Ripple Wants Government Regulation of Cryptocurrency

I have always believed regulation was inevitable and this is actually one of the reasons I invested in Ripple.  It’s no surprise that they are calling for regulation as they benefit the most.  As worried about them as I am (saving for another article) this is an excellent hedge against this inevitability.  Ripple stands to profit from this as it already has very good relationships with big finance and governments.  Any regulation is very likely to benefit Ripple the most.

Ripple’s, Ryan Zagone, ironically titled, “head of regulatory relations” has called on the UK to adopt 3-regulatory moves and has suggested they take a cue from Japan.  This is both good and bad, regulation, if fair and easy to follow can remove uncertainty and strengthen the countries that do it right.  I think Japan is a good example of regulation that has gone right and helped cryptocurrency flourish.

Zagone has called on the three issues to be regulated “namely consumer protection, financial stability and anti-money laundering “.  Consumer protection is a given and I wonder why no one has also said “insurance coverage” as this would take most of the risk out of holding cryptocurrency and the risk of theft and hacks.  When it comes to “financial stability” it depends on what he means and what the UK government would take it to mean?  I would take it that this would be the part that would help out Ripple and possibly stunt the growth of competitors to Ripple.  When it comes to anti-money laundering this is a given but again, how do you do it without harming or offending law abiding citizens?  Or will these laws and regulations be a pretext for both Ripple and Big Banking to squash the abilities of everyone else?

The UK Central Bank’s, Mark Carney has said the following about cryptocurrency.

  • “The time has come to hold the crypto-asset ecosystem to the same standards as the rest of the financial system. Being part of the financial system brings enormous privileges, but with them great responsibilities,” Carney said in a speech on Friday.
  • “A better path would be to regulate elements of the crypto-asset ecosystem to combat illicit activities, promote market integrity, and protect the safety and soundness of the financial system,” Carney said.
  • Carney also slammed the ability for cryptocurrencies to fulfil the role of money, saying they are “failing” as a medium of exchange and are “proving poor short-term stores of value.”
  • “This extreme volatility reflects in part that cryptocurrencies have neither intrinsic value nor any external backing. Their worth rests on beliefs regarding their future supply and demand —ultimately, whether they will be successful as money.”
  • “At present, in my view, crypto-assets do not appear to pose material risks to financial stability,” Carney said.

Well, Mr. Carney was as honest as he could be, from the banking sphere and without losing his job.  I agree that there is almost nothing backing most cryptocurrencies, aside from mining investment.  However, this is about the same, if not better than fiat which is printed without any backing of assets since the gold standard has long been abandoned.  But let’s read between the lines, he wants regulation and he wants cryptocurrency held to the same standards as traditional finance, but at the same time slams it as being a poor store of value (like Soros who now says he’s investing).  Regulation will be tricky, because you are then giving all cryptcurrency legitimacy as currency by regulating it as such or even to traditional financial standards.

Everyone has their own interest in all of this but it will be interesting to see how this plays out.  The game is different now and governments cannot easily seize crypto assets, nor can they shutdown major players who can move away from their jurisdiction with the click of a button.  If smart people are in charge of regulation they will do it right, but if bankers alone are involved, and continued to feel threatened, I predict carnage, and that it will ultimately harm or even topple our current financial system.

Let’s hope things go smooth and that regulators are not influenced too much more when it comes down to it.

 

Did Facebook, Zuckerberg and Big Data Elect Trump?

New revelations about SCL and CA (Cambridge Analytica) have revealed that they may have even altered the Brexit Vote.  In fact an article quotes the CEO of Camridge Analytica as bragging that they got Trump elected using dirty and undetectable tricks.

If any of these is true it is safe to assume that Cambridge Analytica is not alone, and they have likely influenced more than just the US election.  What’s more, there could be other companies that Facebook, Google, Twitter, Instagram and other US based social platforms used data from whether knowingly or unknowingly.  This has been the big evil that I’ve warned about for years, that these free social platforms are analyzing and mining your data for bad purposes.  Apparently there are no limits to the violation of your privacy, proven social experiments conducted by Facebook and likely the others etc..  It’s all in their TOS essentially.  It’s well known that using any of those platforms including Gmail is the same as typing your most personal thoughts and messages to the bots and analysts at the big social media companies and government minders.

Going back to all of this, I thought we were told that it was the Russians who elected Trump (without any evidence ever being provided mind you)?   Now it comes out that private companies based in the West have been influencing elections and I suspect this is just the tip of the iceberg.  The bigger question is who are the clients of Cambridge Analytica?  I don’t think we have to look far considering the relationship to the UK government and Royal Family.

 

Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg finally apologies for the 3rd party data breach

Mark Zuckerberg has been noticeably absent since the scandal broke.  It personally doesn’t surprise me because Facebook has never been safe, secure or private regardless of your privacy settings.  Your data is legally there to be traversed by third parties for marketing purposes and for governmental agencies to surveil and analyze you.  This is essentially all in the TOS and for a company based in the US they are legally obligated to co-operate with entities such as the NSA, FBI, CIA for whatever they need, even if it would normally be a violation of the law.

To add insult to injury, Mark Zuckerberg actually didn’t apologize in his initial response to the privacy issues.

Deeper issues have recently revealed right to the top of the British Government and the Royal Family, including MoD ties to SCL (the company which is regarded as one and the same as CA).  They had contracts with NATO, UK Tory Party, and even the US State Department.  There is a General Tolhurst who is an aide to the Queen who is also on the board of SCL.  Even closer is a third cousin of Queen Elizabeth the II, Ivar Mountbatten.

The reason I mention all of this is because it sounds more like a co-operation between elite business and government than an accidental data breach or hacking done on behalf of a private company.

This could be why Mark Zuckerberg has been so quiet about it, after all those who are familiar with IT security and espionage cannot believe this is just a group of hackers.  With the breach being so significant and wide scale, why didn’t Facebook notice this sooner?  It seems like they either noticed it or were fully aware, but only took action after someone revealed it to the public.

I am certain more revelations will come out and they will probably be no less shocking than what we know.