. Ethereum's ideology is sort of like Apple's with their app store. Apple gives people an environment to develop inside of plus safe financial rails to monetize their developments, only they take a 30% cut. *Even with* very strict moderation and legal regulation (full KYC) tons of sometimes even blatant scams make it onto the App store.. It's just what *some* people do given a complex enough environment, it's not the fault of Apple or Ethereum really that those people exist. Bitcoin emerged out of the 2008 financial collapse. The headline of the NYT newspaper citing such is written on its first/genesis block by Satoshi. Its ideology is that bailouts and minting infinite amounts of currency isn't genuine (out of our interest) or helpful to anyone, that a crackhead with access to infinite crack is never going to get better. Looking at BTC's market cap it seems to be a very strong and shared ideology across many people. IMO if banks were working well Bitcoin would be worth almost nothing today, it definitely isn't worth as much because of its utility. If you ask me we achieved mass adoption a long time ago, everyone has access to cryptocurrency today regardless if they choose this ideology or that and that can't be undone so simply. Bitcoin is the Ying to the Fed's Yang.. They keep each other in a much closer equilibrium than had there been no 'competition' in this marketplace of ideas. What I mean by what I said, I don't know how to solve the people problem. You will find fraud anywhere people exist or have the opportunity. Crypto removes much of the possibility of fraud (replacing people with code), while introducing a whole other set of possibilities for fraud (people don't read code, and don't follow the ideologies correctly like to self custody). Whether the tradeoffs made in crypto (which is, the entire set of all economic ideologies) is more sustainable or 'better' than traditional banking has yet to be seen but considering how far things have come in such short time I'm sure nothing can kill it. Bitcoin hasn't needed a bailout yet anyway, and things seem to be trending further away from trust in the establishment which is a good thing (question everything). I'm not sure how you design any for-profit system people are allowed to use that doesn't become corrupted by some of those people in some way, other than an authority preventing them from getting hurt at all - which is what so much of this newly drafted regulation is about. A little beyond this AI is going to start scamming people itself, so that authority may be the only really viable solution there is realistically, unfortunately.

irockalltherocks

>NYT seems to be a fan of his for some reason $$$

Qptimised

Also remember that NY Times were the ones who made the article on Caroline's diary. In one of the court proceedings, the Attorney General basically said SBF made multiple calls to a journalist at NYT before the article came out. They are clearly biased and probably paid off.

Ant333Man

NYT seems to be a fan of his for some reason... They still let him speak at their summit event late last year after the collapse

gr8ful4

First time I agree with NYT on something in the last probably 10 years.

economist_kinda

I don't like to agree with mainstream media, but this time I agree with NYT.

LePanzer

Did that guy gain anything from releasing her writings to the NYT?

Carib_Coiin

Tldr: prosecutors want to jail Bankmqn Fried until his trail due to witness tampering and extensive contact with journalists including 100 emails to journalists, 100 phone calls to one NYT journalist, 500 phone calls to an author writing a book about FTX. The judge did not specify to immediately jail SBF, giving the defence and prosecutors time to argue the fact. The judge ordered a gag order on SBF from talking with journalists etc

masstransience

> Sassoon told the court on Wednesday that Bankman-Fried, who's currently under house arrest, tried to “intimidate” Ellison and made “100 calls to the reporter of the NYT article, some for more than 20 min,” according to Inner City Press. How many chances is this asshole going to get? This just reeks of affluenza.

TrickRanger

The NYT has sucked for a long time, you’re just generating ad revenue for them each time you click. They make money, you stay mad, the cycle repeats. I’m pointing this out for your own sake.

Lillica_Golden_SHIB

With all the money she stole from customers she could have bought all journalists of NYT like 100x times. Happy Cake day

Four_Krusties

“The NYT did not mention that Ellison’s controversial writing also talked about her fascination with race science” Well, that’s a new one for me

d05CE

lol, we're so savage. You just know there is going to be a big NYT article about a year from now with a bunch of these comments.

timeforchorin

Yeah I see an NYT ,Bloomberg and Fortune articles from yesterday as well. But I also missed those in my Google feed. So, either their targeted marketing isn't working ....or I just missed those during all the commotion yesterday.

SociallyAwkwardDicty

That’s simply not true. Btc in 2021 used 91 terawatt-hours of electricity as per [this](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/09/03/climate/bitcoin-carbon-footprint-electricity.html) NYT article. There’s now way a single building uses even close to 1/100 of that much electricity considering that the entire Las Vegas Strip used less the 1 terawatt before

correkt-horse

No surprise there, seems like the NYT is more interested in sensationalizing rather than providing unbiased reporting.

Obsidianram

When your source is NYT ~ you got problems...

kirtash93

I remember those times. It feels like centuries ago but we won't forget. NYT has been always know as a paid shitty newspaper.

Illicitterror

NYT has completely discredited themselves and I don’t even waste the time on them.

economist_kinda

Someone at NYT has been getting a piece of the dirty crypto

Qptimised

After what they wrote that puff piece on SBF, portraying him as a misunderstood genius and a victim, I'm not inclined to ever listen to NYT.

rootpl

NYT works for Wall Street to bring the crypto prices down so the big boys in suits can load their bags. Change my mind.

The_Mootz_Pallucci

How credible is NYT?

JohnnyTinnitusQB

Are you referring to Coinmarketcap or The New York Times...or both? Let's be honest, this journalistic fuckery is now a specialty of the once great NYT which is now just a liberal rag.

gr8ful4

NYT is just a poor propaganda outlet.

New_Sale890

Bloomberg, FT, and NYT are like detectives on the case, refusing to let customer names be redacted. The truth shall be revealed

HydrogenWhisky

Anyone listen to the NYT podcast “**Hard Fork**?” I listen to it weekly, it provides a pretty good broad summary of what’s happening in tech. But lately they really seem to hate crypto. Casey Newton especially seems to have a massive hateboner for the entire sphere, every time his co-host, who seems more balanced and journalistic in his approach, mentions crypto, Casey jumps in with some variation of the same tired “Oh no those poor Bored Ape NFT holders!” joke. This week he could barely control his glee at the whole unfolding SEC debacle. He stopped just short of cheering Gary on in his efforts to destroy the sector. I wonder if he’s a closet buttcoiner? Anyway he said something like: “If cryptobros want to see what real adoption looks like, look at how quickly ChatGPT was adopted in six months compared to the tiny portion of people who are using their tech.” Obviously using a breakout product like ChatGPT as a benchmark is cherry-picking the competition to best disadvantage crypto. For a podcast that derives its name from crypto-terminology, it sure takes a staunchly anti-crypto stance. Maybe they should change their name to “Stop Generating” or something, keep chasing that hype-train. Anyway, /rant

PURpleVAuLt714

in today's NYT...... In its message to customers on Thursday, Binance.US said it was facing “extremely aggressive and intimidating tactics” from the S.E.C. The company said it was suspending deposits of U.S. dollars and urged users to withdraw any dollars they have been storing on the exchange by June 13. “To be clear, we maintain 1:1 reserves for all customer assets,” the message said. “Customer funds are always safe, secure, and available.” They say, withdraw your money", but if you can only take $1k a day and you have $40k there, idk, sounds shady, especially considering the final sentence of the article. Good luck, hope you get all your cash out and invest it somewhere else.

StriderNemesis

Seeing yesterday's most popular comments in the NYT news article about the SEC suing Binance made me lose hope about the US ever regulating crypto in a fair way. It seems like the average American is really cheering this kind of action by the SEC; although maybe it's because Binance is a Chinese company... Let's see how the comments section goes today, when it's the SEC against an American company.

dhork

According to the NYT, some execs from Coinbase are going to a Congressional hearing today to talk about Crypto regulation. They dropped this lawsuit today just to step on their testimony. What losers.

clue5tick

Possibly a new landmark in the history of reporting: Eight 'Cryptos" and ZERO Bitcoin. *Not even in the headline*! From the NYT no less. Bitcoin fixed this.

FateAvernus

I just saw this NYT article further summarizing the charges. Sounds a bit concerning, not sure if this will trigger a flight of funds. "The Wall Street regulator said Binance had been mixing “billions of dollars” in customer funds and secretly sending them to a separate company controlled by Binance’s founder, Changpeng Zhao." https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/05/business/sec-binance-charges.html?smid=nytcore-android-share

Quiet_International

NYT is behind a paywall.

lehope

New strategy: inverse NYT

evoxyseah

Since BTC is worth a lot more now. This means the bubble is popping? /s Enlighten me NYT.

PoorGovtDoctor

I think it’s a little unfair to criticize todays NYT for articles written over a century ago. The paper, the nation, and the world were all ludicrously different from today. It *is* fair to criticize them 12 years ago though. I wonder what the author of that article thought went BTC went over $20K USD in 2017, lol!

lumpyshoulder762

I just read an article in the NYT about incubators in SF and the amount of crypto projects has dwindled to almost nothing instead they have been replaced by AI projects; it seems like all the excitement, at least in tech, is shifting toward AI, and this does not bode well for crypto.

JanPB

Tell him that *Bitcoin is for money what the Internet is for information.* Ask him to travel mentally to the year 1990 when newspapers like the NYT printed articles explaining how the Internet was finished and without any potential (someone posted scans of those articles here few days ago). So the confusion about Bitcoin today simply comes from the particular phase this particular network is in. Remember Amazon in 1995? Nobody cared for their stock which forever was $25 or so. Etc. etc.

The_Count_99

We're all early, fuk NYT

soyelvorph

In summary: Never believe when NYT says something is not going to happen.

gr8ful4

Luckily I already shorted the NYT back then.

kirtash93

But taking in count NYT past... looks suspicious. Solution: Trust No One.

_AegonTarg

NYT, CNN, Fox News, i don't understand why boomers are so addicted to them.

Ofulinac

Can't be.. Quality/unbiased media like the NYT would never lie to us.. 🤷‍♂️

Giga79

>* Bitcoin does not need ordinals and tokens. I think that one of the main reasons why it was doomed to fail is that there was no use case, no need for them. And yet there is *extreme demand* for them anyway. You can't tell people how to use Bitcoin. Demand is down from peak *for everything* in the market in parallel, it will resurface again especially if it's Bitcoin. Without Taproot people will just find more convuluted and resource heavy ways of putting data onto Bitcoin. One way or another, the genie is unleashed. Satoshi even inscribed data into Bitcoin's genesis block. He wrote the headline of the NYT newspaper that day, and every block built on Bitcoin since has included that same arbirary non-payment data. It did not need this, but are you going to tell Satoshi how Bitcoin is meant to be used? You sound like any ETH maxi shitting on tokens right now. Get used to it!

JoNwOrDy

12 years ago today, NYT called Bitcoin a "bubble that may not survive"

Giga79

>I hate ads, so that alone is invaluable to me anyway. If you're on mobile there are a lot of different apps that interact with Reddit's API. "Reddit is Fun" and most others are ad-free. RIF has that old.reddit look which is a lot cleaner, only I can't see anyone's Moon's. >So either way, a raise or a no raise we crash? The debt ceiling is a (self imposed) budget for debt repayment. The budget deliberations are when *which debts* to take on are considered. The same people who made and signed off on the budget years ago, are the same people who sign off on the debt ceiling increase. The same people acting surprised the US is at the debt ceiling.. It is like if you and your spouse agreed to spend $1000 building a new fence in the yard, on credit. You spend the money and build the fence. A year and change later your spouse acts surprised the fence cost more than $250 and starts demanding things in return - nothing good will come from that. Then they agree they will pay up to $300 and you two will have that talk again later. If Congress were actually against this much spending they would not have signed this budget in, which by law the President has to spend. They would've known the approximate date their own 'repayment budget' would've been hit. Congress raised the ceiling several times during the Trump era without demanding any cuts or preconditions. This is all a big game to them - their intent is not good. Raising the limit would be a good signal in the market. It would be your spouse (*the US government*) agreeing to pay the full $1000 they already agreed to *and spent*. Their creditworthiness is on the line, and the last time they didn't pay on time the [US lost their AAA rating](https://tradingeconomics.com/country-list/rating). MSM is riling people up as if the debt ceiling equals future government spending, and not existing government debt repayments. That is what the rich want us to believe, likely to manufacture a crash and/or division (to buy with literal blood in the streets). >The Fed pivots because they've gone too far, and business as usual... how will this not just continue to make it worse, and to what end can they sustain this magic trick until the real economy collapses? I believed 100% the real economy would collapse post-2008. Instead they tweaked the rules so the money printer's could run in the background (asset inflation) with ~0% interest rates (which should be used in case of emergency only, ie not to pump the stock market). You tell young people to look at profits vs earnings in a company, their dividends, this is what value is. Then you look at the stock market in 2018 and every company was 20-50x overvalued, most with no dividends or one's that ROI after 70-140 years due to their valuation. At its best, it was a sham economy. 5 tech stocks represent more than 25% of all the SP500's growth. But if you'd invested from 2008-2018 you'd have made a killing on tech *speculation* anyway. Markets can stay irrational longer than you would believe... Even with poor credit, if not the US as a global market maker then *who* exactly? No one else is doing any better right now. Business as usual is the best we've got. There's a lot of talk about whether an arbirary 2% inflation rate is sustainable. Maybe the central bank will settle with a 2.5 or 3% target if it means fewer crashes on paper.. We are trending on track to *deflation* if they don't evoke something soon, and with inflation all fresh in our minds any action can very quickly send us over 2% again. Changing the target to 3%+ would enable them to pivot back to low/no interest 'early' before destroying the economy (good or bad), by spending future money today. This would help the US government and banks with their debt and interest payments too. People's biggest hurdle is to not get complacent to <2% inflation which I'd say is already starting to happen (eg, greedflation with no reduction in demand). >Are you implying that with FedCoin there will be no need for banks anymore, everyone will just use some app on their phone to manage their money? Not at first. Banks will use it to communicate with other banks IIRC. It's meant to offer full interoperability across all financial networks, and near instant settlement - more than crypto offers, cheaper. I mean big money will move around this FedCoin network. That means less money in your bank, and your small bank will become less competetive/useful in the financial market. I'm more worried when entities like VISA say they're building on Ethereum because it saves their business money. The stuff they're building is very very cool. If say Reddit post-IPO has the option to use an insured, cheaper, and legal network to build their NFT Marketplace on instead of a 'decentralized ledger' that may be the direction these markets head in. Amazon's NFTs will only exist on Amazon for example, and the public may not care. Up to now crypto has had no direct competition as a composable financial network.. If major banks are allowed access to this network, and 'risky banks' that are involved in crypto are not, it will add that much more friction to on and off boarding. Most exchanges in the US already are not banked and can not offer withdraws after the SVB failure. If all banks undergo an upgrade except for crypto's one or two, then it will take 5 business days to onboard vs 5 seconds to pay for the same thing using FedCoin. This is just another attack vector for them to use ala Chokepoint 2.0. There is a lot of bank outrage over CBDCs. The restrictions placed on any CBDC are to support the banking business, but if it's that easy to automate a bank by removing restrictions then it's a matter of time. The FedCoin is 'not a CBDC' but it is the network for one. Banks (or States) will likely come out with their own CBDCs in due time, but again this is arbirary and pointless just to keep some people working for a bit longer - eventually we probably will just have an app connected to the Fed. >This all makes sense to a point, but even the super rich have to realize that if they keep doing what they are doing, all that money they have will eventually be worthless correct? I mean how could it not be? Well the average age in congress is 58 so.. is it *their* problem that money will be worthless in 25-50 years? Look at what Putin just did to his economy *for ego*. I don't think you can achieve *super rich* without some form of mental illness. By the time you have enough money for 100 lifetimes, what pushes a person to pursue even more wealth *and hoard* it all? It's like the prisoners dillema. If everyone was not greedy fiat would function a lot better, but if even one person is greedy it will not function. So then everyone acts inhumanely greedy under the justification everyone else is. Then we throw 4 year election cycles in there, populous leaders that get voted in for lowering taxes, and nothing ever gets changed. Aside from that the super rich will always be super rich. If money is worthless they still own all the gold, all the factories, all the land, all the bombs, all our social apps, our most private data, etc. They are untouchable. If the US fails they will move their assets to China to be super rich there. If China fails they will manufacture enough division in any other nation to create their own State, rinse and repeat, like they always have. If you simply project the US's 10% growth ahead by 100 years something will break before then, exponential growth is not possible and that is all the US capatalist system is designed for. Taking this into consideration US leaders should be talking about a pivot away from growth and into sustainability *today*, but no one will ever vote for a leader or CEO who promises *slower* growth - sounds too much like socialism. Today no one will admit there's a problem with the road getting shorter and shorter - but there's always another road for them to use, or sea, or air, or spaceship - it's a problem poor voters and the plebs reliant on US fiat will have to deal with. >Oh wow, you are predicting this all to go down as early as this summer? Also, how would doing this not just increase inflation through the roof? The next 30-60 days will be turbulent. If this goes especially bad the Fed will have no choice but to pivot earlier than they wanted to. Inflation comes second to a failing jobs market or systematic bank failures. They're raising rates to reduce our demand in line with supply. A sudden decrease in supply can suddenly increase demand - people FOMO on toilet paper then buy 13 years worth.. so maintaining supply is just as important as reducing demand to keep inflation in check. It's an impossible balancing act considering, and they basically just slammed their fist into the interest-rate-knob before seeing what happens, no one knows if they went too far or what will happen incl the Fed. If inflation increases again I won't be surprised if they change their inflation target from 2%, there's not really anything else they can do at that point because the economy won't be able to take another hit. Like 2008, it's deciding if a sham economy is better or worse than feeling the pain of a real economic washout? - no matter that's the sustainable long term path to take. People are deluded and also get to vote on these things, so sham it is *and sham it always will be*. Nothing inherently wrong with it when you realize all other markets operate in the same way (there is no such thing as a free market today).. >So calls on Bitcoin and Ethereum then? Hell yeah. Been going long for over 7 years. Excited about the next 7. Satoshi wrote the NYT headline in the first BTC block referencing the 08-09 bank failures and bailouts, Bitcoin more or less being invented because of that crash. Who knows what kind of other inventions and novel systems will emerge if times get hard. And when the times are easy again, well we saw what happened to BTC!

ElderBlade

>And here your dishonesty is obvious again. I'm not talking about "every single one", I have repeatedly asked you for just a single one. You can't even do that. I guess I need to copy and past the article since you want to continue to be dishonest. You have not addressed any of the distortions written in the NYT article. Not one. 1. NYT Distortion: The NYT compares electricity usage of Bitcoin mining data centers to peoples’ homes. That is an arbitrary, inflammatory, and political choice. It is very telling that they compare Bitcoin miners to “another New York City’s worth of residents.” The NYT appears unaware that this statement admits condescension towards Americans who choose to inhabit rural areas in the middle of the country. The obvious implication by the NYT is that New York City residents should be allowed to consume electricity; data centers in rural America should not. Reality: The fact is that nearly any industry that uses electricity, i.e., manufacturing, other data centers, iron and steel, chemicals, or even home air conditioners, use orders of magnitude more electricity, generated by a higher percentage of fossil fuels, than Bitcoin mining data centers. (See: Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index (CBECI) (ccaf.io).) The NYT appears to have singled out this industry because the NYT has tied itself to political interests opposed to decentralization of authority. Choosing who can and cannot use energy based on political considerations is a dangerous path inconsistent with the values of a free society. 2. NYT Distortion: They state that Bitcoin mining operations “can create costs” including “higher electricity bills and enormous carbon pollution.” Reality: Electricity bills have increased due to a variety of reasons, including inflationary monetary and fiscal policy, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and restrictive energy policies by the U.S. federal government. Bitcoin miners do not emit any pollutants at all. They simply use electricity—just like, say, electric cars. Bitcoin miners actually decrease electricity bills by purchasing power at off-peak times and competitively bidding for demand response programs, which are particularly useful during peak periods. In making their claims, the NYT relied on a proprietary hypothetical simulation and failed to open-source the data so that it can be properly challenged. 3. NYT Distortion: In “Texas … Bitcoin companies are paid by the grid operator for promising to quickly power down if necessary to prevent blackouts. In practice, they rarely are asked to shut down and instead earn additional money while doing exactly what they would have been doing anyway: seeking Bitcoin.” And they go on to claim that operators made tens of millions of dollars. Reality: This is an absurd characterization. How would Bitcoin miners earn money from a program where they are—according to the NYT—not participating? Riot is not compensated for “promises,” we are compensated for providing ERCOT the ability to directly manage Riot’s energy load. We also invest hundreds of millions of dollars into developing our business in our Texas community, for which we are then afforded the right to bid competitively in demand response programs, in which we are compensated for selling the curtailment decision to ERCOT. Under these programs, ERCOT controls Riot’s curtailment in exchange for competitive, market-based fees. 4. NYT Distortion: “Bitcoin mines bring significantly fewer jobs, often employing only a few dozen people once construction is complete, and spur less local economic development. Their financial benefit flows almost exclusively to their owners and operators.” Reality: Notice the selective language here— “often” and “almost.” The NYT deliberately avoided citing a specific example. Had they cited Riot, they would have had to admit that Riot employees hundreds of full-time employees, has used hundreds of local contractors, and is the largest taxpayer in the county and school district. They were provided with this information well before publication and chose to circumvent it rather than acknowledge it. 5. NYT Distortion: “Many Bitcoin businesses promote their ability to operate in rural areas where renewable energy is abundant. But those claims have hit a hard reality: A vast majority of that renewable energy would be used even in the absence of the mines, so fossil fuel plants almost always need to produce additional electricity as a result of their operations.” They go on to state that Riot operates on 96% fossil fuel, using a “marginal emissions” calculation. Reality: This is utterly baseless and nonsensical. Riot purchases electricity from the Texas energy grid, which uses approximately 24% wind, 10% nuclear, and 4% solar. (See: Texas’ Energy Profile.) However, Riot operates exclusively in rural areas where wind and solar are abundant and otherwise wasted during off-peak times, thereby further diversifying the grid’s energy mix and leaning much more heavily on renewable sources. The NYT even admits that “renewable generation takes years to build and usually requires commitments from customers who can guarantee that they will buy power for a decade or more.” Bitcoin miners make such commitments and are ideally positioned to do so. 6. NYT Distortion: “If Riot had been fully operating [on June 23, 2022], it would have incurred an estimated $5.5 million in fees — costs that are largely made up by other Texans. Over the course of the year, this saved Riot more than $27 million in potential fees.” Reality: We believe this is false and demonstrates a total lack of understanding of power markets. Riot provided the NYT with a rational and factual explanation to clarify this erroneous statement, which can be found in the link provided above. We even noted that that it was “unclear” regarding what data they could possibly be referring to. By implication, the NYT’s preference appears to be that Riot should refuse to curtail so that it pays higher fees; yet the implication of the entire article is that Bitcoin miners should not be allowed to operate at all. Both of these alternate realities are incongruous and insidious. >I never said that, I said they are responsible for CO2 productions. You're arguing against a strawman, congrats. Yes you did and now you're changing your story to save face. Quite pathetic. >Because no intellectually honest person brags about reading a lot of books and I can tell from your comments and lack of education that none of them are academic. No it's because you are indeed an ignorant, close minded person. >Undergrad but not graduate, really telling. It's clear that you're poorly educated based on your refusal to provide clarifications and your low standards degree. I don't have to prove any credentials to you or give you any information. You're the one who brought it up and you haven't said anything about your school. There's no way you went to a higher ranked school so you're trying to deflect.