All you need to have direct and easy access to the many opportunities in the Web 3.0, Metaverse and NFT sectors is now contained within your smartphone!\n\nThis is what Plena Finance brings you; the latest technological advancement housing the best decentralized financial information and services to your pocket.\n\nPlena is a mobile-first application that provides comprehensive Web 3.0 and DeFi services, is private, gas-less and an interoperable application that is compatible with both iOS and android devices. After enough research and analyzing, we've realized that access to decentralized finance in a mobile device has the potential to open a world of financial opportunities, independence, and accessibility for people looking to get into the space. \n\nWe present you Plena Finance where We aim to bring DeFi products and services to everyone regardless of wherever they may be in the world or however big or small their portfolio might look, by giving them access to a Vault-like mobile application they can use whenever and wherever

Plena Finance

Today, Bitcoin ETFs are discussed at length by many in the media, yet surprisingly, very few actually have a deep understanding of these ETFs, with many of the subject’s details being hidden beneath the surface of the all-too-often unintelligible highfalutin jargon and Einstein-level financial gobbledygook. So, what on earth are Bitcoin ETFs, why are they so hot, and why is it that the notion of Bitcoin ETFs does not sit well with (SEC) despite the ongoing efforts by those with a vested interest to get these ETFs approved? the US Securities and Exchange Commission Well, let’s pause here for a second. First, let’s briefly talk about ETFs in general. ETF stands for Exchange Traded Fund, which is a type of investment fund comprised of multiple tradable assets or groups of assets, with the sole purpose of allowing investors to diversify their presence without actually directly owning every one of those assets. In layman’s terms, if I want to have my finger in every pie, this is exactly what I do as an investor, as opposed to putting my money into just one company or stock and owning it wholeheartedly. This way, the risks are comparatively lower, and the earning potential is higher. ETFs track the performance of their corresponding assets and then adjust their portfolios and conduct business accordingly: don’t go all in but instead take what’s best when it’s best and simply dump your star player when you no longer need him. To some, it sounds like good old speculation. The reason being is that, of course, it is. What’s more, if you’ve ever looked into the prelude of the 2008 financial crisis, seen The Big Short (2015), and happen to know what a Collateral Debt Obligation (CDO) is, this lays out a solid foundation for understanding the world of ETFs. While , others, including Michael Burry (played by Christian Bale in the aforementioned film), claim that there’s an unsettling resemblance between the two, with a potentially similar disastrous outcome on the horizon. some detest this CDO to ETF comparison Incidentally, for those unfamiliar with this name, Burry is a former hedge-fund manager who against all odds accurately predicted the subprime mortgage crisis and the collapse of the US housing market, which rapidly turned into a global financial catastrophe. So yes, his credentials are intact. What’s the problem then, with them ETFs exactly? To put it bluntly, just like CDOs, ETFs are basically full of garbage most of the time, according to Burry. Back then, CDOs consisted of subprime mortgage loans that could never be repaid but we were nonetheless put together with the others of the kind to form portfolios that were labelled “prime” and were, in turn, sold to investors who looked to diversify and multiply their profits. Likewise, ETFs today often consist of the same mediocre assets, but which, when combined, suddenly become highly valued packages, explains Burry. In other words, we’re talking about derivatives: not a face value of the product, but it’s derived value, a value which is the result of repackaging and, for lack of a better term, rebranding, i.e. a shiny new wrapper on the outside, with a stale candy gone sour on the inside. As Burry told earlier this fall, ETFs lack accurate pricing mechanisms and crucially “do not require the security-level analysis that is required for true price discovery”, which, of course, results in a bubble. Consequently, there’s a major liquidity problem, as these ETFs are indexed at one price, while their constituent parts do not reflect and cannot live up to those prices, individually or even combined. Bloomberg Whereas these ETFs are traded at trillions of dollars globally, their core face-value insides are often valued at mere millions, not even billions. In other words, the sums that are being exchanged and assigned to the ETFs cannot be backed up by the assets themselves, because when all is said and done, when these products are sold in the non-ETF, non-derivative fashion, they will never fill up the tank. And, admittedly, the longer it goes on for, the worse it gets, courtesy of the snowball effect: “the theater keeps getting more crowded, but the exit door is the same as it always was,” says Burry. This is a worst-case scenario, of course. It’s probably true that not all ETFs spell trouble all across, necessarily or always. Certainly, SEC doesn’t consider many mainstream finance ETFs especially dangerous, even though the regulators are supposedly aware of any possible risks; in fact, most such ETFs today are considered business as usual. Moreover, in addition to the more traditional ETFs, there is also more than one ETF type within the realm of alternative finance. This is precisely why one : whilst the former has to do with cryptocurrencies (or more specifically Bitcoin and its clones), the latter has to do with Blockchain technology and , often without tying them to altcoins in any way. should not confuse Bitcoin with Blockchain ETFs DLT As Christian Magoon, CEO of Amplify (reportedly one of the most successful Blockchain ETFs) recently stated, “Bitcoin needs Blockchain, but Blockchain doesn’t need Bitcoin”. But what about Bitcoin ETFs then? What’s the deal with them? Well, on the plus side, because of the nature of all ETF, they will allow investors to work with Bitcoin without owning any of it. Also, as is the case with all ETFs, they will allow investors to Bitcoin assets when necessary, that is speculate on declines swiftly and lucratively. short-sell And finally and crucially, they will allow investors to trade these assets in a form acceptable by most mainstream brokers and traders, who are familiar and comfortable with ETFs as a financial tool, but not necessarily with cryptocurrency as a more recent phenomenon. Be that as it may, despite these advantages for eager capitalists, Bitcoin ETFs invite essentially all of the criticisms of their traditional counterparts, plus all of the confusion, financial hanky-panky, and questionable reputation associated with the still to this day dubious world of cryptocoins. This is probably why SEC seems to be OK with a typical ETF, which to the federal regulator―to use a simple analogy―is like a private buffet consisting of various items on the menu whose origins can be easily traced. Compare it to a much more obscure Bitcoin ETF, which probably appears to SEC much the same, except that this private (to the point of being clandestine) buffet―to continue the analogy―consists of extremely exotic items on the menu, whose origins often cannot be traced, whose manufacturers often lack the required documentation to back their products (i.e. “nutritional information”), and whose key people are sometimes even on the run. Naturally, any regulator would be wary to lend its stamp of approval to folks like that and then have to face the music and be held accountable for any resulting calamities. Rather predictably, SEC has rejected proposals to create a Bitcoin-backed ETF this year alone, citing manipulation concerns among its primary reasons for disapproval. Some crypto veterans, including those running crypto exchanges like , are in line with SEC’s reckoning and claim that a Bitcoin ETF is on par with a tail wagging the dog: how the system is set up is fundamentally flawed and fraudulent, and it cannot possibly lead to prosperity in the long run; however, it can and will lead to giant deficits, tumultuous crises, and inevitably court hearings. several times already Ras Vasilisin This is claimed to be the case for the ever same reason: the indexed values of these funds will not accurately reflect the values of the individual assets contained within them. Nevertheless, there are understandably others who have a lot to gain when it comes to Bitcoin ETFs. Among them are the (in)famous Winklevoss twins who initially emerged in the limelight following the much publicized 2008 lawsuit against Facebook and Mark Zuckerberg, which was examined at length in another critically acclaimed film, The Social Network from 2010. After the twins accepted $65 million as a settlement from Zuckerberg, their lives became intimately intertwined with the life of their winning ticket, Bitcoin. This proved to be especially so during the 2017 bubble, when they had invested heavily in the first ever cryptocurrency and later opened , their own crypto exchange with a cheeky name. Gemini Of late, quite expectedly, most of the Winklevoss efforts have been concentrated on the next big step: getting a Bitcoin ETF approved by SEC, in order to turn their combined net worth of a billion and a half USD into a more impressive figure yet. Bitwise, a venture fund, are for the same reason: they want to increase their profits and claim that their proposal is solid and foolproof; what’s more, the global markets are purportedly ready to welcome them. pushing for a Bitcoin ETF Cboe Global Markets (CBOE), who popularized Bitcoin futures, also want to see the same novelties introduced. At the same time, crypto insiders like Weisberger stipulate that SEC’s judgement is : in reality, a Bitcoin ETF is no more risky than, say, a precious metals ETF (that SEC did approve), with the dangers of inadequate price discovery and possible price manipulation―if there are any―being the same or worse with precious metals. Go figure! clouded by their bias against the asset itself and their lack of jurisdiction over Bitcoin Granted, most players who are speaking in favor of Bitcoin ETFs, or are actively campaigning and anticipating their approval, have a serious personal interest in seeing these new trading practices take hold. As of right now, SEC is still very sceptical and refusing to take the bait. Will Bitcoin ETFs be approved in the end? Probably. Eventually. How soon, what’s going to happen between now and then, and what exactly are we going to see post-approval? Well, nobody really knows for certain. One thing is dang clear though: it won’t be smooth sailing. While the benefits of Blockchain technology and cryptocurrency are evident, whether we’re going to use them to our advantage, or abuse them, as was and still is the case in mainstream finance, remains to be seen.

What Are Bitcoin ETFs: A Plea for Clarity Amidst All the Commotion and Confusion 

USA v. Samuel Bankman-Fried Court Filing, retrieved on March 15, 2024 is part of . You can jump to any part in this filing . This part is 25 of 33. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here II. A Sentence of 40 to 50 Years Is Necessary to Protect the Public and for Specific Deterrence Under Section 3553(a), the need for the sentence to “protect the public from further crimes of the defendant” and “afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct” must be considered. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(B), (C). Here, a sentence in the range of 40 to 50 years, but short of a life sentence, is necessary to serve this purpose. As this Court has observed previously in sentencing a defendant, “[i]t’s very easy sometimes … to say, well, look at all the trouble the defendant has gotten himself into, look at the harm that’s been done to his family, look at the loss he suffered himself, there is no way he’ll ever do something like this again.” United States v. Laguardia, No. 19 Cr. 893 (LAK) (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 31, 2021) (Sent. Tr. at 45). But “in the case of someone who, at least when they got into it, thought everything was going to work out fine,” there is the possibility that “the next time temptation comes along, you’ll think it will work out fine, too, and the bad outcome the first time was a mistake,” and so the sentence must “reflect[] some of that risk.” (Id.) Indeed, the fact that a past fraud does not necessarily deter a future one is evidenced by the number of first-time fraudsters in this district who have become recidivists. See, e.g., United States v. Jonathan Ghertler, No. 23 Cr. 100 (ER) (investment fraud scheme following over a dozen prior convictions); United States v. Franklin Ray, No. 22 Cr. 228 (AT) (orchestrating a Ponzi scheme after having served a prior twoyear sentence for bank and wire fraud); United States v. Vitaly Borker, No. 22 Cr. 273 (JSR) (defendant convicted of wire fraud for operation of fraudulent eyeglasses website after two prior federal convictions for the same conduct); United States v. Joseph Meli, No. 19 Cr. 480 (RA) (defendant convicted of participating in a Broadway ticket resale investment fraud scheme after previously serving a 78 month sentence for the same scheme); United States v. Edward Durante, No. 15 Cr. 171 (ALC) (beginning a new investment fraud scheme while serving a 121 month sentence for fraud); United States v. John Galanis, No. 15 Cr. 643 (PKC) (defendant convicted of securities fraud after 1973 and 1988 convictions for mail fraud and securities fraud). The risk of recidivism here is real, and little of the defendant’s sentencing submission addresses it. It is necessary that the sentence imposed disable the defendant from being in a position in the future where he could perpetrate a fraud. A sentence that resulted in the release of the defendant while he is at a working age would leave open the very real possibility that he perpetrates again. That is the case for several reasons. First, the defendant’s criminal conduct to date demonstrates that the defendant is undeterred from criminal conduct based on the potential to damage to others, the possibility of incarceration, or respect for the law or the common ethical and moral understandings that members of society observe in every-day life. Bankman-Fried not only engaged in one of the largest frauds in history, but he demonstrated a willingness to engage in other criminal conduct with impunity. He committed what is believed to be the largest campaign finance offense of all time. He authorized the payment of a foreign bribe in excess of $100 million. He broke the federal laws around licensing, and lied to a bank. That track record makes clear that this defendant is uninhibited when it comes to engaging in additional criminal conduct. Second, the defendant’s time on pretrial supervision shows that even when the defendant is confronted with the imminent prospect of a substantial restraint on his liberty, he is not deterred from engaging in criminal conduct. As the Court knows well, prior to being detained, the defendant had several infractions during his period of home incarceration. Those repeatedly resulted in further restrictions and admonitions from the Court. Nonetheless, believing he would get away with it, the defendant engaged in witness tampering. While the severity of that conduct pales in comparison to what he did to FTX’s customers and investors, it is evidence of the fact that a restriction on the defendant’s liberty alone is not a deterrent to future misconduct. Third, the defendant’s sentencing submission asserts “[h]e will never again be in the position of running a financial company, or accepting customers’ funds.” (Def. Mem. at 69). But the defendant’s say so does not make it true. There is a significant likelihood that if the defendant is released back into society at a young enough age he will have the opportunity to engage in another fraud. Con artists who turn back to crime after being caught take advantage of humanity’s willingness to extend a second chance, the shortness of society’s memory, and recidivists’ ability to persuade people that things are not what they seem to be. The defendant has already proven adept at crafting a self-serving public image, and his sentencing submission itself shows that he is already attempting to reframe his crimes as mere mistakes or misunderstandings. And so it is conceivable that someday, if he is released from prison, the defendant will start anew, launch a new cryptocurrency exchange or another business, which he will say has been done the right way because he has learned his lesson. And people may hand over their money again, and history could repeat itself. That is not just speculation. In the days following FTX’s bankruptcy, and even after the defendant had been indicted, he mused about launching “Archangel LTD,” which would be an alternative to FTX’s bankruptcy and would result in the re-launching of an exchange. (Ex. B, Google Document by Samuel Bankman-Fried). He mused about ideas for restoring his image, like “focus on the fact that the Chapter 11 team has no idea how to run FTX” and is “run by a cartel of lawyers,” “come out as extremely pro crypto, pro freedom,” “go on Tucker Carlsen, come out as a republican,” “have Michael Lewis interview me,” “radical honesty on Twitter,” or some other narrative like “SBF died for our sins.” (Exs. C and D, Google Documents by Samuel BankmanFried). The point is that the defendant is motivated to launch his redemption narrative and has already been thinking about how to spin it. It is realistic that he will settle on a narrative, lean into it, and convince other people to part with their money based on lies and the promise of false hope. And, of course, one does not need to run a large company to instill confidence in others and then abuse that confidence for personal gain. Fourth, the defendant may feel compelled to do this fraud again, or a version of it, based on his use of idiosyncratic, and ultimately for him pernicious, beliefs around altruism, utilitarianism, and expected value to place himself outside of the bounds of the law that apply to others, and to justify unlawful, selfish, and harmful conduct. Time and time again the defendant has expressed that his preferred path is the one that maximizes his version of societal value, even if imposes substantial short term harm or carries substantial risks to others. During trial, Ellison told a story about the defendant’s willingness to take risks: “He talked about being willing to take large coin flips, like a coin flip where—if it comes up tails, you might lose $10 million, but if it comes up heads, you might make slightly more than $10 million,” and he “talked about this in the context of thinking about what was good for the world, saying that he would be happy to flip a coin, if it came up tails and the world was destroyed, as long as if it came up heads the world would be like more than twice as good.” (Tr. 694-95). The defendant talked about this concept on Twitter, saying that “[i]f you look at the scale of funds spent on disease, global warming, emerging technological risk, animal welfare, nuclear warfare safety, etc., you get numbers reaching into the trillions,” and “when the backdrop is trillions of dollars, there’s essentially no risk aversion on the scale of thousands or millions.” (Ex. E, Twitter thread by Samuel Bankman-Fried). He added that that “mean[s] you should be willing to accept a significant chance of failing to do much good sometimes…. And that’s ok. If it was the right play in EV [expected value], sometimes you win and sometimes you lose.” (Id.) And in the days after FTX’s collapse, the defendant told the journalist Kelsey Piper in a conversation he believed was off the record that while he had previously said a person should not “do unethical shit for the greater good,” that was “not true,” just a “PR” answer, and the ethics stuff was mostly a “front.”[12] Of course, the criminal law does not select among personal philosophies or punish particular moral codes. But it does punish equally someone who claims that their unlawful conduct was justified by some personal moral system, and the goals of sentencing require consideration of the way in which the defendant’s manipulation of intellectual and moral philosophy to justify his illegal and harmful conduct makes it likely that he will reoffend. In this case, the defendant’s professed philosophy has served to rationalize a dangerous brand of megalomania—one where the defendant is convinced that he is above the law and the rules of the road that apply to everyone else, who he necessarily deems inferior in brainpower, skill, and analytical reasoning. The trial evidence made clear that the defendant justified enriching and aggrandizing himself, burnishing his own image, and putting billions of dollars of other people’s money at his own disposal, because he believed in the virtue of his own power, decision-making, superiority, and spending. By that same token, the defendant believed and appears still to believe that it is rational and necessary for him to take great risks including imposing those risks on others, if he determines that it will serve what he personally deems a worthy project or goal, even if the risks he takes are unethical, illegal, and likely to result in a “loss.” Under this philosophy, if the defendant is released from prison, and has the opportunity to advance his own distorted version of what is best for him and society, even if it requires breaking the law and harming others, he should do that again. Indeed, according to his sentencing submission, by his own “calculations” the “expected value of his life” is presently in the “negative territory.” (Def. Mem. at 68). Such a calculus will inevitably lead him to trying again. And, evidently, the possibility of further incarceration would not alter that value calculus. Thus, the defendant’s sentence needs to be of a sufficient enough length that it will not just deter a white collar defendant, but that it will disable this defendant from committing crimes again. See, e.g., United States v. Valente, 915 F.3d 916, 925 (2d Cir. 2019) (Lynch, J., concurring) (noting that the purposes of sentencing in Section 3553(a)(2) include “protecting the public from future crimes the defendant might commit (incapacitation)”). The defendant argues in his sentencing submission that the collateral consequences of his conviction, and the loss of his personal assets are sufficient punishment. (Def. Mem. at 64-65). But everything about the defendant’s history suggests such damage and discomfort will not deter him. While the Government does not believe the defendant needs to spend the rest of his life in prison to protect the public, a sentence of 40 to 50 years is necessary to ensure that the defendant cannot be released from prison and given the opportunity to commit fraud again. Continue Reading . Here [12] Kelsey Piper, Sam Bankman-Fried Tries to Explain Himself, Vox (Nov. 16, 2022), https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/23462333/sam-bankman-fried-ftx-cryptocurrency-effectivealtruism-crypto-bahamas-philanthropy. About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved on March 15, 2024, from is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. storage.courtlistener

Why Sam Bankman-Fried Must Get a 40–50 Year Sentence

Back in 2019, I made a plea: “ .” In some circles, at least, the argument quickly caught on. This is because, for startup companies, an exit through an acquisition or public offering is the goal that all else points toward. It is the payoff for founders, investors, and early employees. I contended that the roots of the exit as we know it are rotten. Exits turn companies into commodities, and exits often turn those companies against the people who rely on them most. We need a different kind of exit that is just and accountable, an exit to community. Startups Need a New Option: Exit to Community As the E2C meme first spread, I heard from founders and others looking to do a community exit themselves. But I didn’t have a model or a blueprint to offer—just a vision and a story that I hoped we could learn to tell together. To develop the idea, I teamed up with my longtime collaborator . Years before, we had tried to turn Twitter toward community ownership, with that appeared on the company’s 2017 ballot and . (If we had won, perhaps Twitter would still exist.) In early 2020, we started and joined with to run a for founders interested in the idea. We published and , and E2C was featured in . Danny also co-founded the , a group of journalists, marketers, stakeholder engagement specialists, and academics working to advance E2C in practice. In the years since, we have quietly supported and learned from a variety of experiments, helping entrepreneurs push the limits of what is possible. Memes, we believe, will only take us as far as they are backed up by the hard work of courageous pioneers. Danny Spitzberg a provocative shareholder proposal made news worldwide an E2C webinar series Zebras Unite cohort program a zine a trailer video a special on PBS Exit to Community Collective Our “snapshots” are brief, structured case studies that give a taste of the many diverse ways that startups have been trying to grow into community ownership and governance, albeit with mixed results. As a new year arrives, I am thrilled to announce the release of a new library of E2C stories that the E2C Collective has created at . E2C.how The snapshots range from my Colorado neighbors and , which converted to employee ownership, to major open-source software projects like and , which are mini-democracies accountable to their developers. There is , a Chinese electric car company whose founder set aside a chunk of stock for car-buyers, and , a co-op founded by employees who quit their previous job in protest. There are also blockchain-based efforts, like and , that have tried to make good on a new technology’s often-betrayed promises for making a more inclusive economy. Namaste Solar Trident bookstore Debian Python NIO Defector Media Gitcoin SongADAO I have taken two main lessons from these snapshots so far. 1. Entrepreneurs, investors, users, and workers alike are all recognizing the need for a new approach, and they are trying lots of different ways to get it. They are relying on old technology and the latest innovations. They are using many different legal structures and techniques for empowering communities. The resourcefulness is pretty astonishing, really. 2. In just about every case, E2C attempts have faced profound challenges. They are often working at the very edge of what the law allows, because many of our laws were written to serve profit-seeking investors, not communities. Much of what communities wanted was simply not possible. Truly changing the landscape of exits will mean policy change that takes communities seriously as sources of innovation and accountability. There is widespread craving for a better kind of exit—and the creativity to back it up. Better exits need to be easier—and this will require structural change. I want to stress this second point. It first became clear to me when working with collaborators at Zebras Unite on the idea of . The founder wanted it. The business model made perfect sense—a rare platform whose users actually pay for it. The company was up for a fire sale. But we simply could not find investors or lenders prepared to back a deal like that. This is a problem I have seen with many other co-op efforts, over and over. Policy is the most powerful shaping force for where capital can aggregate, and there is no adequate policy to support capital for large-scale community ownership. This is also the reason we have lost many community-owned companies in recent years, from to —the most successful community-owned companies too often can’t access the capital they need to flourish. turning Meetup into a user-owned cooperative New Belgium Brewing Mountain Equipment Co-op I’ve seen the same pattern repeat itself with blockchains, where the E2C idea has taken hold more than anywhere. Blockchains can enable organizations that are collectively owned and governed by their users, and millions of people have been attracted by possibility. But what has happened in practice? Any time a new project started gaining traction, it would become drowned in investment from the same venture-capital firms that fueled earlier kinds of startups. The driving force became not the tech or the communities but the investors, once again. This pattern is not inevitable. History has demonstrated that, with the right policy in place, large-scale capital access for community ownership is possible. That’s what happened after 1936, when the US government passed the Rural Electrification Act; thanks to a (revenue positive!) loan program at the Department of Agriculture, cooperatives now operate nuclear power plants and deliver high-speed Internet in once-underserved areas. In 1974, a relatively small change to the federal tax code unleashed the employee stock ownership plan, or ESOP, which has enabled millions of workers to become co-owners of the companies where they work. Today, most policy that governs taxation and finance is built on the assumption that investor profits at all costs is the norm and the ideal. , this assumption is intolerable. We need to demand changes that reorder how capital is able to be organized and deployed. These changes can be relatively small to make a difference—tweaks to tax codes and securities laws, for instance—and they can win support from diverse constituencies. As Marjorie Kelly powerfully argues Too often, I have come to believe, advocates of cooperatives and community ownership have put their energy downstream of the real policy problems. They focus on gaining access to small loan funds and technical assistance for small companies. But they neglect the upstream challenge of exits—and other endgames for the most successful companies in the economy. Unless we change the options available at the highest levels, any gains that communities make for early-stage companies can be erased once companies grow and need capital at the highest levels. On the other hand, when community ownership flourishes at large scales, that’s an attractor — something the whole rest of the economy can start moving toward. Rather than fighting over crumbs, advocates of community ownership should be asking: What change will we win for community ownership that does for future generations what our predecessors won for us? Historically, major structural change for community ownership has involved a three-step process. First, the experiments: creative, path-breaking people demonstrate the need and the possibility of something better. This is where E2C is right now, and our snapshots portray that experimentation beautifully. Now we need to learn from those experiments, identifying what works and where the barriers lie. Second, the policy: Here’s when we build on the experiments, which hint at what is possible, and try to break down the biggest barriers in the way of unleashing economic justice. We assemble broad coalitions to advocate for achievable change, grounding our stories in the experiences of people who need change the most. And we win. Third, the practice: Policy is only the beginning. What matters more is what we do with it. Here, we need to grow our movements and our culture to use the new policy in the best ways, and we watch out for those who want to exploit our policy—as any policy can be exploited. We spread, and community ownership becomes a new normal. I have hunches about the kinds of policy E2C needs, but above all I am interested in learning from a shared conversation. What paths should we be organizing around? The tax code? Public loan guarantees? Securities exemptions? What would have the greatest effect for community ownership at the most achievable political cost? Four years after first calling for E2C, I have become more convinced than ever that focusing on the exit—the goals the economy sets, not just its entry-points—is the right place to be. I hope more people recognize how vital it is to rethink what startups aim for. Meanwhile, I am grateful for all those who have worked together to make this new phase possible through the E2C Collective. That includes, currently, Hazel Devjani, Adina Glickstein, Valentine Erokhin, Nanz Nair, Marisa Rando, Sheba Rivera, and Eli Zeger. Danny Spitzberg kept the Collective moving when no one else did and. The team is continuing to create resources and support teams exploring their own community exits. These people are weaving a fairer kind of economy into being. Please consider (which is also a company ). supporting their work through Open Collective pursuing an E2C I published my initial call to “exit to community” here because Hacker Noon is a Colorado-based, family-led company; it used an equity crowdfunding campaign to remain independent of conventional venture-capital pressures. Now it is one of our snapshots. Everyone doing E2C today has had to go against the grain of mainstream startup culture, facing unique challenges as a result. Someday, I hope that what Hacker Noon and others have struggled to do will be easier, that building with and for community will be the obvious thing to do. This, we now know, is possible. Artwork by Marcos Osorio, , a worker-owned co-op. via Stocksy

Now We Know: Exit to Community Is Possible

এখন আমরা জানি: কমিউনিটিতে প্রস্থান করা সম্ভব

Jetzt wissen wir: Der Austritt aus der Gemeinschaft ist möglich

Ahora lo sabemos: la salida a la comunidad es posible

Nous savons maintenant : la sortie vers la communauté est possible

अब हम जानते हैं: समुदाय से बाहर निकलना संभव है

今わかったこと: コミュニティへの退出は可能である

이제 우리는 알고 있습니다: 커뮤니티로의 이탈이 가능합니다

Agora sabemos: a saída para a comunidade é possível

Теперь мы знаем: выход в сообщество возможен

Artık Biliyoruz: Topluluğa Çıkış Mümkün

Bây giờ chúng tôi đã biết: Có thể thoát khỏi cộng đồng

现在我们知道：退出社区是可能的

As 2023 dawned, the world of cryptocurrency stood on the brink of new horizons. The year was marked by significant milestones and transformative changes, particularly in the realms of Bitcoin and . BitcoinSV The Ordinals Revolution In 2023, the Bitcoin landscape was transformed by the introduction of the . This groundbreaking innovation enabled the creation of NFTs directly on the blockchain, challenging the conventional view of Bitcoin's limitations. The impact of Ordinals extended far beyond technical capabilities; it represented a cultural shift, merging the realms of digital art and Bitcoin. Artists and creators quickly embraced this new medium, leading to a flourish of digital creativity inscribed onto Bitcoin's immutable ledger. Ordinals protocol As developers and users explored the potential of Ordinals, the protocol not only catalyzed innovation within the Bitcoin community but also sparked interest across the broader blockchain space. This new capability encouraged a re-evaluation of what Bitcoin could achieve, inspiring both seasoned developers and newcomers to the space. The Rise of BitcoinSV Parallel to Bitcoin cores journey, BitcoinSV charted its own path, focusing on scalability and enterprise utility. 2023 saw BitcoinSV breaking transaction records, underscoring its commitment to handling large-scale applications. This wasn't just about processing a high volume of transactions; it was about enabling complex, real-world applications that could transform industries. BitcoinSV's achievements in 2023 included partnerships with major corporations and successful implementations in sectors such as supply chain management and data services. These case studies highlighted the practical applications of BitcoinSV's technology, demonstrating its utility beyond the realm of traditional cryptocurrency transactions. nChain underwent a significant reorganization, which coincided with a sharp increase in BSV's fiat value, initiating a bullish trend. Infrastructure provider , in collaboration with , conducted key stress tests on the network. These tests focused on maximizing transaction speeds and expanding the UTXO set, a challenging computational task. The successful outcomes of these tests were crucial for handling network demands in the following months, demonstrating the robustness and scalability of the BSV blockchain infrastructure. Bitails Taal BlackRock's Bold Move In the investment realm, BlackRock's proposal to introduce a Bitcoin ETF marked a pivotal moment for cryptocurrency acceptance in mainstream finance. This wasn't just an investment firm dabbling in a new asset class; it was a powerful endorsement of Bitcoin's growing stature in the global financial system. Also, the very long and thorough ETF Document by BlackRock mentions three prominent persons names as having a significant impact on Bitcoin and it’s market forces: Janet Yellen, Steven Mnuchin and —we wonder what all this means… Craig Wright Regulatory Tides The year also witnessed the cryptocurrency industry navigating the complex waters of regulation. The most notable event was the regulatory scrutiny faced by Binance's CEO Changpeng “CZ” Zhao from Binance stepping down and followed by a guilty plea to charges related to violating U.S. anti-money laundering laws. The settlement included a substantial fine for Binance and a personal fine for CZ. These developments underscored the importance of regulatory compliance in the cryptocurrency industry and marked a pivotal moment in the sector's ongoing evolution. Coinbase continues working on achieving suitable cryptocurrency legislation, particularly regarding its classification as securities. Following the SEC's rejection of their rulemaking petition on December 15, Coinbase immediately filed an appeal. Gaming In the gaming sector, notably revamped its website, positioning it as a primary gaming portal, highlighted by the popular game "Champions TCG." This game uniquely utilizes different blockchain technologies, launching its cards on the BTC, BSV, and Doge blockchains, but centralizing its gameplay mechanics on the BSV blockchain. The success of "Champions TCG" can be attributed to its engaging gameplay, effective real-world customer engagement, and its innovative approach in supporting multiple blockchain platforms, thereby broadening its appeal and accessibility. HandCash A Year of Contrasts and Convergences As 2023 unfolded, the Bitcoin and BitcoinSV communities witnessed both contrasts and convergences. Bitcoin's move into the realm of digital art contrasted sharply with BitcoinSV's focus on scalability and enterprise applications. Yet, both paths reflected a shared vision of leveraging blockchain technology's potential. Looking Ahead to 2024 Reflecting on 2023, there's anticipation for the impact of this year's efforts on the Bitcoin economy in 2024. It feels like a period of anticipation before significant events. The market shows signs of moving towards a bullish phase in 2024, with the upcoming Bitcoin halving and the COPA v Wright trial set to commence early in the year-with the potentiality of uncovering the , mystery and catalyzing further developments in the cryptocurrency world. Satoshi Nakamoto . Mr Fireside

Bitcoin: 2023 Year in Review

229 Stories To Learn About Bitcoin Spotlight

On September 24th, SlowMist, a security firm, a massive $200 million hack of the Mixin Network. The hack occurred during the “early morning” of September 23rd and focused on Mixin’s cloud service provider database. blockchain reported Mixin Network, founded in 2017, proclaims itself to be a “free, lightning-fast, peer-to-peer, cross-chain transactional network for digital assets.” Shortly after the hack was reported, Mixin released a confirming they were hacked for approximately $200 million. statement In the wake of this staggering hack, Mixin has temporarily suspended all customer deposits and withdrawals. Mixin Network gave no indication about when this suspension will be lifted. Two days after the $200 million hack, Feng Xiaodong, founder of the Mixin Network, appeared on a Twitch livestream to address customer concerns regarding their assets. Shockingly, the company founder stated Mixin “can only ensure at least half of the assets are secure,” leaving doubt for customers as to the fate of the other half. According to a claim made by Xiaodong, Bitcoin was the “core asset” stolen during the hack. During the livestream, Xiaodong also stated that Mixin would only be able to refund users “up to a maximum of 50%” of their stolen assets. The remainder of the stolen assets will be distributed to affected users as “tokenized liability claims,” which Mixin will buy back from customers “with its future profits.” In a plea to the hacker, Mixin sent a asking for the hacker to refund the stolen funds. message Mixin has offered the hacker, who has been nicknamed the “Mixin Network Exploiter,” a reward of $20 million in return for refunding the customer assets. “Most of our platform assets were users’, and we hope you can refund them. You can keep $20M of the assets as a BUG Bunty Reward for the BUG. Contact us via bug@mixin.one for the reward details.” - Message from Mixin to the Hacker On the 27th of September, four days after the hack occurred, Mixin released an on social media. updated statement With the assistance of Google (via their subsidiary Mandiant) and SlowMist, Mixin Network was able to complete its investigation into the hack. According to the statement, Mixin’s situation “is much more optimistic than expected,” and “the losses are not as significant as estimated.” However, Mixin has not released any specific details about the methods that were used to hack their system. All we know at this point is their cloud service provider was attacked, and this resulted in the hacker gaining access to platform funds. Many individuals following this story are curious as to why a self-proclaimed “decentralized” network would keep $200 million assets in a hot wallet and why they would even be utilizing a database when everything should be recorded on the blockchain. To drive home the point further, even Binance CEO Changpeng Xhao, more commonly referred to as CZ, on the Mixin hack by saying that “not everything that claims to be decentralized is.” commented What percentage of crypto projects are truly decentralized? Do you think the hacker will return the stolen funds for the $20 million reward? Would you? What are your thoughts on this news? Join the conversation below! Also published . here

Mixin Network's $200 Million Hack: What Happened and What's Next

In a rare display of bipartisan unity, U.S. representative Ro Khanna, a Democrat from California, took to the House floor to passionately advocate for his groundbreaking "five-point plan" for political reform. With fervor, Khanna proposed measures such as term limits for Congress members and a ban on stock trading, striking a chord with the American public's long-held desires for change. In this article, we delve into the details of Khanna's ambitious plan, exploring its potential to reshape the political landscape and curb the influence of money and power within the hallowed halls of government. These ideas, once mere whispers of reform, are now gaining momentum, offering a glimmer of hope for a more accountable and transparent political future. On September 14th, Rep. Ro Khanna delivered a speech on the House of Representatives floor calling for support of his "five-point plan.” Ro Khanna, a Democratic Representative for California, made a passionate plea to fellow lawmakers and all Americans by introducing a political reform plan that would implement term limits and ban all members of Congress from trading stocks. Ideas like term limits and congressional stock trading bans have long been popular ideas among the general public. In an interview with the Washington Examiner discussing his five-point plan, Representative Khanna stated that "this is one of the few things that I think unite people in this country". One bill (H.J.Res.11) that proposed term limits was recently introduced into Congress back in January by Representative Ralph Norman of South Carolina. The bill received some bipartisan support, with 4 Democrats joining 98 Republicans in sponsoring the bill. The bill was referred to the House Judiciary Committee and there it still sits awaiting an action. Interestingly, a bill (H.R.3003) that called for a stock trading ban was introduced back in April by two unlikely members of Congress: Matt Gaetz (Republican) and Alexandria Ocasio-Ortez (Democrat). "There's a real crisis of confidence right now in our democracy that people have lost faith that Congress is working for them. We're just part of a system that has lost the faith of the American public. To get involved in this kind of political reform effort has to be serious. And I would like to see candidates from both parties that embrace the reform agenda to this consensus." , U.S. Representative from California's 17th district Ro Khanna The Five-Point Plan for Political Reform Representative Ro Khanna's Five-Point Plan is as follows: Ban all PACs (political action committees) and lobbyist money from congressional campaigns. Ban members of Congress from stock trading, as well as ever becoming lobbyists. Term Limits for Members of Congress. Term Limits for Supreme Court Justices. The implementation of an Ethics Code for the Supreme Court Justices. If Khanna's plan is adopted, term limits for members of Congress will be set at a maximum of 12 years. Meanwhile, Supreme Court Justices would be allowed a maximum term limit of 18 years. "So much of the power of this country is in the hands of either millionaires and billionaires or in large amounts of money or institutions, organizations, corporations. People are able to raise money from online grassroots sources. It's not like you can't raise millions of dollars individually." Ro Khanna, U.S. Representative from California's 17th district People may be surprised by the amount of support that ideas, like term limits and stock trading bans, will actually get if they are seriously considered and brought into the public discourse. The simple fact that these ideas even get bipartisan support highlights just how fed up and disappointed, both Republican and Democrat, constituents are with their political representatives. For example, the American public may feel like their leaders have failed them, yet these same leaders continue to stay in power for years. This is the rot at the core of government that is essential to remove in order to prevent corruption. Implementing term limits is a way to put a cap on that political power and prevent politicians from being in office for decades on end. The time to ban stock trading for political representatives was yesterday. Politicians have profited for too long off of corrupt stock trading practices. In my personal opinion, a ban on stock trading for members of Congress makes complete sense. It is almost baffling that these lawmakers are able to buy/sell the same stocks that they have influence over. Some politicians sit on committees that make decisions that ultimately affect certain companies and industries. Therefore, it is logical that a politician may use this influence and knowledge to sway their stock trading. At the end of the day, I strongly support this legislation, and I hope that we continue to see more of this in the future. Do you support Term Limits for members of Congress and/ or Supreme Court Justices? Do you support a Stock Trading Ban for all members of Congress? What are your thoughts on this news? Join the conversation below! Check out my Socials: https://linktr.ee/zerorequiem0x Also published . here

US Rep Ro Khanna’s Five-Point Plan: The Time for Political Reform is Now

Dear Elon, Hope this message finds you in high spirits! First of all, congratulations on your ever-expanding empire and your recent success with rebranding to X. I must say, you have a knack for naming things… Twitter And today, dear Elon, I come requesting your assistance in tackling a matter that plagues the digital realm: the persistent plague of crypto shills. Now, I know you have your hands full with SpaceX, Tesla, and the multitude of other ventures you're juggling. But if there's anyone who can bring order to this chaotic crypto carnival, it's you, the mastermind behind some of the most groundbreaking innovations of our time. You see, the vision of the internet is to be a vast and wondrous place filled with endless possibilities. But lurking in the shadows have come these self-proclaimed prophets of prosperity, these sirens of the blockchain, you know who I’m talking about… the crypto shills. They appear in online forums like Reddit and social media platforms like Twitter (or I guess I should say X at this point). And they start peddling their "revolutionary" blockchain-based projects and cryptocurrencies hidden behind NFT avatars while trying to be covert and “low key” about it. They say things like “this is the best cryptocurrency to emerge so far” or pretend to be savvy financial advisors suggesting to “invest now before the price surges!” To add insult to injury, most of them have a track record of promoting cryptos that have done nothing other than fail spectacularly (BitConnect or TerraLuna anyone?). And talk with an air of superiority and smugness as if they knew better than the rest of us poor mortals. It would be good that most of those purported “devices of wealth” worked on a greater scale, instead of being niche projects that don’t actually solve a need and are a great concept in paper (or their whitepaper) but a terrible idea in practice. Now, I'm not suggesting that all crypto projects are unethical cash-grabs or will see a fate similar to Icarus. Far from it! There are genuine innovators and luminaries in the space. Those who are working tirelessly to bring forward a decentralized future where people can keep their anonymity and own their data online. But what happens is that most of these crypto/web3 supporters have made noise online for many years already and the constant shilling of influencers and marketers make it challenging to separate the real pioneers from the snake oil salesmen. This is where your genius comes into play, dear Elon. You have an uncanny ability to cut through the noise and identify what's essential and what’s added weight. I mean, lots of people thought Twitter was about to collapse when the news of the great Twitter layoffs went public. And what happened, did Twitter collapse or it brought a renaissance to the platform? Exactly. I know there are critics that say you’re responsible for pumping the value of altcoins, or more like “ ” but that’s because that power it’s not properly channeled. memecoins Instead, that influence and expertise of yours in the tech space, can help create an environment that fosters true innovation and meaningful progress. A space like the internet forums of yore where we can discuss the benefits and proper applications of blockchain without falling into yet another elaborate ponzi scheme. That’s why, Elon, I implore you to lend us your brilliance. Help us develop the tools and algorithms that can detect and filter out these shills without letting the space get filled by the villainy of scammy marketers and “get-rich-quick” schemers. Please help us build an internet where authenticity and substance prevail, where the prominence shifts in favor of genuine projects that have the potential to change the landscape of online financial transactions. And I know it's a daunting task, but if anyone can do it, it's you. After all, you've sent rockets to space, built electric cars that drive themselves, and introduced long-form and media posts to a platform that communicated only in 280 characters. Given that track record, dealing with crypto shills would be like adding filters to a search bar. So, dear Elon, help us bring an end to this boatload of crypto shenanigans. You can create a digital realm where innovation thrives, scams are exposed, and the future of finance is shaped by the brightest minds, not the loudest shills. Thank you for taking the time to read this plea, Elon. I eagerly await your response and the change you’ll bring to the online world. Until next time, your online admirer in a corner of the soon-to-be-cleaned-up internet, @dearelonmusk

Plena Finance

plena.finance

-- employees

Since n.d.

COMPANY RANKING

PLENA FINANCE

EVERGREEN INDEX #8780

Plena Finance WIKI

Apply to get your Tech Company News Page live on HackerNoon.com today!

Plena Finance

plena.finance

-- employees

Since n.d.

COMPANY RANKING

PLENA FINANCE

EVERGREEN INDEX #8780

RELATED COMPANIESRANK

STORIES ABOUT PLENA FINANCE

Plena Finance WIKI

Apply to get your Tech Company News Page live on HackerNoon.com today!