Re: Blockchain Alliance Please explain: How is an alliance with Homeland Security and ICE is a good thing for Bitcoin tech?
Some people I respect a great deal have joined this Blockchain Alliance where Bitcoin companies will partner with agencies like the DHS, FBI and Immigration Service (of all things). I must be missing something because I don't see how this is beneficial. A couple years back, many industry leaders gladly cheered and supported the "bold" and "progressive" efforts of Ben Lawsky to proactively regulate Bitcoin. At the time, I was one of the very earliest minority voices who spoke out against this and the reasons I thought supporting Lawsky was a terrible idea. Our industry engaged him, we attended his media show hearings, we cheered at his Reddit AMA marketing and gave him fame, notoriety and legitimacy. The result was a horrible and overbearing Bitlicense which took thousands of industry man hours and millions of dollars to roll back to the current point...which is still quite onerous and harmful to business. Did we learn nothing from this? Unlike many who thought it was a good idea, I've actually been a regulated investment professional (with a spotless compliance record) for over 20 years...including 18 years as a FINRA General Securities Principal and time as an SEC Registered Investment Advisor. I've seen first hand the massive harm that many of these regulations do to business while doing little to nothing to actually stop actual fraud or bad behavior. The investment industry spends billions of dollars annually on compliance with vague and ever changing rules directed by unelected bureaucrats who generally seek to increase influence and power with more far reaching regs. Meanwhile, derivatives scams, penny stock pumping schemes, dishonest bond underwriting, conflicts of interest, corrupt rating services, fraudulent marketing and outright frauds run rampant. Even one of their own, Bernie Madoff, the Chairman of the largest industry regulator, the NASD, was not caught for years...despite a 17 page detailed tip from a whistleblower to the SEC. The regulators simply are not adept at catching bad actors....they are far more adept at creating hurdles for legitimate business. As with proactively supporting more regulations, the support of the Department of Homeland Security, FBI, ICE and others in partnership with Bitcoin industry leaders is unlikely to yield any positive results in improving the image of Bitcoin OR reducing bad behavior -- but will most certainly result in a form of reverse regulatory capture where the govt officials our industry are dealing with seek increased influence and control over Bitcoin and related technologies. In what way is Federal involvement in our technology with peaceful, non criminal actors a legitimate role for government? By what logic does one assume that the government officials and agencies involved will not continually expand and increase influence and control over this technology? Would the cooperation of the Blockchain Alliance with government agencies continue if the agencies asked for blacklisting of coins, elimination of privacy features, removing fungibiliy features and other requests? Does the Blockchain Alliance support current actions by the agencies including the current methods of asset forfeiture without trial by which the government can seize property without even charging someone of s crime? Does the Blockchain Alliance support the Federal government's policy of ignoring the mandates of voters in jurisdictions such as Colorado and prosecuting crimes that the majority of state voters and representatives have already voted against? Is there ANY law, rule or policy by any future agencies or future politicians which the Blockchain Alliance would refuse cooperation on? From the current announcements it does not seem so. I hope I'm wrong and have misunderstood somehow. As I said, many I respect a great deal have supported this.
Kevin Werbach is a Professor of Legal Studies & Business Ethics at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania, and the author of “The Blockchain and the New Architecture of Trust,” from which this article is adapted. _______ In 2015, New York became one of the first jurisdictions in the world to adopt a regulatory regime for cryptocurrencies. The Department of Financial Services began requiring virtual currency businesses to obtain a “BitLicense” in order to operate or serve customers in the state. “We want to promote and support companies that use new, emerging technologies to build better financial companies,” said then-New York Superintendent of Financial Services Ben Lawsky, when announcing the rules. He continued:
“Regulators are not always going to get the balance precisely right…. But we need to begin somewhere.”
Perhaps. Yet Lawsky picked the wrong somewhere. And he moved fast to formalize rules governing what was still, in 2015, a small-scale and fluid cryptocurrency community. Bitcoin entrepreneurs and technologists argued that the threat of overbroad regulation, and the costs of compliance, would chill startup activity. More than 4,000 comments were filed on the draft rule, most of them critical. And when the regulations went into effect, a substantial number of Bitcoin-related startups left New York, including the exchanges Kraken, Shapeshift, Bitfinex, and Poloniex. “The ‘Great Bitcoin Exodus’ has totally changed New York’s Bitcoin ecosystem,” declared the New York Business Journal. Three years after the Great Bitcoin Exodus, the crypto-native exchanges have not rejoined the New York startup scene. But other firms have. R3, the financial industry distributed ledger consortium with over $100 million in funding, is headquartered in New York. As one might expect, so are a number of finance-focused blockchain startups such as Digital Asset Holdings, Symbiont, and Axoni. Pillars of Wall Street such as Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan, and the parent company of the New York Stock Exchange are getting into the action. And the activity is not limited to financial services. Consensys, a venture development studio building around Ethereum technology, grew from 100 to over 400 employees during 2017 alone in its Brooklyn headquarters, and is working on dozens of innovative projects around the world (though it recently announced significant layoffs). Blockstack, a high-profile startup hoping to build “a new internet for decentralized apps” on blockchain foundations, is located in New York as well. The New York bitcoin and ethereum meetup groups each have over five thousand members. The BitLicense, for all its flaws, did not kill off cryptocurrency activity in New York. Neither did it create the model for regulatory innovation its creators intended. Subsequent jurisdictions developing cryptocurrency regulatory frameworks explicitly distinguished their policies from the overly restrictive elements of the BitLicense. for more story...https://www.coindesk.com/why-you-shouldnt-fear-the-blockchain-regulators
It's February 19th, 2018. I wake up, check my phone. Good, bitcoin is up another 5% overnight to around $18k per coin. The world is starting to come around to the notion of decentralized currency, but us early adopters know there's still more to come. A lot more. I've been accumulating coins since 2014 with each paycheck. Not to brag, but I've got quite the nest egg. Best of all, nobody knows it but me. No bankers. No stock brokers. Just me and the blockchain. I shower and get dressed. I take my dog for a walk. The sun is shining and all of the drones are headed to their lousy jobs. My phone beeps. Ha, Roger Ver just tweeted that Western Union is getting bought by Coinbase. Nice. After a short breakfast I head to the car dealership where I test drive the latest from Tesla. Think I'll wait a bit. After world markets started quoting the price of oil in bitcoin, I don't really sweat the ups and downs of gas prices. Think I'll stick with what I have. Besides, I don't want my neighbors to realize that the scruffy guy next door is one of the richest people in town. I drop by my office (literally MY office since I own the whole building). Bitcoin is up another 2% on the WU news..sweet! Most of my tenants pay their rent in bitcoin. Every month they each swing by with a Trezor. No need for a shady middle man or bank. Ah, forgot to mention that my office building is actually an old bank. They seem to be closing up left and right these days. After a little work (have to keep up appearances, right) I close up and head over to the bar. Things are a little slow so I fire up some satoshi dice on the ol' android phone. Too bad IOS fell off the map...such a shame that ApplePay took the whole thing down. Over in the corner of the bar some goobers play video poker. Good luck fellas have fun putting your cash in uncle sam's wallet. With not much going on around town I head home and watch Rise and Rise of Bitcoin Part 7 on Netflix. Man I love that movie. The part about Lawsky's trial is my favorite part. Afterwards I fire up the grill and cook up some prime steaks from the butcher, paid for in bitcoin of course. I love getting a 20% discount for paying in bitcoin. Just as the delicious smoke starts drifting away from the grill, the neighborhood suckers start coming home from their jobs. Bet you guys wish you hadn't bet on fiat. Edit: Wow a lot of people think I'm nuts. I'm not saying that every single thing I predicted will come true. Also contrary to the negative comments I'm not obsessed with the price of bitcoin. This is just a thought exercise. It was Dwight Eisenhower that said "plans are useless, but planning is indispensable" Edit2: Trolls are jumping on my 20% discount prediction. What you fail to understand is that when bitcoin starts to take off people are not going to want to hold fiat because the value will drop. So business owners will have an incentive to be paid in a strong currency and willing to accept less of it relative to fiat. After all why would someone accept something that rises in value on par with something that loses value? Econ 101
Altisource Portfolio Solutions S.A. This is gonna be a long one. "You don't have to know how much a man weighs to know he is fat."
Market Cap: $1.85 billion ($84 per share)
9.25x 2014 Free Cash Flow with a trailing and predicted future CAGR of 30%
35% Return on Invested Capital
Very asset light business, almost no capex required
Discounted Cash Flow analysis valuation- current fair value of $5.5 billion ($250 per share): in the formula a growth rate of just 20% and a 12% discount rate along with some negative tangible book value is added in.
Currently at 52 week low
Background: Altisource Portfolio solutions "Altisource" was spun off from Ocwen Financial in 2009. Ocwen financial is a mortgage servicer. Of all the mortgage servicers, Ocwen is the most cost efficient, best run, and best capitalized. As a mortgage servicer, Ocwen acquires mortgage servicing rights (MSRs). Owners of MSRs collect a small fee from every mortgage payment it is servicing. Ocwen may service a mortgage by handling day to day tasks of servicing a loan, process payments, keep track of principal and interest paid, manages escrow accounts, initiate foreclosure, modify loan payments for subprime and delinquent loans and so on. The reason Altisource was spun off from Ocwen in 2009 is because Ocwen's Chairman Bill Erbey knew the software division of Ocwen was not being valued properly within the business. Altisource is now incorporated in Luxembourg for tax reasons but it basically does everything a United States company would do. It files with the SEC, gets audited and does almost all business in the United States. Thesis: What does Altisource do? From the 2013 10k- "Altisource®, together with its subsidiaries, is a premier marketplace and transaction solutions provider for the real estate, mortgage and consumer debt industries offering both distribution and content. We leverage proprietary business process, vendor and electronic payment management software and behavioral science based analytics to improve outcomes for marketplace participants." If you figured out what they did from reading that, congratulations, because I couldn't. I own the company and I still do not know all of the services they provide. What I do know is that more than half of Altisource's revenue is derived from Ocwen. Ocwen uses Altiosurce's state of the art servicing technology to service their loans. Altisource's technology allows Ocwen to be such a low-cost servicer. Altisource only provides their technology to Ocwen and no other servicers. http://oraclefromomaha.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/1.png In the above link, you can see the ways Altisource generates revenue. The main thing to know here is that Altisource generates a huge portion of their revenue from Ocwen. When Ocwen makes less modifications on loans, they use Altisource's services less so Altisource makes less money. When Ocwen modifies more loans then Altisource makes more money because Ocwen uses their serivices more. It provides a hedge against parts of their business that may struggle in a recession like any other business. During the natural economic cycle if there is a recession and Ocwen is modifying more loans because more homeowners cannot make payments then Altisource is making more money than they would during good economic times because Ocwen uses their services more. The more MSRs Ocwen acquires, the more Altisource makes. Ocwen's growth (basically a quick long thesis on Ocwen) When a bank loans money to an individual to buy a house, a mortgage is originated and an MSR is created. The bank then keeps the mortgage on its books or sells the mortgage to another entity. Perhaps Fannie or Freddie. But what happens to the MSR? The MSR is then sold to a servicer such as Nationstar, Walter Investment Management Corp, or Ocwen. The reason the banks or originator of the mortgage sell the MSR is because they cannot service it properly and/or they would lose money in the process of trying to service it. Because of Dodd Frank, banks are trying to get MSRs off their books even faster because they cannot service them efficiently as previously mentioned and because they will have to hold 250% more capital against the MSRs. All banks are moving away from owning MSRs and non-bank servicing is becoming a larger industry, and Ocwen is leading the way. Due to the high supply of MSRs that are wanting to be sold by banks the MSRs can currently be bought at a 20-30% yield. Ocwen can buy the most MSRs because they are the best capitalized and they use the most conservative balance sheet. Ocwen being the lowest cost operator provides them with a huge competitive advantage when bidding for MSRs as well. Ocwen will continue to lead the non-bank servicers in buying MSRs. Ocwen currently has $464 billion of unpaid principle balance of loans they are servicing and another trillion dollars of subprime (Ocwen specializes in subprime) UPB is expected to get into the hands of non bank servicers by 2018 (3-4 trillion in UPB of regular MSRs). Ocwen will get the most of that trillion dollars of UPB of any servicer because of their competitive advantages. Another competitive advantage of Ocwen is their relationship Home Loan Servicing Solutions Ltd. HLSS was also created by Bill Erbey. HLSS provides the capital for Ocwen to service loans so Ocwen does not have to tie up their capital. In the future, HLSS will acquire more loans and allow Ocwen to sub-service them through a unique financing strategy. This strategy called the accretion model is a genius way to get capital for HLSS to afford a virtually unlimited amount of MSRs. HLSS pays a huge dividend and because of this dividend, HLSS trades above its tangible book value due to fixed income hungry investors who want a fat dividend. HLSS then issues more shares above tangible book value to then acquire more MSRs. Issuing shares above book value actually creates value for HLSS shareholders also instead of diluting value as many people would think issuing shares does. Those MSRs are then sub-serviced by Ocwen, who still uses Altisource's technology. Ocwen is also getting into foreword and reverse mortgage origination so they can have a constant stream of MSRs. Basically, Ocwen and HLSS are going to acquire more MSRs and Ocwen will be servicing more mortgages. More mortgages serviced by Ocwen = more revenue for altisource. All MSR transactions have currently been stopped by a New York financial regulator but we will get to that issue later. Share Repurchases Up until a few months ago the laws of Luxembourg restricted the amount of shares that Altisource could repurchase. Altisource recently created a foreign subsidiary that does nothing called "MidCo" to hold all other parts of the business so there would legally be no restrictions on share repurchases. Until Altisource did this, they were repurchasing the maximum amount of shares that Luxembourg would allow. Here is Altisource's entity structure to bypass Luxembourg share repurchase laws http://i.imgur.com/J6LPEc0.jpg The highlighted dark blue entity will be the entity repurchasing unlimited shares because MidCo, its parent company is not in Luxembourg. How smart is that. Altisource currently authorized the repurchase of up to 2.9 million shares. 2.9 million shares is 13% of their market cap. They could easily repurchase that amount. Altisource also just finalized a loan with BAC for $200 million to repurchase shares so the share repurchases will really start to kick into high gear with the new liquidity and cheaper price. Up until the sharp share price drop, Altisource was repurchasing for the past several months around $110. That shows the board and management think the company is undervalued at $110 and now it is at $84 and nothing fundamentally changed about the company. Insider Purchases During the past 6 months, 3 insiders have purchased at $102, $103, $106, and $120. Between 20% and 43% above current market prices. Bill Erbey also owns 30% of Altisource and 13% of Ocwen. His views are directly in line with other shareholders. Bill Erbey and his Capital Allocation Bill Erbey is the Chairman of Ocwen, Altisource Portfolio Solutions, Altisource Asset Management Corporation, Altisource Residential, and Home Loan Servicing Solutions. Bill has done a great job of creating shareholder value for Ocwen and Altisource shareholders. Bill has also greatly benefited from this because of his stakes in thise companies. Before the sharp share price drop due to outside forces, Bill compounded Ocwen's stock at 30% per year since 2002 WITHOUT including the Altisource spinoff which compounded itself since 2009 at almost 75% a year. Altisource then spunoff Altisource Residential and Altisource Asset Management. Every spinoff is a value creating machine. At one point AAMC had compounded 430% in a year and a half, although it was due to a stretched valuation. Bill is dedicated to doing whatever it takes to create shareholder value. He relocated to the Virgin Islands just to save Ocwen some money on taxes. I once read a story about Bill in his Virgin Islands home and his electric bill for the air conditioning. Keep in mind, Mr. Erbey is a multi billionaire. Bill got his electric bill and saw his costs had skyrocketed due to his air conditioning. Bill then sat there after that baking and sweating in the heat in his home so he could save a couple thousand on his electricity bill. He will do anything to save a dollar. Hubzu Hubzu is owned by Altisource. Hubzu is currently an online marketplace to buy and sell foreclosed homes. Like Zillow and Trulia but for foreclosed homes. Hubzu takes foreclosed homes from Ocwen and lists them on their website Hubzu.com. Hubzu is trying to get into the non-distressed house listing like other real estate websites like Zillow and Trulia. This will grow Hubzu at an even faster rate. Altisource states Hubzu gets about 1 million unique new visitors per month. When you buy Altisource you are also buying the jewel of Hubzu. Bill Erbey claims that Hubzu makes "as much money in one quarter as Zillow does in 4 quarters" Zillow has a market capitalization of $5 billion. Zillow's market capitalization is definitely stretched but a spinoff would create a lot of shareholder value even if the market gave Hubzu a fraction of Zillow's valuation. Why is the company undervalued? All this greatness in one company so why is it so undervalued? Remember how Altisource's earning were pretty much directly tied to how well Ocwen does? A New York State Financial Department regulator named Benjamin Lawsky halted a $2.7 bilion ($39 billion in UPB) Wells Fargo MSR transfer to Ocwen. This also halted all of the other MSR transactions between banks and servicers. Benjamin Lawsky is probing into Ocwen and other servicers. He states that he wants to make sure Ocwen and other servicers have the capacity to service loans efficiently because they are "growing too fast". The relationships these 5 companies share though is somewhat sketchy. They have a lot of the same board members and they all work with each other and make money off each other. Ocwen is the best servicer of them all though. They provide more loan modifications than anyone else and they have the lowest re default rate. A slide from an investor presentation shows how they compare to others http://i.imgur.com/YkIKD2O.png Even if Lawsky did find that some servicers do not have the capacity to service loans then Ocwen would be the last one in question because it is easy to see they are doing the best for their consumer compared to anyone other servicer. Benjamin Lawsky is doing this for his own political reasons. He wants his name on the news. He wants people to see his name. Perhaps he wants to run for governor or something. Why would he schedule an interview with CNBC about the probe into the mortgage servicers right after it is announced. Why would he send a letter to Altisource and at the same time send it to the press, therefore ruining Altisource's reputation without giving them a chance to respond. He is also really into regulating bitcoin in New York which is just another vehicle to get his name in the news. There are very recent updates with the regulatory pressure and basically the probing is narrowed down to an issue with force placed insurance and Altisource. Ben Lawsky could not find anything else. He sent this letter on Aug. 4th to Ocwen. So this is what the probe is narrowed down to. http://www.dfs.ny.gov/about/press2014/pr140804-ocwen-letter.pdf Basically, if a homeowner is struggling to make payments and can't pay their insurance, Ocwen has the right to force place insurance into their payments so the mortgage owner does not incur massive losses if a catastrophe happens. Ocwen has to outsource whoever force places the insurance and the issue that Ben Lawsky was worried about was why Altisource was appointed to find someone to force place that insurance, why Altisource received commission for basically doing nothing, and why Bill Erbey did not consult with any of the Ocwen board before making this decision to allow Altisource to find an insurer. Altisource will probably get a one time fine settlement and they will go on doing business as usual. I believe this because an almost identical situation happened with Assurant and the New York State Financial Department and they settled for $14 million. There is also an interview on CNBC with someone who talks to the CEO of Ocwen and they are sure that Ocwen and Altisource will just settle with a deal with Lawsky and that will be the end of it. Interview: http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000298804 Risks Benjamin Lawsky actually finds something else that Altisource was doing wrong. Bill Erbey Dies. He is in his 60s and overweight. Conclusion In conclusion Altisource is extremely cheap. Remember that quote about not knowing how much a man weighs but knowing he is fat? That is the case with Altisource. Altisource is definitely undervalued but there are a range of possibilities of the valuation with Hubzu, regulatory matters, growth, etc.
bit_by_bit made an interesting post on the idea of "social capital," which I thought was worth mentioning here. At http://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/2ds548/what_is_going_on_with_the_rise_and_rise_of/cjsmm5q, he talks about the death of his grandfather, for which I offer my sincerest condolences. Having attended the funeral, he mentions how friends and family have caused him grief about his support of bitcoins. bit_by_bit is incorrect in his posts where he writes bitcoins off as "dying." At the same time, if bitcoins were "dying" right now, then my least concern would be about what my friends think of me. What bit_by_bit says about "social capital" is completely true. If your goal is to make lots of friends, then you can approach the problem scientifically by following rules. For example, a good way to make friends is to talk to lots of people and to never share controversial opinions. Toastmasters has a good template for this in one of their advanced communications manuals; there is a four-step process they suggest on how to introduce yourself to someone you've never met before. Following the process, you can move from talking about the weather to politics to discussing your divorce in ten minutes. I imagine it would be possible to attend lots of parties and use this technique on many people, making lots of people one might misinterpret as friends. Once you have those friends, then the best way to keep them is to agree with them as much as possible. Some people are shallow creatures and turn against their friends easily. I mentioned the situation with the family member and the damaged property in a previous post, and the core issue in that situation preventing action was the family member's worry of what friends of friends would think should a stand be taken on repayment. For good or bad, unlike bit_by_bit, I don't worry about "social capital." I worry about whether I treat people fairly and about what is right and wrong, not about how many friends I will lose or gain by taking actions. People who live their lives worrying about what other people think end up with legions of shallow acquaintences, like the people I know who do little with each other except go out on Fridays and get drunk. Even if bitcoins were dead, friends and family members who would make rude jokes at someone's expense are lesser people who aren't worth associating with. Why should bit_by_bit (or you or I) place the same level of credence in what they think as in someone who is caring and treats others with respect? Rather than losing respect, bit_by_bit has actually gained valuable information, because the respect of such people doesn't matter, and because he now has a smaller number of friends who he deserve more of his time and attention. If bitcoins were to die, I would not be concerned whatsoever about what colleagues or friends thought of my discussions about them. I would be profoundly disappointed that I live in a world where people are so stupid and closed-minded that they were not able to recognize how bitcoins could have improved the lives of everyone so dramatically.
Some comments on the recent decline
sqrt7744 has an interesting comment about the ongoing decline at http://www.reddit.com/BitcoinMarkets/comments/2duufu/daily_discussion_monday_august_18_2014/cjti1za. In it, he mentions that markets are irrational and also talks about how the falling prices make it difficult to convince newer people to invest. But I don't think that this selloff is irrational like he does. One thing that's noteworthy about his comment is where he discusses the impact of Ben Lawsky on bitcoin prices. It's reasonable to make a case that this decline was directly caused by Lawsky's regulations. There are some issues with the timing of that argument, so readers can consider for themselves whether Lawsky singlehandedly caused these declines. The selloffs during the last cycle every time there was some Chinese news were irrational, because bans in China never represented a fundamental threat to bitcoins. While there are still a few posts that continue to claim the fundamentals have not changed (moral_agent has firmly sided with the people who think that we are still in the previous cycle by not changing his charts), some people in /bitcoinmarkets are finally starting to wake up now. The current selloffs are rational, because they are based on fear of one of the two things that can cause bitcoins to fail: that people simply don't want to use them. The question for this cycle is not whether governments will allow bitcoin usage but whether people will use them, and the cycle won't end until that is proven one way or the other months from now. What happened is very simple: people aren't using bitcoins at the same rate as before, July 24 came without adoption having increased, and people who see they can make more money in stocks and other investments left. As an aside, I should note that the transaction volume has remained unchanged compared to the number of transactions, so it looks like the increasing number of transactions is a false indicator. Anyone can increase the number of transactions by spending a small amount to send a little money to lots of people. The chart to look at is "transaction volume," which hasn't moved. My bottom line: I remain bearish, just as I did at every step since $620. This downturn does not end tomorrow or next week and because this crash was caused by a change in the fundamentals, there needs to be another change in the fundamentals before recovery begins. The only exception to this rule would be if the price reaches $150 or some unlikely absurd value in a matter of a day, in which case it would make sense to buy huge even if it is just to make short-term gains.
I think it's worth redefining the term "speculation" to mean "wealth storage." People who buy bitcoins and don't spend them are not leeches upon the network. In addition to providing liquidity, they are using bitcoins for one of their intended purposes: storing their wealth away from the hands of governments and everyone else so that it is available anywhere in the world. Spending bitcoins on products and services is only one use of the bitcoin network. People who say that bitcoin is "overvalued" for its current uses based on spending alone are adhering to a very limited view of the network's usefulness. I argue that the most useful feature of the network is its ability to store huge amounts of wealth, and that is even more useful than the transactional features. When we redefine the value of bitcoins to include wealth storage, then we have to also redefine the "basic value" of the network to determine whether it is overbought or oversold.
PETA "changes its mind" about switching to P2Pool
On Friday, PETA changed its mind about switching to P2Pool, stating that its hardware wasn't compatible and that they could achieve lower variance by not switching. Such an action is likely illegal, as over 90% of shareholders voted for the switch. If I owned shares or had any association with them whatsoever, I would be selling and would get out immediately with whatever I can salvage. The company made headlines a few months back when they announced that they would be switching to promote decentralization, and received huge support (and huge money) from the community. A post on Friday attracted quite a bit of negative publicity, so hopefully people who read it will stop supporting them and the company will pay for its duplicity.
Gavin Andresen makes over $206,000
I wanted to make a quick note that it was revealed last week that gavinandresen makes over $206,000 for his work as a bitcoin developer. I've never heard of a software engineer who makes anywhere close to that much; it's almost three times what I make. As a genius, this is the one case where I can say that he deserves every cent he makes. Most of the time, you hear about stories of CEOs who earn $3m or $10m in cash and bonuses and stock options - but these CEOs don't actually produce any work for the company. Andresen works hard and actually produces meaningful stuff that advances the purpose of his organization. A company can survive without a CEO, but it can't survive if it doesn't have deveopers producing a product. It's good to see the right people getting rewarded for their work, rather than CEOs leeching off others' hard work.
Ben Lawsky is having a hard time winning over the bitcoin crowd. ShapeShift, a Switzerland-based exchange for digital currencies, slammed the outgoing Department of Financial Services superintenden… Notably, another NYDIG investment called the Bitcoin Strategy Fund was advised by Stone Ridge Asset Management LLC, a $15 billion advisor whose regulatory affairs boss Ben Lawsky, created the New York Digital Investment Group today disclosed it has sold nearly $140 million in a previously unknown bitcoin fund. The New York Company revealed the fund in a Form D filing for an exemption In his speech about revisions to the New York's BitLicense proposal for digital currency regulation, New York Financial Services Superintendent Benjamin Lawsky made some dramatic observations The New York Digital Investments Group (NYDIG) recently raised $190 million for one of the Bitcoin funds it operates. It has emerged as one of the largest institutional investors in Bitcoin in
Ben Lawsky joined Ripple’s General Counse New York's Bit License LiveDayTrader
THIS IS SHOCKING!!!! BITCOIN DUMP IS OVER? WELL, LOOK AT THIS BITCOIN AND STOCK TO FLOW CHART!!! CRAZY!!! _*$1'802 FREE on our Trusted Exchanges!*_ 🔶 _*Bybit:*_ bit.ly/MMCryptoBybit _($1'590 FREE)_ Bitcoin Regulation, Ben Lawsky and Banning Ideas Bruce Fenton. Loading... Unsubscribe from Bruce Fenton? Cancel Unsubscribe. Working... Subscribe Subscribed Unsubscribe 7.45K. ... Bitcoin puts in it's bullish stock to flow red dot! This potentially marks the very beginning of the next bull market! Will bitcoin price break out of short term resistance? In my opinion, we are ... Stock Market Hyper Bubble – Latest Fed Move Revealed - Duration: 13:45. ... 'Fake Bitcoin' - How this Woman Scammed the World, then Vanished - Duration: 17:50. Lawsky created BitLicense — an industry-leading regulation for digital-asset businesses operating in the state of New York. He’s also featured in the Netflix documentary “Banking on Bitcoin”.