is bitcoin tax free – Free Bitcoin

NiceHash - buy & sell hashing power

NiceHash offers you to buy or sell hashing power directly, no contracts, no limitations, pay-as-you-go if you're a buyer and be-paid-as-you-go if you're a seller. Why bother renting rigs, when you can rent hashing power? NiceHash brings more to renters and rig owners. Visit https://www.nicehash.com today! Simply create order and you are already mining your favorite coin or point your rig to our stratum server and you are already earning bitcoins.
[link]

Countries With 0% Tax On Bitcoin/Cryptos Earning: Live a Tax-Free Life

Countries With 0% Tax On Bitcoin/Cryptos Earning: Live a Tax-Free Life submitted by chromoz to btc [link] [comments]

Earn Unlimited Tax Free Donations Straight To Your PayPal Cashapp Or Bitcoin Account.

Link: https://upcrowdme.com/?ref=dldjr75
Very nice crowdfunding program to have and use. You can earn unlimited tax free $5 donations daily. They are in over 50 countries around the world. And it all starts with just $5. Earn $5 on autopilot. You can earn with Bitcoin PayPal and Cashapp. I really like this program in my personal opinion it is very well worth the $5 donation that gets you a lifetime membership and you can earn endless. The link is above for you to check out and see if you like thank you for looking.
submitted by dldjr75 to free_referrals [link] [comments]

Countries With 0% Tax On Bitcoin/Cryptos Earning: Live a Tax-Free Life

Countries With 0% Tax On Bitcoin/Cryptos Earning: Live a Tax-Free Life submitted by chromoz to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

02-01 04:02 - '"Most bitcoiners are learning how to get on [link] so now I will help you remain shackled; for **FREE**!!!" / Try marketing this directly to people who earn their money off of fed-guv. They're the ones who are taxe...' by /u/DontWorryBeHappy32 removed from /r/Bitcoin within 255-265min

'''
"Most bitcoiners are learning how to get on [link]1 so now I will help you remain shackled; for FREE!!!"
Try marketing this directly to people who earn their money off of fed-guv. They're the ones who are taxed, and will benefit from this solution.
'''
Context Link
Go1dfish undelete link
unreddit undelete link
Author: DontWorryBeHappy32
1: w*w.*osthori*on*.com**ull**i*Boa*d.htm
Unknown links are censored to prevent spreading illicit content.
submitted by removalbot to removalbot [link] [comments]

Countries With 0% Tax On Bitcoin/Cryptos Earning: Live a Tax-Free Life

Countries With 0% Tax On Bitcoin/Cryptos Earning: Live a Tax-Free Life submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

Micro Earnings • Tax free bitcoin trade

submitted by btcforumbot to BtcForum [link] [comments]

Micro Earnings • Tax-free bitcoin trade

submitted by btcforumbot to BtcForum [link] [comments]

How to Earn a Free Bitcoin by Doing your Taxes /r/Bitcoin

How to Earn a Free Bitcoin by Doing your Taxes /Bitcoin submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

Looking for advice on how to restructure my investments and savings (I have a H2B ISA, S&S ISA, Pension, IFISA, BTC, ETH)

I'm a 26yo freelance filmmaker (sole trader) who tries to save as much as I can.
Average income before tax averages £45-55k. With COVID wiping my business out, my profits will be lower this tax year, I assume probably around £12-20k.
I share a bedroom in London with my partner £590pcm total, and my outgoings are generally quite low.
My savings so far:
Total: £103k - £24k of which uninvested
COVID and lockdown spooked me (and all my clients), and although I'm starting to see work pickup again, it feels like I'm unlikely to see a return to normal levels for at least 8-12 months, hence having £24k uninvested - a huge emergency fund that can cover my living costs for at least 2-3 years.
Questions:
  1. I have £21,000 of fee free investment with WealthSimple as part of a promotion, but this will be ending soon. I'm still paying around £12 per month in fees. Once this benefit ceases, should I move to another S&S ISA? Perhaps: AJ Bell Youinvest ISA? I also see Vanguard mentioned here a lot. What do you think?
  2. What is the general consensus on WealthSimple, should I move to a different pension provider as well?
  3. If I stay with them, should I rebalance my investments with WealthSimple (perhaps more risk in the pension pot as it'll be there for a while?) or does 60 equities / 40 bonds sound fine for both pension & ISA?
  4. I'm not likely to buy a house for another 12 months (and with Brexit looming, I feel like prices will go down), should I move my Help to Buy ISA into a LISA? If so, which one would you recommend?
  5. I am (occasionally) a higher rate taxpayer (not this or last year however), presumably I should up my SIPP contributions during this time?
  6. As a freelancer, I don't benefit from any 'salary sacrifice' or 'matched contributions', is there a freelancers alternative for this?
  7. I have £7650 left of my tax free ISA wrapper, and £15k in a bank account earning no interest, how should I invest this, or should I place it into an easy access savings account and wait for the next ISA tax year?
Apologies this is a lot, I would appreciate any help at all! :)
Edit: updated earnings and business clarification
submitted by Ill_Practice_6134 to FIREUK [link] [comments]

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

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

submitted by anthropoz to sustainability [link] [comments]

Passive income update - I'm making staggering returns from honey farming

I previously posted that I had made an entire bitcoin (more or less) just from freebies, airdrops and staking. I have no given up trading for good (maybe) and am more focused on passive income, which I find much more fun and relaxing. Nothing like waking up in the morning and counting your free income.
One of my main passive income sources now (apart from reddit moons of course!) is farming. By that I mean I am a liquidity pool provider AND I stake my liquidity pool tokens to earn the native platform token - i.e. stake WETH / WBTC and earn UNI.
So far my main farming activity has been exactly that, WETH and WBTC. The liqudity fees are quite low, but the bonus UNI is quite nice. Approximately 1 BTC matched with ETH will provide you with roughly 23 UNI a week. So that is around $70, or a 0.6% return per week, plus pool fees. Not bad if you consider it "free" money.
But now honey-swap has initiated its own farming programme via 'hny.farm' (put that address in your browser to go there). I'm currently farming the main pool which is "Dai Daisies" - or xdai / honey. After 24 hours I have checked my fees and pool holdings, combined with my free honey and it's a 5% return per day (the price of honey is flat today so this is pure fees and rewards). And even second day, I claim my free honey (via their faucet), harvest my honey, buy a bit of xdai and put it back in the pool.
This will obviously fluctuate - but even if it was 1% a day that is nearly double what my WETH / WBTC pool produces in a week.
And the great thing is that the gas fees are a fraction of a penny, and transactions are instant, so you can efficiently do this even if you have very small amounts.
Now if somebody could figure out how the hell taxes work with all this I'd be sitting pretty.
submitted by Cryptodragonnz to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

BAT and the content creator community (Artist specially)

I love the idea of content creators having the option to be tipped by brave users, I understand that as of right now it's unlikely to happen cuz it's a fairly new thing that needs to gain traction.
As a content creator I was wondering if there are any fellow content creators who have gotten tip over their work.
I am an artist, so I don't see that happening anytime soon, I imagine influences on the crypto space are the most likely to have a follower base who would use Brave.
I'm curious as to for example, what happens if I send a tip to a content creator not affiliated with brave, like any other random artist on twitter. If they don't use brave and are not verified, how would they be notified?
Also do you guys see this becoming a bit more profitable for artists in the future? perhaps even use BAT as an easy to use system to pay for commissions? cuz a LOT of artists are feed up with PayPal as of lately, and BAT seems to be quite easy to send, more private, and for the clients they may even be able to get a cheap commission from just some month's worth of ads for virtually free.
Artists have never liked using PayPal because the Fees are very high, specially if you live overseas and have to pay for conversion fee, then taxes, in my case a $100 commission easily becomes like $88, a lot of customers also don't like the formality of how to commission an artists chances are if you don't click the right settings, the artists will likely be able to see your full name, and your address, I know within this community a lot of people hate that.
BAT seems to solve that, using uphold they would just send the money to another address which is just a string of numbers and letters.
I know some artists have tried to push cryptocurrency as a default form of payment before, but setting up a bitcoin wallet is too complicated for the average user who just wants an anime portrait. I was surprised how easy it was to set up Brave, and Uphold, its not more difficult than setting up a PayPal account and I legit would love to see this become a mean for more content creators and freelancers to earn money for their work without either the client or the creator having to give away more fees and or personal information than they're willing to.
submitted by captainjawz to BATProject [link] [comments]

Once again: some useful tips you may need for a next bullrun of during the DeFi hype

During the previous bull run, I’ve made some wrong decisions that have cost me a lot of money. With the halving just behind us, we may enter a new bull run.
Here are some tips for the next bull run. Feel free to add yours:
• ⁠never sell your whole stack
• ⁠never trade with your whole stack. not your keys not your crypto
• ⁠if you have life changing amounts, you are a gambler if you hodl everything for bigger life changing amounts (lots of people have been thinking "i should have, would have, could have" everyday for the last year+)
• ⁠scale out when the log chart goes parabolic, and your grandma and uber driver and katy perry are talking about bitcoins. the difference between short term gains & long term gains is more than losing 90% of your principle. markets don't care about your timetable
• ⁠take chunks of your profits out of crypto entirely & diversify, you can lockup a small percentage into defi and earn interest as a hedge to offset fomo
• ⁠pay your taxes (optional?) and/or save money for a rainy day in fiat
• ⁠set some low limit orders you don't think will hit on the way up and be patient
• ⁠set some high limit orders on the way down to catch any fat finger trades
• ⁠keep a few low orders on exchanges that still allow flash crashes and think of those as your reserves
• ⁠don't ever talk to people about your gains
• specify a strategy prior to the new bull run, including exit points and several levels at which you plan to sell parts of your stack
• help newbies who will be attracted by the new bull run and don’t shill your own shitcoins
submitted by XRBeast to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

First time investment/financial planning 28F single income

Hi all! I'm new to investing and planning for retirement etc, and also kind of new to reddit so apologies if I don't follow etiquette or rules properly.
I've finally saved beyond my emergency fund goal and am ready to start putting money into retirement/investing etc, but I've got a lot to learn. I don't have anyone in my personal life who can give me advice or teach me about investing. Firstly I'm looking for recommendations on easy reads and cheap/free ways of learning about finance and investment for someone who doesn't know any of the lingo. I don't know the difference between a bank and a credit union for example, or what capital gains or assets mean. I've only been in Canada 5 years (I'm from the UK, no plans to return yet but if I do it probably won't be for another 5 years). Secondly, I'm looking for hints and tips for my current financial plan (below) before I actually start moving money around.
I'm earning ~$50k and save an average of $800/month. I have ~$40k in student debt from the UK but at only 1.5% interest rate, and I'm currently repaying just above the interest rate which is more than the minimum payment. The debt supposedly wipes out after 25 years, but I don't trust the UK government not to sell off the loans and the idea of my debt increasing rather than decreasing makes me uncomfortable. With what I'm repaying I should finish paying it off in about 25 years anyway.
I have $15k in savings currently in EQ earning 2% interest (1.43% after tax I think). I want to keep $10k in emergency funds in my EQ savings, and invest the remaining. I have never opened an RRSP or TFSA. I joined my company retirement savings plan in April which is 6% of my income with 9% match funding (about $3200/year from me and $8k from my company).
I was thinking of putting my spare $5k into WealthSimple as follows:
-RRSP: $1k starting balance, risk level 6 balanced, then $250/month added in. Probably won't touch it ever unless I decide to buy a house, so I'm hoping that the higher risk level will be worth it after 5-10 years.
-TFSA: $1k starting balance, risk level 4 balanced, then $450/month. This I want to play a bit safer but still earn a decent return. I may want to dip into it in the next 3 years if i decide to buy a car or in 5 years+ for a downpayment for a house.
-Crypto: when it opens, I want to put $1k into bitcoin and just leave it for 10-20 years and just see what happens. I tried getting into Quadrixa and another crypto trading site a year ago but had issues verifying my identity and ended up giving up.
So that leaves me another $2k to play with for now. Should I hold onto it and keep it in EQ until I have a better idea for how to use it, or put it in my TFSA, or is there something else that's safe but will offer more than 1.43% interest after tax that I can put it into? I was going to put it in a low risk (level 3) personal account on WealthSimple but I think the yield on that was only 0.43% which was way less than EQ so I don't see the point? Alterna bank offers a 1.63% TFSA account so seeing as I won't meet my allowance anytime soon it could be worth putting some money in there, though I'm not sure it's worth the effort opening yet another bank account.
I'm not really earning enough that I want to max out my RRSP for the tax income break yet. I'd rather have more 'useable' (cash?) savings, but perhaps someone can convince me otherwise.
Any help/advice/personal experience would be appreciated! As well as reassurance not to panic if I lose money in the first X years. Thank you!
Edit: Sounds like everyone is saying I should keep my RRSP allowance for when I'm earning more, and keep my emergency funds in the HISA and everything else into a TFSA. Not heard anyone say not to use the WealthSimple TFSA so I guess that's where it's going! Thanks everyone!
submitted by starlight_conquest to PersonalFinanceCanada [link] [comments]

A realistic way forwards (long, but I believe important)

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

I'm kinda ok with MCO -> CRO Swap; a indepth personal view

EDIT: this post https://www.reddit.com/Crypto_com/comments/i2yhuz/open_letter_to_kris_from_one_of_cdcs_biggest/ from u/CryptoMines expresses my sentiments and concerns better than I could ever put into words myself. I'd say read his/her post instead.
Very long post ahead, but TL;DR, I actually see this swap as a positive change, despite fearing for what it may do to my portofolio, and having mixed feelings about its consequences on CDC reputation.Before I start, for the sake of context and bias, here's my personal situation as a CDC user:
  1. I'm just a average Joe, with a 500 MCO Jade card. I bough 50 MCO at 5,22€ in September 2019 and staked for Ruby, then bough 440 MCO at 2.47€ in March 2020 and upgraded to Jade. The total amount of MCO I own is currently 515, and everything above the 500 stake is cashback rewards.
  2. I bought MCO exclusively for the card and bonus Earn interest benefits, and had no plans to unstake my MCO. Now with the swap, definetly won't unstake.
  3. The MCO -> CRO conversion rates increased the fiat value of my MCO in about 1000€.
  4. I own a decent amount of CRO, wich I bought at ~0,031€ in March 2020.
  5. The country where I live is crypto friendly and completely crypto-tax free; I only have to pay income tax if I deposit a certain threshold of fiat in my bank.
Take all these factors into account as possible (if not major) influencers or bias on my opinions; both the emotional and economical ones. Call me a fool or a devil's advocate if you want, but keep your torches and pitchforks down. As we say here on Reddit: "Remember the human".-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Like all of you, I woke up to find this anouncement, wich came right the #[email protected] out of nowere, and gives you little to no options. Good or bad, this announcement arrived as basicly a "comply or die" choice. Emotionally, this came as both terrifying and disgusting; but rationally, I cannot blame CDC for it.
Because wether we like it or not, CDC is a centralized company, and the MCO tokens were never a stock or legally binding contract; something wich pretty much every crypto company or ICO warns in their T&C and risk warnings. Not to mention the mostly unregulated status of the cryptocurrency and. I'll call this "dishonest" any day, but I cannot see it as a "scammy" since I can't see how they broke any rules or terms.
A scammer would take your money/assets away, but CDC is offering you to swap it for another asset wich you can sell right away if you want. And at current price, it is still worth more or less as much fiat as MCO cost at the 5 $/€ wich was more or less the comunity standard used for calculating the card prices. And by that, I mean that the fiat value of 50/500/5000 MCO (as CRO) is actually not far from the 250/2500/25'000 $/€ that the comunity commonly used as standard when calculating the ROI and (under)valuation of MCO.
So CDC is at least trying to give us the option to get (some) our money back, and not at a unfair rate. If you happened to buy MCO at a price higher than this, I can't see how that's CDC's fault, just as I don't see anyone blaming Bitcoin or Altcoins for getting them stuck at the top of the 2017 bubble burst.
I read many posts in this reddit calling this a "backstab" and "betrayal" of early investors and for the people who "believed in MCO". Emotionally, I share your sentiment.But after thinking it for a while, I'd say this was actually very rewarding for early investors and long term MCO supporters. As CDC clearly sates in the swap rules; nobody is going to lose their card tier or MCO stake benefits (at least not yet), and your stake DOES NOT unstake automatically after 180 days. Actually, so far they never did unstake automatically, you had to manually unstake yourself.
With this in mind, everyone who already got their cards, or at least staked MCO to reserve one, basicly got them 3-5 times cheaper than future users; and IMHO, now the $/€ price of cards feels more fair and sustainable compared to their benefits.So in a sense, everyone who supported and believed on the MCO for its utility (i.e. the card and app benefits) has been greatly rewarded with perks that they get to keep, but are now out of reach for a lot of people.Likewise, the people who believed and invested in CRO (for whatever reason), have also been rewarded, as their CRO tokens now have more utility.
So either the price of CRO crashes down to around 0.05 $/€, or the people who bought MCO/CRO early or cheap are now massively benefited. But then again, so is everyone who bought or mined Bitcoin in its early days, or invested in Bitcoin at crucial points of its history... how is that unfair? Some people bought Ethereum at 1'400 $ on a mix of hopes/promises that it would continue to rise; it didn't. And even today with DeFi and ETH 2.0 ever closer, it is still far from that price.
And I know what some of you are thinking: "The cards aren't avaiable in my country yet, that's why I didn't buy/stake."Well, they weren't avaiable in my country either when I staked 50 MCO. Heck, the cards weren't avaiable in anyones country when MCO started, but many people still bought it and staked it. That's exacly what "early adopter", "long supporter" and "believing in MCO" means.
On the other hand, the people who invested on MCO as a speculative asset and decided to HODL and hoard MCO, hoping for its price to moon and then sell MCO at big profit, had their dreams mercilessly crushed by this swap... and good lord, I feel their pain.But this is also where I'll commit the sin of being judgemental, because IMHO, speculating on MCO never made any sense to me; MCO was a utility token, not a value token, so it should not (and could not) ever be worth more than the value of its utility. That's basicly how stablecoins and PAXG are able to stay stable; because nobody will pay more/less than the value of the asset/service they represent.
Tough now that I'm looking at the new card stake tiers in CRO, I have to give credit to the MCO hodlers I just now criticised; maybe you were right all along. Unless the price of CRO crashes or corrects, I wich case, I un-rest my case.
One thing I'll agree with everyone tough, is that I fell that CDC just suckerpunched it's comunity. Because even if we have no vote on its decisions (wich again, we aren't necessarily entitled to, since they are a privante and centralized business) they should/could have warned that this was in their plans well in advance; if anything to allow those who wouldn't like it to exit this train calmly.
Also the CRO stake duration reset. The mandatory reset of your CRO stake for taking advantage of the early swap bonus feels like another gut-punch.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now that we got emotional feelings out of the way, here's my sentiment about how this will affect the overall CDC ecossystem.
One common criticism of the sustainability of MCO was that its supply cap could never allow a large number of cards to be issued, and how could CDC keep paying the cashbacks and rebates. On the oposite corner, one of the major criticisms of the sustainability of CRO, was it's ridiculously huge supply cap and inflation caused by the gradual un-freezing and release of more CRO into the system.
But now that MCO and CRO became one, it might just have made both issues more sustainable. Now the huge supply cap of CRO makes more sense, as it allows a much larger number of future users to stake for cards (at higher costs, but still). And because most card cashback is small parcels, this large supply also ensures that CDC can keep paying said cashbacks for a long time; especially since it can be semi-renewable trough the trading fees we pay in CRO.
Before this, the MCO you got as cashback had no use, other than selling it for fiat or speculate on its price. But CRO can be used, at the very least, to receive a discount on trading fees. And everytime you pay trading fees in CRO or spend CRO on a Syndicate event, some of that CRO goes back to CDC, wich they can use to keep paying the cahsback/rebates.
And keep in mind, the technicalities of CRO can be changed, as well as the perks and utilities it can be used for. So even if this current model doesn't fix everything (wich it probably doesn't) it can still be changed to patch problems or expand its use.
Another obvious potentially positive outcome of this, is that now CDC only has to focus on 1 token, so it makes it easier to manage and drive its value. People complained that CDC was neglecting MCO over promoting CRO, but now they can focus on both services (cards/exchange) at the same time. Sure, this might not bring much advantage to the common customer, but its probably a major resource saver and optimizer at corporate levels; wich in the long term ultimately benefits its customers.
Much like Ethereum is undergoing major changes to ensure its scalability, the crypto companies themselves also have to change to acommodate the growing number of users, especially as the cryptomarket and DeFi are growing and becoming more competitive. Business strategies that were once successfull became obsolete, and exchanges that once held near-monopolies had to adjust to rising competitors. There is no reason why CDC shouldn't keep up with this, or at least try to.
Point is, the financial markets, crypto or otherwise, are not a status quo haven. And when something is wrong, something has to be changed, even if it costs. The very rise of cryptocurrencies and blockchain, wich is why we are here in the first place, is a perfect example of this, as it experiments and provides alternatives to legacy/traditional products and technologies.
Was this the best solution to its current problems? Is this what will protect us as customers from a potentially unsustainable business model? I have no idea.
This change ripped me too from my previous more or less relaxed status quo (the safety of the value of the CRO I bough for cheap), along with CRO late investors wich now probably fear for the devaluation of their CRO. To say nothing of the blow this represents for my trust (and I believe everyone elses trust) on CDC and its public relations. It's not what CDC did, it's how they did it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wether you actually bothered to read all I wrote or just skip everything (can't blame you), I'm eager to hear your opinions and whatever criticisms on my opinions you may have.
If you just want to vent at me, you are welcome too; now you can raise your pitchforks and torches.
submitted by BoilingGarbage to Crypto_com [link] [comments]

Bob The Magic Custodian



Summary: Everyone knows that when you give your assets to someone else, they always keep them safe. If this is true for individuals, it is certainly true for businesses.
Custodians always tell the truth and manage funds properly. They won't have any interest in taking the assets as an exchange operator would. Auditors tell the truth and can't be misled. That's because organizations that are regulated are incapable of lying and don't make mistakes.

First, some background. Here is a summary of how custodians make us more secure:

Previously, we might give Alice our crypto assets to hold. There were risks:

But "no worries", Alice has a custodian named Bob. Bob is dressed in a nice suit. He knows some politicians. And he drives a Porsche. "So you have nothing to worry about!". And look at all the benefits we get:
See - all problems are solved! All we have to worry about now is:
It's pretty simple. Before we had to trust Alice. Now we only have to trust Alice, Bob, and all the ways in which they communicate. Just think of how much more secure we are!

"On top of that", Bob assures us, "we're using a special wallet structure". Bob shows Alice a diagram. "We've broken the balance up and store it in lots of smaller wallets. That way", he assures her, "a thief can't take it all at once". And he points to a historic case where a large sum was taken "because it was stored in a single wallet... how stupid".
"Very early on, we used to have all the crypto in one wallet", he said, "and then one Christmas a hacker came and took it all. We call him the Grinch. Now we individually wrap each crypto and stick it under a binary search tree. The Grinch has never been back since."

"As well", Bob continues, "even if someone were to get in, we've got insurance. It covers all thefts and even coercion, collusion, and misplaced keys - only subject to the policy terms and conditions." And with that, he pulls out a phone-book sized contract and slams it on the desk with a thud. "Yep", he continues, "we're paying top dollar for one of the best policies in the country!"
"Can I read it?' Alice asks. "Sure," Bob says, "just as soon as our legal team is done with it. They're almost through the first chapter." He pauses, then continues. "And can you believe that sales guy Mike? He has the same year Porsche as me. I mean, what are the odds?"

"Do you use multi-sig?", Alice asks. "Absolutely!" Bob replies. "All our engineers are fully trained in multi-sig. Whenever we want to set up a new wallet, we generate 2 separate keys in an air-gapped process and store them in this proprietary system here. Look, it even requires the biometric signature from one of our team members to initiate any withdrawal." He demonstrates by pressing his thumb into the display. "We use a third-party cloud validation API to match the thumbprint and authorize each withdrawal. The keys are also backed up daily to an off-site third-party."
"Wow that's really impressive," Alice says, "but what if we need access for a withdrawal outside of office hours?" "Well that's no issue", Bob says, "just send us an email, call, or text message and we always have someone on staff to help out. Just another part of our strong commitment to all our customers!"

"What about Proof of Reserve?", Alice asks. "Of course", Bob replies, "though rather than publish any blockchain addresses or signed transaction, for privacy we just do a SHA256 refactoring of the inverse hash modulus for each UTXO nonce and combine the smart contract coefficient consensus in our hyperledger lightning node. But it's really simple to use." He pushes a button and a large green checkmark appears on a screen. "See - the algorithm ran through and reserves are proven."
"Wow", Alice says, "you really know your stuff! And that is easy to use! What about fiat balances?" "Yeah, we have an auditor too", Bob replies, "Been using him for a long time so we have quite a strong relationship going! We have special books we give him every year and he's very efficient! Checks the fiat, crypto, and everything all at once!"

"We used to have a nice offline multi-sig setup we've been using without issue for the past 5 years, but I think we'll move all our funds over to your facility," Alice says. "Awesome", Bob replies, "Thanks so much! This is perfect timing too - my Porsche got a dent on it this morning. We have the paperwork right over here." "Great!", Alice replies.
And with that, Alice gets out her pen and Bob gets the contract. "Don't worry", he says, "you can take your crypto-assets back anytime you like - just subject to our cancellation policy. Our annual management fees are also super low and we don't adjust them often".

How many holes have to exist for your funds to get stolen?
Just one.

Why are we taking a powerful offline multi-sig setup, widely used globally in hundreds of different/lacking regulatory environments with 0 breaches to date, and circumventing it by a demonstrably weak third party layer? And paying a great expense to do so?
If you go through the list of breaches in the past 2 years to highly credible organizations, you go through the list of major corporate frauds (only the ones we know about), you go through the list of all the times platforms have lost funds, you go through the list of times and ways that people have lost their crypto from identity theft, hot wallet exploits, extortion, etc... and then you go through this custodian with a fine-tooth comb and truly believe they have value to add far beyond what you could, sticking your funds in a wallet (or set of wallets) they control exclusively is the absolute worst possible way to take advantage of that security.

The best way to add security for crypto-assets is to make a stronger multi-sig. With one custodian, what you are doing is giving them your cryptocurrency and hoping they're honest, competent, and flawlessly secure. It's no different than storing it on a really secure exchange. Maybe the insurance will cover you. Didn't work for Bitpay in 2015. Didn't work for Yapizon in 2017. Insurance has never paid a claim in the entire history of cryptocurrency. But maybe you'll get lucky. Maybe your exact scenario will buck the trend and be what they're willing to cover. After the large deductible and hopefully without a long and expensive court battle.

And you want to advertise this increase in risk, the lapse of judgement, an accident waiting to happen, as though it's some kind of benefit to customers ("Free institutional-grade storage for your digital assets.")? And then some people are writing to the OSC that custodians should be mandatory for all funds on every exchange platform? That this somehow will make Canadians as a whole more secure or better protected compared with standard air-gapped multi-sig? On what planet?

Most of the problems in Canada stemmed from one thing - a lack of transparency. If Canadians had known what a joke Quadriga was - it wouldn't have grown to lose $400m from hard-working Canadians from coast to coast to coast. And Gerald Cotten would be in jail, not wherever he is now (at best, rotting peacefully). EZ-BTC and mister Dave Smilie would have been a tiny little scam to his friends, not a multi-million dollar fraud. Einstein would have got their act together or been shut down BEFORE losing millions and millions more in people's funds generously donated to criminals. MapleChange wouldn't have even been a thing. And maybe we'd know a little more about CoinTradeNewNote - like how much was lost in there. Almost all of the major losses with cryptocurrency exchanges involve deception with unbacked funds.
So it's great to see transparency reports from BitBuy and ShakePay where someone independently verified the backing. The only thing we don't have is:
It's not complicated to validate cryptocurrency assets. They need to exist, they need to be spendable, and they need to cover the total balances. There are plenty of credible people and firms across the country that have the capacity to reasonably perform this validation. Having more frequent checks by different, independent, parties who publish transparent reports is far more valuable than an annual check by a single "more credible/official" party who does the exact same basic checks and may or may not publish anything. Here's an example set of requirements that could be mandated:
There are ways to structure audits such that neither crypto assets nor customer information are ever put at risk, and both can still be properly validated and publicly verifiable. There are also ways to structure audits such that they are completely reasonable for small platforms and don't inhibit innovation in any way. By making the process as reasonable as possible, we can completely eliminate any reason/excuse that an honest platform would have for not being audited. That is arguable far more important than any incremental improvement we might get from mandating "the best of the best" accountants. Right now we have nothing mandated and tons of Canadians using offshore exchanges with no oversight whatsoever.

Transparency does not prove crypto assets are safe. CoinTradeNewNote, Flexcoin ($600k), and Canadian Bitcoins ($100k) are examples where crypto-assets were breached from platforms in Canada. All of them were online wallets and used no multi-sig as far as any records show. This is consistent with what we see globally - air-gapped multi-sig wallets have an impeccable record, while other schemes tend to suffer breach after breach. We don't actually know how much CoinTrader lost because there was no visibility. Rather than publishing details of what happened, the co-founder of CoinTrader silently moved on to found another platform - the "most trusted way to buy and sell crypto" - a site that has no information whatsoever (that I could find) on the storage practices and a FAQ advising that “[t]rading cryptocurrency is completely safe” and that having your own wallet is “entirely up to you! You can certainly keep cryptocurrency, or fiat, or both, on the app.” Doesn't sound like much was learned here, which is really sad to see.
It's not that complicated or unreasonable to set up a proper hardware wallet. Multi-sig can be learned in a single course. Something the equivalent complexity of a driver's license test could prevent all the cold storage exploits we've seen to date - even globally. Platform operators have a key advantage in detecting and preventing fraud - they know their customers far better than any custodian ever would. The best job that custodians can do is to find high integrity individuals and train them to form even better wallet signatories. Rather than mandating that all platforms expose themselves to arbitrary third party risks, regulations should center around ensuring that all signatories are background-checked, properly trained, and using proper procedures. We also need to make sure that signatories are empowered with rights and responsibilities to reject and report fraud. They need to know that they can safely challenge and delay a transaction - even if it turns out they made a mistake. We need to have an environment where mistakes are brought to the surface and dealt with. Not one where firms and people feel the need to hide what happened. In addition to a knowledge-based test, an auditor can privately interview each signatory to make sure they're not in coercive situations, and we should make sure they can freely and anonymously report any issues without threat of retaliation.
A proper multi-sig has each signature held by a separate person and is governed by policies and mutual decisions instead of a hierarchy. It includes at least one redundant signature. For best results, 3of4, 3of5, 3of6, 4of5, 4of6, 4of7, 5of6, or 5of7.

History has demonstrated over and over again the risk of hot wallets even to highly credible organizations. Nonetheless, many platforms have hot wallets for convenience. While such losses are generally compensated by platforms without issue (for example Poloniex, Bitstamp, Bitfinex, Gatecoin, Coincheck, Bithumb, Zaif, CoinBene, Binance, Bitrue, Bitpoint, Upbit, VinDAX, and now KuCoin), the public tends to focus more on cases that didn't end well. Regardless of what systems are employed, there is always some level of risk. For that reason, most members of the public would prefer to see third party insurance.
Rather than trying to convince third party profit-seekers to provide comprehensive insurance and then relying on an expensive and slow legal system to enforce against whatever legal loopholes they manage to find each and every time something goes wrong, insurance could be run through multiple exchange operators and regulators, with the shared interest of having a reputable industry, keeping costs down, and taking care of Canadians. For example, a 4 of 7 multi-sig insurance fund held between 5 independent exchange operators and 2 regulatory bodies. All Canadian exchanges could pay premiums at a set rate based on their needed coverage, with a higher price paid for hot wallet coverage (anything not an air-gapped multi-sig cold wallet). Such a model would be much cheaper to manage, offer better coverage, and be much more reliable to payout when needed. The kind of coverage you could have under this model is unheard of. You could even create something like the CDIC to protect Canadians who get their trading accounts hacked if they can sufficiently prove the loss is legitimate. In cases of fraud, gross negligence, or insolvency, the fund can be used to pay affected users directly (utilizing the last transparent balance report in the worst case), something which private insurance would never touch. While it's recommended to have official policies for coverage, a model where members vote would fully cover edge cases. (Could be similar to the Supreme Court where justices vote based on case law.)
Such a model could fully protect all Canadians across all platforms. You can have a fiat coverage governed by legal agreements, and crypto-asset coverage governed by both multi-sig and legal agreements. It could be practical, affordable, and inclusive.

Now, we are at a crossroads. We can happily give up our freedom, our innovation, and our money. We can pay hefty expenses to auditors, lawyers, and regulators year after year (and make no mistake - this cost will grow to many millions or even billions as the industry grows - and it will be borne by all Canadians on every platform because platforms are not going to eat up these costs at a loss). We can make it nearly impossible for any new platform to enter the marketplace, forcing Canadians to use the same stagnant platforms year after year. We can centralize and consolidate the entire industry into 2 or 3 big players and have everyone else fail (possibly to heavy losses of users of those platforms). And when a flawed security model doesn't work and gets breached, we can make it even more complicated with even more people in suits making big money doing the job that blockchain was supposed to do in the first place. We can build a system which is so intertwined and dependent on big government, traditional finance, and central bankers that it's future depends entirely on that of the fiat system, of fractional banking, and of government bail-outs. If we choose this path, as history has shown us over and over again, we can not go back, save for revolution. Our children and grandchildren will still be paying the consequences of what we decided today.
Or, we can find solutions that work. We can maintain an open and innovative environment while making the adjustments we need to make to fully protect Canadian investors and cryptocurrency users, giving easy and affordable access to cryptocurrency for all Canadians on the platform of their choice, and creating an environment in which entrepreneurs and problem solvers can bring those solutions forward easily. None of the above precludes innovation in any way, or adds any unreasonable cost - and these three policies would demonstrably eliminate or resolve all 109 historic cases as studied here - that's every single case researched so far going back to 2011. It includes every loss that was studied so far not just in Canada but globally as well.
Unfortunately, finding answers is the least challenging part. Far more challenging is to get platform operators and regulators to agree on anything. My last post got no response whatsoever, and while the OSC has told me they're happy for industry feedback, I believe my opinion alone is fairly meaningless. This takes the whole community working together to solve. So please let me know your thoughts. Please take the time to upvote and share this with people. Please - let's get this solved and not leave it up to other people to do.

Facts/background/sources (skip if you like):



Thoughts?
submitted by azoundria2 to QuadrigaInitiative [link] [comments]

Freebay AG

Jesus H. Christ, I nearly fell hook, line and sinker for what appears to be an innocuous triangle on the surface but is actually a lording pyramid in truth.

On Monday my friend who happens to be a semi-pro sportsman with his eyes on the financial freedom dream you see in YouTube ads rocks up to my house. He's parked outside and reckons to me, "dude, are you keen to go to a board game thing where you learn how to manage your finances?"
I'm usually against financial preaching and stuff because it usually sounds hokey and bullshit, but against my better judgement I cave in and we go. The whole ride there he's telling me about this amazing mentor that's going to make me learn about making money without any effort, a dude I'm going to call James. Now James is a charming, well-off guy with a family. He doesn't quite have the YouTube millionaire lifestyle that you usually expect in this sort of 'profession' but I'd happily trade places with him if the opportunity presented itself.

Anyhow, from moment one, James and my friend are mouthing off incessantly about how much money they're making on Freebay. Mind you, I'm oblivious to what the fuck is going on because I don't understand what's cracking - but literally the whole time there's graphs on a screen, and they're talking about these magical AI bots that guarantee returns on investment. Now this is South Africa, and these blokes are talking about making something like 10 000 USD in a month!? Do you know that 10 000 USD in South Africa is like enough to pay for an entire undergraduate degree at the best university in the country, and these geezers are making this shit in a month? Fucking hell.

Anyhow, we digress from the discussion about Bitcoin and that to get to the meat and potatoes of the meet-up, which was to play that Cashflow game that that bloke who wrote Rich Dad Poor Dad formulated. Before we got to playing the game we had this zoom webinar with fellow victims... I mean participants, and they're all monotonously droning on with a despondent stare the same principles from this book that's supposed to be the Bible to financial freedom. There's a charismatic bloke leading the charge and the whole thing feels eerily reminiscent to a cult, in retrospect. You see, in the moment I'm eating all of this shit up about how wealth is a mindset and what not, and when I consider the conversation that was had around me just before the webinar - I saw two positive blokes trusting in this 'company' or whatever and seeing clear cut returns. Maybe they're right, maybe they're onto something. We play this game and that's all I'm thinking about: passive income, wealth, financial freedom - FREEBAY.

After the game, I'm sat talking to this James bloke, his missus and my mate. They're apparently all on this Freebay tip making stacks of foreign cash that doesn't get taxed by the government, and now they're sizing me up. I tell them I'm a small-time writer in uni studying to become a teacher. They tell me that I can exponentially increase my earning potential by watching the link to video that my friend had sent to me during the webinar, and then by opting into a 190 EUR package... the same things I running through my mind: passive income, wealth, financial freedom - FREE FUCKING BAY.

And then I go home, ruminate over the whole thing and begin my research. The whole thing? A facade. Apparently, this Freebay shit was being run under the name of some other pyramid/ponzi-esque cryptocurrency racket called Karatbay and people got fucking conned out of hundreds of thousands of dollars. Suddenly, I realise from the website that they posture themselves as 'affiliate marketers' or whatever in an attempt to hide in plain sight. What's worse is that when I play the sequence of events back in my mind from the beginning when my friend randomly rocked up to my house, the whole thing felt like an entire fucking rat trap and I nearly fell for it too. What blows is that my buddy is balls deep in the pyramid and he's blinded by the illusion that he'll find wealth with these people. He's on the prowl for every friend, family member and acquaintance he can get his hands on and it sucks to see him acting this way.

I just thought I'd share my story. Always be on the lookout guys, these motherfuckers are everywhere - try and save your buddies from this shite. Also, I just thought it'd be wise to mention the name FreeBay in any anti-MLM rhetoric you spew, because these people are predatory as hell.
submitted by milankundairy to antiMLM [link] [comments]

Is it legal to buy crypto in India after the recent plans to ban?

India is one of the biggest markets for trading and buying crypto. It still feels that the inclusion of Decentralisation and Cryptocurrency is not a plan India will follow anytime soon. People can do frauds easily these days and the governments are categorizing this issue worse than rrape. If someone is good at crypto, knows how to trade, has money to risk, and more importantly is in his right mind looking to trade, what is the role of government here? They can charge and collect huge taxes if you earn money. As if crypto has much utility.
Geopolitics around Bitcoin Price is still another issue. Nothing goes right except the fact that people believe in Bitcoin as the paper currency of the future, and we as a community don't want to pay 100$ + in fees to transfer 100$ in global remittance. We represent Migrants, labor class to send money back home and we are spot on with crypto payments.
There is a demand for Bitcoin and there are a million avenues to spend and hold your crypto. We no longer need to rely on tuition, everything is available online. If you would like to learn about trading cryptocurrency for free, we provide free webinars and price indicators when to invest and divest in bitcoin. You can comment below for the same.
If you would like to earn a referral commission comment refer bitcoin below and I will dm or comment with my invite link.
You don't need to make any investments, nor we advise you to trade. But if you love crypto there is no harm getting free crypto right?
submitted by buybitcoinindia to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Some useful tips you may need for the next bull run

During the previous bull run, I’ve made some wrong decisions that have cost me a lot of money. With the halving just behind us, we may enter a new bull run.
Here are some tips for the next bull run. Feel free to add yours:
• ⁠never sell your whole stack
• ⁠never trade with your whole stack. not your keys not your crypto
• ⁠if you have life changing amounts, you are a gambler if you hodl everything for bigger life changing amounts (lots of people have been thinking "i should have, would have, could have" everyday for the last year+)
• ⁠scale out when the log chart goes parabolic, and your grandma and uber driver and katy perry are talking about bitcoins. the difference between short term gains & long term gains is more than losing 90% of your principle. markets don't care about your timetable
• ⁠take chunks of your profits out of crypto entirely & diversify, you can lockup a small percentage into defi and earn interest as a hedge to offset fomo
• ⁠pay your taxes (optional?) and/or save money for a rainy day in fiat
• ⁠set some low limit orders you don't think will hit on the way up and be patient
• ⁠set some high limit orders on the way down to catch any fat finger trades
• ⁠keep a few low orders on exchanges that still allow flash crashes and think of those as your reserves
• ⁠don't ever talk to people about your gains
• specify a strategy prior to the new bull run, including exit points and several levels at which you plan to sell parts of your stack
• help newbies who will be attracted by the new bull run and don’t shill your own shitcoins
submitted by XRBeast to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

Do I sound more like a Democrat or Republican?

Here are my positions -
  1. Should the federal government institute a mandatory buyback of assault weapons? No
  2. Should a business be able to deny service to a customer if the request conflicts with the owner’s religious beliefs? If they are not engaged in interstate commerce, the Federal Government shouldn't hold any power to legislate on the matter. At the state level (and federal if interstate) Yes, so long as they are not discriminating on the basis of race, sex, sexual orientation, transgender, or other uncontrollable factors.
  3. Should the government continue to fund Planned Parenthood? Yes, with oversight to make sure the money is going o where it is supposed to.
  4. Should universities provide “trigger warnings” and “safe spaces” for students? No
  5. Do you support the death penalty? Generally no, with the possible exception of treason during an insurrection or invasion.
  6. Should the government support a separation of church and state by removing references to God on money, federal buildings, and national monuments? No, this is referring to God as a concept.
  7. Should businesses be required to have women on their board of directors? No
  8. Do you support the legalization of same sex marriage? Yes, through a constitutional amendment. At the state level, yes.
  9. Should the military allow women to serve in combat roles? Yes as long as they meet the same physical standards as men and pass the same tests.
  10. Should marital rape be classified and punished as severely as non-marital rape? This should be a state-level issue, but yes.
  11. Should terminally ill patients be allowed to end their lives via assisted suicide? Only if there is no chance of survival.
  12. Should hate speech be protected by the first amendment? It is, and yes.
  13. Should gay couples have the same adoption rights as straight couples? Yes
  14. Should states be allowed to display the Confederate flag on government property? They have the right, but I would prefer my state not.
  15. Should women be allowed to wear a Niqāb, or face veil, to civic ceremonies? I am not fully certain. I am leaning towards yes, as long as another woman has verified her identity.
  16. Should welfare recipients be tested for drugs? Only if they have a criminal history related to drug abuse.
  17. Should employers be required to pay men and women the same salary for the same job? This shouldn't be a federal issue unless it involves interstate commerce. But at the state-level (and federal if interstate), Yes if they work the same positions and for the same hours and conditions.
  18. Should there be fewer or more restrictions on current welfare benefits? More, reform it so it supplements, rather than replaces, an income.
  19. Should the government raise the federal minimum wage? The federal government should not have the power to enact minimum wage laws unless it involves interstate commerce, in which case yes, it should be $15 an hour. Each state should be able to set its own laws on the matter.
  20. Should the government make cuts to public spending in order to reduce the national debt? No.
  21. Should the U.S. increase tariffs on imported products from China? Yes, China should be punished for violations of international law.
  22. Should businesses be required to provide paid leave for full-time employees during the birth of a child or sick family member? At the state-level, yes. At the federal level, yes, if they are involved in interstate commerce.
  23. Should the government increase the tax rate on profits earned from the sale of stocks, bonds, and real estate? Capital gains should be taxed the same as ordinary income.
  24. Should the current estate tax rate be decreased? No, I am satisfied with the current system.
  25. Should the U.S. continue to participate in the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)? No.
  26. Should the President offer tax breaks to individual companies to keep jobs in the U.S.? No, but put tariffs on all imported goods.
  27. Should the government prevent “mega mergers” of corporations that could potentially control a large percentage of market share within its industry? No.
  28. Do you believe labor unions help or hurt the economy? Help, in theory, but are sometimes harmful.
  29. Should the government break up Amazon, Facebook and Google? No.
  30. Should the government add or increase tariffs on products imported into the country? Yes, all imported goods should be taxed 20%.
  31. Should the U.S. raise or lower the tax rate for corporations? Keep at current rate, but close all loopholes.
  32. Should the government require businesses to pay salaried employees, making up to $46k/year, time-and-a-half for overtime hours? At the state level, yes. At the federal level, only if they are involved in interstate commerce.
  33. Do you support the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)? No.
  34. Would you favor an increased sales tax in order to reduce property taxes? No.
  35. Should pension plans for federal, state, and local government workers be transitioned into privately managed accounts? No.
  36. Should the government subsidize farmers? For now, yes, but once we get out of trade deals, put tariffs on all imports, and tax all interstate sales, subsidies should be ended.
  37. Should the government use economic stimulus to aid the country during times of recession? No, recessions are natural cycles.
  38. Should the Federal Reserve Bank be audited by Congress? Yes, we should know where that money is going.
  39. Should the IRS create a free electronic tax filing system? Yes.
  40. Should an in-state sales tax apply to online purchases of in-state buyers from out-of-state sellers? No, the federal government should not enact an intrastate sales tax.
  41. Should pension payments be increased for retired government workers? Yes, adjust them yearly for inflation.
  42. Should U.S. citizens be allowed to save or invest their money in offshore bank accounts? Yes, as long as all income is reported.
  43. Should the government classify Bitcoin as a legal currency? Yes, but maintain the system of the dollar and cash as a legal currency.
  44. Should the government acquire equity stakes in companies it bails out during a recession? No.
  45. Do you support charter schools? No.
  46. Should the government decriminalize school truancy? No for Elementary school. For middle and high school, no social studies and English, yes for everything else.
  47. Should there be more restrictions on the current process of purchasing a gun? States and the federal government should not be allowed to enact any restrictions on black powder weapons or ammunition for them. For cartridge firearms, the federal government should only have the power to regulate interstate sale of them. At the state level, cartridge firearms should require a license to obtain. The process should involve passing a mental and physical health exam, having a decent criminal record, and passing a written and shooting exam. Handguns and centerfire semi-automatic weapons should have higher standards for licensing and should be registered before being obtained, but automatic CCW to anyone who has a license for a handgun. fully automatic weapons should be illegal to sell, except to collectors, who must meet an even higher standard to obtain.
  48. Should victims of gun violence be allowed to sue firearms dealers and manufacturers? No, this is just dumb.
  49. Should the President of the United States have the power to deploy military troops in order to stop protests? If any state governments are overthrown, yes. Otherwise, only if the Governor of a state requests assistance.
  50. Should teachers be allowed to carry guns at school? Yes if they have a valid license 9see above).
  51. Should it be illegal to burn the American flag? No, but I have no respect for anyone who does.
  52. Should the state government order schools to provide online only classes in order to combat coronavirus? No, let each school decide.
  53. Should there be term limits set for members of Congress? Yes, maximum four terms for the House, and maximum two for the Senate.
  54. Should people on the “no-fly list” be banned from purchasing guns and ammunition? No, this denies one of due process rights.
  55. Are you in favor of decriminalizing drug use? Yes, for most but not all drugs (basically the really bad ones, e.g., meth, heroin, etc;)
  56. Should the NSA (National Security Agency) be allowed to collect basic metadata of citizen’s phone calls such as numbers, timestamps, and call durations? Only with a warrant and probable cause of a crime.
  57. Should the Supreme Court be reformed to include more seats and term limits on judges? No, this is just trying to pack the court, which should not be politicized.
  58. Should the government regulate social media sites, as a means to prevent fake news and misinformation? No, this violates free speech.
  59. Do you support the Patriot Act? Not the clause that allows warrantless searches.
  60. Should the government be allowed to seize private property, with reasonable compensation, for public or civic use? Only for public land and not for privatization, and the owner must be paid for losses in full.
  61. Should college sports be played in the fall of 2020? Yes, but let teams decide.
  62. Should local police increase surveillance and patrol of Muslim neighborhoods? No, this just breeds resentment.
  63. Should the government raise the retirement age for Social Security? No
  64. Should the government pass laws which protect whistleblowers? Yes, so long as national security isn't compromised.
  65. Should the redrawing of Congressional districts be controlled by an independent, non-partisan commission? Yes, gerrymandering breeds corruption.
  66. Should internet service providers be allowed to speed up access to popular websites (that pay higher rates) at the expense of slowing down access to less popular websites (that pay lower rates)? If they are privately owned, yes.
  67. Should the U.S. government grant immunity to Edward Snowden? For his leaks on domestic surveillance, yes. Some other things, maybe not.
  68. Should foreign terrorism suspects be given constitutional rights? Yes.
  69. Do you support the killing of Iranian Major General Qassem Soleimani? Yes.
  70. Should the U.S. continue to support Israel? Yes.
  71. Should the U.S. accept refugees from Syria? Yes, but only after extensive background checks to confirm that they are not a threat and are genuine refugees and not economic migrants.
  72. Should the government increase or decrease military spending? Decrease by streamlining it, and making it more efficient, through eliminating wasteful spending.
  73. Should the military fly drones over foreign countries to gain intelligence and kill suspected terrorists? No, unless said country has approved it, and American citizens should be given fair trials.
  74. Should the military be allowed to use enhanced interrogation techniques, such as waterboarding, to gain information from suspected terrorists? No.
  75. Should every 18 year old citizen be required to provide at least one year of military service? No, but maintain the Selective Service system and allow states to draft people if necessary.
  76. Should Jerusalem be recognized as the capital of Israel? Yes.
  77. Should the U.S. go to war with Iran? No, they should be disarmed through diplomatic channels.
  78. Should the U.S. remain in the United Nations? Yes.
  79. Should the U.S. remain in NATO? Yes.
  80. Should the U.S. defend other NATO countries that maintain low military defense budgets relative to their GDP? Yes, but get them to pay their share.
  81. Should the United States pull all military troops out of Afghanistan? If the Afghan government wants us to, then yes.
  82. Should the U.S. sell military weapons to India in order to counter Chinese and Russian influence? Yes.
  83. Should the U.S. conduct military strikes against North Korea in order to destroy their long-range missile and nuclear weapons capabilities? No, use all diplomatic means first.
  84. Do you support President Obama’s move to lift the trade and travel embargo on Cuba? Yes.
  85. Should it be illegal to join a boycott of Israel? No.
  86. Should the government cancel production of the F-35 fighter? Yes, until the price has been lowered or our deficits have been drastically reduced, and its hardware is drastically improved.
  87. Do you support the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare)? No.
  88. Should people be required to work in order to receive Medicaid? No.
  89. Should cities open drug “safe havens” where people who are addicted to illegal drugs can use them under the supervision of medical professionals? Yes.
  90. Do you support the legalization of Marijuana? The federal government should not have the power to ban marijuana, except to regulate or ban its interstate sale, which it shouldn't at the state level, legalize.
  91. Should the government regulate the prices of life-saving drugs? No.
  92. Should health insurers be allowed to deny coverage to individuals who have a pre-existing condition? At the federal level, no, if they are operating in interstate commerce. At the state level, no.
  93. Should there be more or less privatization of veterans’ healthcare? Less, improve the current system.
  94. Should the federal government increase funding of health care for low income individuals (Medicaid)? Yes.
  95. Should the federal government be allowed to negotiate drug prices for Medicare? Yes.
  96. Should the government fund the World Health Organization? Yes.
  97. Should the government increase environmental regulations to prevent climate change? No.
  98. Should researchers be allowed to use animals in testing the safety of drugs, vaccines, medical devices, and cosmetics? Yes, but not for cosmetics.
  99. Should the U.S. expand offshore oil drilling? No, but maintain current rigs.
  100. Do you support the use of hydraulic fracking to extract oil and natural gas resources? Allow it to be legal, but don't subsidize.
  101. Should the government stop construction of the Dakota Access pipeline? No.
  102. Should disposable products (such as plastic cups, plates, and cutlery) that contain less than 50% of biodegradable material be banned? No.
  103. Should drilling be allowed in the Alaska Wildlife Refuge? No.
  104. Should cities be allowed to offer private companies economic incentives to relocate? Yes.
  105. Should the government give tax credits and subsidies to the wind power industry? No, no industry should be favored.
  106. Should the government require children to be vaccinated for preventable diseases? No.
  107. Do you support the use of nuclear energy? Yes, lessen restrictions, but no subsidies.
  108. Should producers be required to label genetically engineered foods (GMOs)? Yes.
  109. Should illegal immigrants have access to government-subsidized healthcare? No.
  110. Should immigrants be deported if they commit a serious crime? Yes, after serving their sentence.
  111. Should illegal immigrants be offered in-state tuition rates at public colleges within their residing state? No.
  112. Should the U.S. build a wall along the southern border? No, but make a high tech surveillance barrier instead of a physical wall. This is because a physical wall would be too costly and ineffective.
  113. Should local law enforcement be allowed to detain illegal immigrants for minor crimes and transfer them to federal immigration authorities? Yes.
  114. Should sanctuary cities receive federal funding? No.
  115. Should the U.S. increase restrictions on its current border security policy? Yes.
  116. Should immigrants be required to pass a citizenship test to demonstrate a basic understanding of our country’s language, history, and government? Yes.
  117. Should children of illegal immigrants be granted legal citizenship? Yes, if they were born here.
  118. Should Muslim immigrants be banned from entering the country until the government improves its ability to screen out potential terrorists? No.
  119. Should immigrants be required to learn English? Yes, if they wish to become citizens.
  120. Should there be a temporary ban on all immigration into the United States? No, but increase border security.
  121. Should the US increase or decrease the amount of temporary work visas given to high-skilled immigrant workers? Increase, our economy relies on businesses hiring the highest skilled workers at the lowest cost.
  122. Should working illegal immigrants be given temporary amnesty? No.
  123. Should immigrants to the United States be allowed to hold dual citizenship status? Yes.
  124. Do you support Common Core national standards? Yes, but only for English and social studies.
  125. Should a photo ID be required to vote? No, but gradually update voter rolls and purge voters who are required to be according tot eh Voting Registration act of 1993.
  126. Should foreigners, currently residing in the United States, have the right to vote? No, only citizens should.
  127. Should the minimum voting age be lowered? No.
  128. Should the electoral college be abolished? No.
  129. Should the US have a mail-in ballot process for whole states in local, state, and federal elections? No.
  130. Should foreign lobbyists be allowed to raise money for American elections? No.
  131. Should there be a limit to the amount of money a candidate can receive from a donor? No.
  132. Should corporations, unions, and non-profit organizations be allowed to donate to political parties? No.
  133. Should there be a 5-year ban on White House and Congressional officials from becoming lobbyists after they leave the government? No.
  134. Should political candidates be required to release their recent tax returns to the public? No.
  135. Should funding for local police departments be redirected to social and community based programs? No, increase funding and training for police departments in higher crime rate communities
  136. Should police officers be required to wear body cameras? Yes.
  137. Should convicted criminals have the right to vote? Yes, but only after completing their sentence and probation.
  138. Should drug traffickers receive the death penalty? No.
  139. Should non-violent prisoners be released from jail in order to reduce overcrowding? Yes, but have them do community service.
  140. Do you support mandatory minimum prison sentences for people charged with drug possession? No.
  141. Should the government hire private companies to run prisons? No.
  142. Should prisons ban the use of solitary confinement for juveniles? No, but it is currently being overused
  143. Should the US assassinate suspected terrorists in foreign countries? No, capture, interrogate, and imprison them instead
  144. What is your position on Abortion? Adopt a constitutional amendment overturning Roe v Wade and allow state to enact their own laws. At the state level, abortion should be legal within the first 20 weeks, but afterwards, should be banned except for exceptional cases.
  145. Do you support affirmative action? No.
submitted by Maximum-Lingonberry2 to NoStupidQuestions [link] [comments]

Recessions, financial savings and retirement

If you're on reddit you're probably a millennial or gen z and you're likely gen 1 or gen 2. Most hmong parents arnt the most financially savvy people out there so I thought I'd post this in hopes that it helps some of yall out.
The current situation should be reality check that highlights 1 thing for our generation:
Have enough cash and investments to support yourself
If you're a millennial this is probably the 2nd major recession in your working career, all within the span of less than 15 years. If you're just entering the job market then prepare for losses, wage cuts, uncertainty and wage stagnation for perhaps years to come. Recovery will happen, but unlike the stock market the economy usually lags.
  1. Save enough cash to support yourself - 3 months minimum
Savings: At a minimum you should have enough cash to cover 3 months of costs in case of job loss. However, this is really the minimum you should strive for before thinking about investments. I'm personally more comfortable with 5-6 months of expenses and even more if you own a house.
  1. 401k, HSA There are probably more plans out there but these are the two most common. You should be maximizing your contributions up to whatever the company match is. If you're young and healthy, you may want to think about actively managing both and changing the funds to support higher growth.
401k: Contribute up to the company match. 401k is funded by pretax money and the company match is all free money. If you dont think you can or have the time to beat the match, then leverage 401ks to the maximum. Don't have enough to contribute? Each raise you earn increase your 401k contribution to whatever your raise is. Should you contribute the yearly maximum? It depends on the match and if it's worthwhile. 401ks are a money jail so it's not worth-while to simply invest more if it does not earn you additional match money. There are better ways to invest your money.
Which fund should you choose? Again if you're on the younger side, you should probably be in 90% or more in stocks.
HSA: If you're young and/or healthy then you will want to maximize you're HSA contributions. This money is yours forever and often comes with a company match. After meeting the minimum account balance you can invest any additional contributions, just like your 401k.
You'll always have both accounts and the government has made it clear that they will waive penalties for withdrawals in cases of crisis like covid.
  1. Roth IRA and Brokage accounts
Fully vested in 401k and HSA? Roth IRA and brokage accounts may be what you're looking for. Both Roth IRA and brokage accounts allows you to invest in individual stocks. What's the difference? Roth IRA gains are tax free but you arnt allowed to withdraw gains without paying a penalty and taxes until you reach retirement age. You can still pull out what you contribute at any time. A brokage account allows you to pull your gains and contributions out at any time, but any gain on any sale is subject to tax, regardless if you withdraw from your account or not.
The general advice is if you're investing for retirement, go with a roth ira and contribute the maximum you can each year, then fund your brokage account with any extra. If you're investing to gamble or to try and earn extra cash, a brokage account gives you more flexibility on managing your earnings.
I use my Roth IRA as a second savings accounts and invest when I see good entry points. Roth gives me liquidity while also being able to invest, compared to a 401k.
The market will only grow, maybe not in the short term with the whole covid recession, but better believe it will in the long term.
  1. FIRE: Financial Independence, Retire Early.
You may have heard of FIRE, but the essence is to become Financially independent and retire early. I'm not a big fan of the following it exactly but I am a fan of being Financially independent enough to not worry about what I choose for work. But if you live FIRE, more power to you.
The single biggest costs for most people are their homes. If you can pay off your home early then a large financial burden has been taken care and while you may not be financial independent you will have an extremely large amount of flexibility. If you want to work at Costco, you can! That's what being financially flexible affords you.
  1. Real estate and Land
Yes, some people make bank flipping and renting. But profiting from a flip is estimated to be harder and harder with home prices where they are today. I dont have any expertise here beside just beginning to dive into the indusrty but from what I hear from my builder, realtor and flipping people is that we are expecting a down turn in home prices in the 2nd half of the year if covid continues to decimate the economy. Low interest rates however may offset some of this in the short term. Right now it's still a sellers market but high end houses are sitting.
  1. Credit cards
Points, points, points..seriously there's no other way to buy than with a credit card, not even mentioning security benefits. Cash, debit cards, PayPal, bitcoin, all worthless when compared to credit cards. Use credit cards to pay for everything you can.
If you're not disciplined enough, don't open cards to every department store either, you're get a credit hit if your credit is accessed too often and it becomes difficult to manage after too many cards.
Look at cards that provide the most points for your dollar. Cards that allow you to transfer points to partners often yield even more savings, especiallyon things like travel. Chase cards are great and Freedom is a great first card to have.
The key to credit cards is not to spend what you dont have and to pay off the STATEMENT BALANCE every month. To avoid interests, you need only pay off the STATEMENT BALANCE and not the full balance every month. Never take credit card loans or get into credit card debt, it's going to be a bad time.
  1. Pay off debt
There's always a fine line between investing and paying off debt. The debt we're talking about here is debt with relatively low interest rates like student loans, car loans and homes. Anything debt with high rates, like credit card debt, should be paid off immediately.
The general rule of thumb is if you can make more investing than the interest rates of the loans, invest, else pay off debt. But, investing involves risk while paying off debt is a sure thing. There's also the emotional factor. Some people don't care about debt because they want to be working their entire lives and are willing to pay it off over the long term, and that's perfectly fine. In that case, invest invest invest. Personally i think there is a balance, I rather be debt free and financially flexible than be straddled with debt.
To pay off debt, one of the most popular methods is the snow ball method. The essence of the theory is to pay off the highest interest debt off first. Once paid off, while keeping the payments the same, tackle the next highest interest debt and so on so forth. Eventually you are paying off more and more with the same payments, hence the snow ball effect. Google it for more precise definitions.
  1. Travel, hobbies and enjoying life
Seriously, enjoy your youth, health and life while it's good. Nobody wants to work and save until 65 before you start traveling and enjoying life. Traveling is one of the best things you can do. Having hobbies makes work worthwhile. Good health is worth more than all the cash in the world.
  1. Gambling and options
I dont recommend either, but if you're a gambling man, play options over penny stocks and always double down on 9 or 11...maybe. Just don't bet what you're not willing to lose, and for the love of all that is holy, dont gamble on margin. Disable that shit.
You already know all this stuff? Awesome! Help out and contribute.
Questions? Post.
Wrong Facts? Always looking to learn.
Tldr: Save, invest and pay off debt. Also enjoy life, health and youth while you have them.
submitted by Dick_sporting_good to Hmong [link] [comments]

Live Payment Proof Without Investment  ⭐Free Bitcoin ... New Free Bitcoin Earning Site 2019 No Investment  Live Withdrawal Payment Proof THE Highest Paying BITCOIN Faucet - Earn FREE Bitcoin NOW ... How To Get FREE BITCOIN? 5 Ways! 💰 - YouTube #BitcoinMining Free Bitcoin Mining site 2019. Signup Bonus1000GH/S

Your earnings with the free bitcoin miner depend mainly on the CPU power of your device. The more powerful it is and the more Bitcoin you will earn. If you have more devices, you can use them all to mine BTC using our free bitcoin mining system. Simply login from each of your devices using the same BTC address and start the Bitcoin miner to increase your earnings. We get it — paying bitcoin taxes and other crypto taxes can be confusing. While we can’t give tax advice, we want to make crypto easier to buy, sell, and use. This guide is our way of helping you better understand your 2019 crypto tax obligations. There’s a lot of conflicting content out there, but make no mistake: you are required to report gains and losses on each cryptocurrency ... Best Bitcoin Sites and Free Bitcoin PTC earning sites in 2020. Claim Free BTC right now. Listing Highest paying bitcoin faucet 2018, 2019, and 2020 In Germany, Bitcoin and other cryptos are not considered as a commodity, a stock, or any kind of currency. Instead, these things are considered as private money in a way that’s similar to foreign currency.. Trading bitcoins/altcoins are considered as a private sale under the rule 23 EStG which has tax-free benefits. According to this rule, it means anyone trading bitcoins/altcoins is totally ... Home Tag: is bitcoin tax free. Tag: is bitcoin tax free. Latest videos . Latest videos Most viewed videos Longest videos Popular videos Random videos. 101 15:46. 0%. 7 Phone Apps to Earn Free Bitcoin in 2019. Categories. 1 Free Bitcoin ; Earn Free Bitcoin; Free Bitcoin; Free Bitcoin Faucet; Free Bitcoin Mining; Free Bitcoin Spinner; Free Bitcoin Wallet; Freebitcoin; Get Free Bitcoin; How To ...

[index] [40988] [13765] [23631] [39487] [9877] [39309] [19504] [34248] [11276] [32811]

Live Payment Proof Without Investment ⭐Free Bitcoin ...

CASHROI LIMITED Earn Money USD And Bitcoin All crypto - Duration: 2 minutes, 8 seconds. 25 views ; 10 months ago; 2:21. NEW FREE BITCOIN CLOUD MINING SIGN UP 1500GHs FREE 30 MAY 2019 - Duration: 2 ... 💰 My #1 Recommendation To Make Money Online - Click Here Now ️ http://LifeWithoutLimits.co 💰 Claim Your FREE Bitcoin / Crypto Here: ️ http://bit.ly/EarnFre... Free Bitcoin Earning Site 2020 Live Payment Proof Earn Free Bitcoin - Zero Investment In this video, I will describe a free bitcoin earning site in 2020.... 😱Without Work Earn Free Bitcoin with Payment Proof -No Investment 2020 Site Joining Link: https://wesler.biz/ref?id=mhasnain2 My Telegram link: Mhasnain2 My ... 🔥 TOP Crypto TIPS In My Newsletter 👉 https://signup.coinbureau.com/newsletter 💰 Get A Ruby Card Or Better & Get $50 FREE Here 👉 https://www.coinbureau.com ...

#