PolicyMe

policyme

The First And Rightful Lover

Rethinking Business in a Platform Economy I am on my way to Australia. I will give presentations on “doing business” and the “future of work” in a digital age. To pass the time, I was browsing the web in the airport lounge. Aimlessly following links until I came across something interesting. I ended up “finding” this 2010 talk by US sci-fi novelist, Bruce Sterling, in which he describes the challenge of being a “creative artist” in a globally networked world. _An unrepentant sympathizer took the trouble to type up a full transcript of my speech at Transmediale 10 on February…_www.wired.com Atemporality for the Creative Artist One part really stood out for me. Sterling’s suggestion that the “analog system” of “our parents” has been “shot full of holes”. To describe the newly emerging social order, Sterling identifies two symbols — the “ruined castle” and the “favela slum” — as metaphors of life in a digital age. The settled — yet crumbling — authorities of “our parents” (the castle relics) and the fragmented, chaotic, technology-driven spaces that we now all inhabit (the vibrant, but unpredictable favela). Sterling’s takeaway? We now live in a new age of “Gothic High Tech” and “Favela Chic”. Sterling provides some ideas about how “creative artists” might navigate this uncertainty. It is a positive message (which I like) of freedom, radical creativity and new opportunities. Sterling gave this talk in 2010, but what has happened in eight years. What have (and ) done in order to flourish in Sterling’s new world of crumbling monuments and chaotic ghettoes? business workers “Become a Platform!” For me, the answer is very simple. In order to remain relevant, more and more companies have embraced the “platform idea”. Whenever I make this point, people assume that I am talking about -type companies, such as , , or blockchain platforms. Uber E-Bay Airbnb Alibaba Although I am a great believer in business models that use technology to facilitate peer-to-peer transactions, we should realize that there is so much more to platform companies than facilitating transactions. We need to broaden our understanding of what makes a platform company special. For example, a platform company — in this broader sense — collaborates with and incorporates technology from multiple partners (other corporations (both large and small), nonprofits, and educational institutions) to build an open and inclusive ecosystem that facilitates innovation and drives business performance. A platform company is not only about facilitating transactions, but about delivering innovation via this more open style of organization. And in order to be successful, everyone inside a company (both technologists and non-technologists) needs to embrace a platform culture. We can easily bring this back to Sterling. The old hierarchical companies are the crumbling “ruined castles” of “our parents”. They may live on as monuments to a disappearing world, but it seems unlikely they will ever be relevant again. Reverence of their past triumphs makes little sense. Especially when the future is so exciting. Instead, the “favelas” of the business world are the platforms. They are the fluid and chaotic spaces that focus on building messy, yet creative, networks. They take inspiration from wherever and whoever they can find it in order to create and deliver innovation. Of course, this is risky. And some — perhaps many — of these experiments in open collaboration will fail. But I don’t see a better alternative to the open-ended possibilities of messy creativity. Three Strategies for Collaboration in the Digital Ghetto Here is a non-exhaustive list of strategies for achieving this goal. (1) Embrace the “Maverick” Consider . Netflix In 2009, its founder, Reed Hastings, pointed out that too many corporations have “nice sounding” value statements that emphasize things like vision, excellence and creativity. However, he made the point that these “values” are often not what is really valued within a corporation. All too often, they are just empty window dressing. To really see the “actual company values” as opposed to the “nice-sounding values”, Hastings suggests we look at “who gets rewarded, promoted or let go”. _Netflix had long been famous for its "freedom & responsibility" slide deck, which the company first published in 2009…_variety.com How Netflix Ticks: Five Key Insights From the Company's New Corporate Culture Manifesto I like this suggestion. All too often “mavericks” or “deviants”, either inside an organization or as partners of an organization, are “let go”. Conformity with pre-defined structures and settled roles is prioritized over more unsettling forms of creativity. Particularly, when that creativity creates tensions with those pre-defined structures and settled roles. And this will often happen, as it is in the very nature of creativity to be dismissive of the past and disruptive in the present. A more forward-thinking approach involves embracing mavericks and recognizing the value they can potentially bring to an organization. In turn, this can help to attract talented people as it promises a much greater degree of freedom and responsibility. Indeed, the opportunities afforded by such freedom and responsibility can help make corporations attractive (again). After all, in the absence of this type of culture, the most creative young talent will simply leave. (2) Resist Assimilation & Grow Via Mutual Learning By this I mean, that platform companies should not seek to change those with whom they collaborate and that the partners — be they organizations or individuals — should resist losing their own distinct identity as the collaboration deepens. Take the example of and . acquired , an online shoe retailer in 2009 for about $847 million, its largest acquisition at the time. Both companies had a reputation for innovative — and possibly controversial — organizational approaches that drive employees hard. had earlier instituted a system of “holocracy” that scrapped management positions and left it to employees to independently decide how to get the work done. Amazon Zappos Amazon Zappos Zappos Unsurprisingly, this organizational principle was not for everyone and the company itself admitted that 15–20% of employees left the company, dissatisfied with the “flatter” operating environment. Furthermore, instituted a “pay-to-quit” policy in which they offered all employees a reasonable dollar amount to quit. The logic of “The Offer” seems clear. If an employee is not 100% committed to the firm and its “flat” culture, then the company would rather “pay now than pay later”. Zappos The interesting thing about the example is that after the acquisition did not seek to change internal organizational culture. Quite the contrary, aspects of became part of the much larger ecosystem, in the sense that the “pay to quit principle” was adopted elsewhere within the group. Zappos Amazon Zappos’ Zappos Amazon Amazon _Helping employees quit, and literally paying them a quitting bonus, may seem insane, but many leaders are finding it…_www.inc.com Why Amazon Bought Into Zappos's 'Pay to Quit' Policy Instead of assimilating , the way of working was retained, assessed and — ultimately — integrated into own culture and practice. In turn, this flatter, more open style of relationship makes it more likely that the founders will stay, other talent will be attracted, and that — in consequence — the startup maximizes its chances of long-term growth. Amazon Zappos Zappos Amazon’s In this way, used the acquisition as a successful learning opportunity from which they could grow as a company. Amazon (3) Let “The Vision” Drive Everything In a platform context, the main task of business leaders is to reiterate constantly the vision of the company. In the case of and Elon Musk, for instance, the vision is “making the world a better place” by accelerating the world’s transition to sustainable energy. Tesla _Energy is fundamental to economic systems and, indeed, to all life. Elon Musk has always insisted that Tesla's ultimate…_www.teslarati.com Elon Musk's vision for the world's transition to sustainable energy Indeed, for the last ten years, has been on a clear and pre-defined journey from the low volume, high priced electrical Roadster, via the “mid volume”, “less-high priced” Models S and X, to eventually the high volume and low-priced Model 3. The final leg of the journey is the seamless integration of solar power with battery storage. Tesla ’s recruitment policy and working environment also plays a crucial role. The recruitment of new staff, for instance, is not based on prior industry experience, but on a demonstrated ability to solve complex problems under conditions of uncertainty. Tesla In this way, problem-solving capacities are seen as a crucial proxy for future success and achievement. This model is carried over into the work space by creating small teams who work “cheek-by-jowl” to identify relevant solutions to particular problems and by making innovative problem-solving — “improving things” — the basis of staff bonuses. It should therefore come as no surprise that Tesla outperforms its competitors in terms of the creation of market value per employee. The vision of the company is operationalized in aspect of the company’s activities. every Australia The aim of any platform is to facilitate an open and inclusive style of collaboration in which opportunities for mutual learning are emphasized. There are many other things that can be done to achieve this goal, but the above strategies can provide some hints. In this sense that we can talk of a large corporation “borrowing the startup genie’s magic”. After all, each of these strategies and goals can be more easily achieved in a younger, less complex organization that is staffed by individuals that intuitively understand the values and practices of life in the metaphorical ghetto. I really don’t see a better way. This will be my main message for the events in Australia. 👏 Thank you for reading! Please click and hold the below, or leave a comment. There is a new story every week. So if you follow me you won’t miss my latest insights about how the digital age is changing the way we live and work.

Living & Working in Today’s “Digital Ghettos”

You can jump to any section of the National Aeronautics Science & Technology Priorities here. Audience & Value of Framework The Grand Pathways Framework helps planners, policy makers, community leaders, innovators, and others identify opportunities for new resilience science and technology that build community resilience. Resilience science and technology capabilities may be most effective when they are implemented at the intersection of societal dimensions and cross-cutting enablers. Science and technology capabilities that address multiple cross-cutting enablers and improve multiple societal dimensions help a community anticipate, avoid, adapt to, withstand, and build back better following disruption and destruction. Perhaps even more importantly, these science and technology capabilities enable both the societal dimensions and the cross-cutting enablers to function more effectively on an everyday basis (in the absence of disruption). Science and technology can be an enabler itself, either as a direct means of advancing societal dimensions or as a contributor to other cross-cutting enablers. Resilience is an ever-evolving challenge, as novel and unpredictable stressors continue to emerge, and historical and environmental factors influence the path to resilience. Resilience can be improved by investments in science and technology. The Grand Pathways Framework looks to support decisionmakers in achieving the goal of resilience by helping them design and implement multipurpose science and technology solutions that strengthen a community’s ability to withstand a wide variety of acute shocks and chronic stressors. Implementation of the Framework would: • Encourage end users to think multidimensionally about solutions to science and technology gaps such that solutions could address more than one community need; • Expand community and developer reference paradigms such that they might see additional applications for existing science and technology solutions or see how existing solutions might be modified to meet science and technology gaps; and • Identify science and technology gaps that might be served by a single solution, even where the linkages may not be readily apparent. The Grand Pathways Framework was constructed to be relevant and helpful to a variety of end-users, specifically those who interact with resilience science and technology. The implementation of the Grand Pathways Framework may vary by actor. For example: • A public health official might use this framework to consider how particular interventions might be able to make a community more safe and secure and contribute to their social cohesion. • A Federal employee may use this framework to consider which science and technology projects to fund based upon the breadth of their applications along several social dimensions and crosscutting enablers and to determine if a single solution could address multiple science and technology gaps. • A technology developer engaging with a city official may use this framework to demonstrate how architectural decisions or technical enhancements could improve a community’s infrastructure while increasing financial resilience to hazards and safety and security from climate change. • The superintendent of a school system might use this framework to invest limited capital dollars in a technical solution that would have the most impact to students’ physical and mental well-being. • An individual seeking to serve an underserved community might use this framework to propose science and technology solutions that contribute not only to education and employment, but also to a community’s financial and economic resilience. While the above examples represent some theoretical ways for different actors to implement the Grand Pathways Framework, the following use cases detail how the Framework could be applied in specific scenarios. The use cases highlight the need of many actors to collaborate to identify potential science and technology solutions. This was originally published in March 2023 on It has been broken-up into bite sized sections, each with unique headlines and AI-generated lead images, in line with the provisions of whitehouse.gov. Creative Commons 3.0.

A Toolkit for Policymakers and Innovators Using the Grand Pathways Framework

Mark Twain's Speeches by Mark Twain, is part of the HackerNoon Books Series. You can jump to any chapter in this book . POETS AS POLICEMEN here POETS AS POLICEMEN Mr. Clemens was one of the speakers at the Lotos Club dinner to
Governor Odell, March 24, 1900.  The police problem was
referred to at length. Let us abolish policemen who carry clubs and revolvers, and put in a squad of poets armed to the teeth with poems on Spring and Love. I would be very glad to serve as commissioner, not because I think I am especially qualified, but because I am too tired to work and would like to take a rest. Howells would go well as my deputy. He is tired too, and needs a rest badly. I would start in at once to elevate, purify, and depopulate the red-light district. I would assign the most soulful poets to that district, all heavily armed with their poems. Take Chauncey Depew as a sample. I would station them on the corners after they had rounded up all the depraved people of the district so they could not escape, and then have them read from their poems to the poor unfortunates. The plan would be very effective in causing an emigration of the depraved element. About HackerNoon Book Series: We bring you the most important technical, scientific, and insightful public domain books. This book is part of the public domain. Mark Twain (2004). Mark Twain's Speeches. Urbana, Illinois: Project Gutenberg. Retrieved October 2022 https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/3188/pg3188-images.html This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at , located at . www.gutenberg.org https://www.gutenberg.org/policy/license.html

POETS AS POLICEMEN

The fourth Bitcoin halving finished around one year ago today. If you read the crypto news at all, basically everyone predicted that Bitcoin's price would skyrocket. Yet, in the ensuing six months, Bitcoin's price remained remarkably stable (excluding a few 15% swings, which are baby steps for Bitcoin). That was until the night of the 2024 US Presidential election. President Trump's win caused Bitcoin's price to skyrocket over $35,000 in under four weeks, reaching a new all-time high. This begs the question: Is Bitcoin primarily a technological asset responding to its own internal mechanics, or has it evolved into something more politically charged? The data suggests the latter. When we look at the ETF flows data from Amberdata's intelligence platform, something interesting jumps out. The largest single-day inflow across all Bitcoin ETFs wasn't after the halving. In fact, the halving was basically irrelevant. It was immediately following the 2024 election. ETFs saw inflows topping $8 billion in a single day after Trump's victory was announced, dwarfing previous investment patterns. Money speaks louder than narratives. And since the election, money is screaming that Bitcoin is political. The Halving That Wasn't For years, the crypto community has operated under a simple premise: Bitcoin halvings lead to price explosions. The logic seemed sound. Every four years, the reward for mining Bitcoin gets cut in half, reducing new supply entering the market. Less new supply with consistent or growing demand should equal higher prices. This has been the pattern since Bitcoin's inception. The 2016 halving preceded the legendary 2017 bull run that put crypto on the map. The 2020 halving kicked off another massive price surge. But 2024's halving? Crickets. Looking at the annual performance chart from Amberdata's platform, the contrast couldn't be starker. While 2017 showed a dramatic upward curve reaching nearly 20x returns, and other post-halving years displayed notable gains, 2024 remained surprisingly flat after the halving event. Until November. When political winds shifted, so did Bitcoin's trajectory. This wasn't supposed to happen according to the techno-deterministic view of Bitcoin. The halving was supposed to be the catalyst, not an election. Yet here we are. The Trump Effect What makes the post-election Bitcoin surge different isn't just its timing but its character. This wasn't retail FOMO driving prices. It wasn't miners holding onto their reduced rewards. It was institutional money – massive, coordinated flows of capital through regulated ETF products. The ETF flow charts tell the story. BlackRock, Fidelity, 21Shares, Grayscale, and Bitwise all saw unprecedented inflows in the days following the election. These aren't crypto enthusiasts buying $500 worth of Bitcoin on Coinbase. These are pension funds, endowments, and financial advisors allocating billions. Why? Because Trump's victory represented a fundamental shift in the political positioning of Bitcoin. His administration's expected approach to crypto regulation signaled a dramatic departure from previous policy directions. Suddenly, Bitcoin wasn't just a hedge against inflation. It was a bet on a specific political outcome and its consequences. Bitcoin has always had libertarian underpinnings. Satoshi's white paper emerged in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, proposing a monetary system free from central bank control. But what we're seeing now goes beyond theoretical political alignment. Bitcoin has become a practical political asset – one whose value increasingly correlates with specific policy outcomes and partisan shifts. The massive ETF inflows weren't just celebrating a crypto-friendly president. They were placing institutional bets on a specific vision of America's economic future. One where traditional banking power centers might face new competition. One where regulatory approaches favor innovation over caution. One where the balance between state and private monetary control shifts dramatically. When we examine the data from Amberdata's performance metrics, another pattern emerges. While previous halvings triggered organic, gradual price growth over many months, the election-driven surge was immediate and sharp. It wasn't the technology changing. It was the political landscape. Investments in a Polarized World This transformation of Bitcoin into a political asset has profound implications for investors. For one, it suggests that traditional on-chain metrics and supply-based models may be less predictive than they once were. The next Bitcoin bull run might not be triggered by a halving event but by a midterm election. Or a Supreme Court decision. Or a regulatory announcement. This politicization also raises questions about portfolio construction. If Bitcoin increasingly correlates with political outcomes, does it still provide the same diversification benefits? Does holding Bitcoin now represent not just a technological bet but a political one? For institutional investors navigating this new landscape, data tools become even more crucial. Understanding not just price movements but capital flows can reveal the true drivers behind Bitcoin's valuation. The massive ETF inflows immediately following the election weren't random. They represented coordinated, institutional bets on a specific political future. And those bets paid off handsomely. While the US election provided the most dramatic example of Bitcoin's political nature, this phenomenon isn't limited to American politics. Bitcoin's price movements have increasingly responded to political developments worldwide. El Salvador's adoption of Bitcoin as legal tender. China's crypto mining ban. Argentina's new libertarian president expressing Bitcoin support. Each political shift triggers capital movements that manifest in Bitcoin's price. This suggests that Bitcoin isn't just reflecting American partisan politics but rather serving as a barometer for global attitudes toward monetary freedom, regulatory approaches, and state power. When viewed through this lens, Bitcoin becomes something more than just a technological innovation or an inflation hedge. It becomes a referendum on political systems themselves. A way for capital to vote with its feet. A mechanism for expressing confidence or concern about political directions that traditional assets can't capture with the same purity. As we look ahead to Bitcoin's future, the implications of its political nature become even more significant. Will price predictions need to factor in polling data? Will analyst reports start including political risk assessments alongside technical analyses? Will Bitcoin's correlation with political events strengthen or eventually fade? This political dimension isn't going away anytime soon. The unprecedented capital movements following the election reveal a market that's hyper-aware of political implications. For investors, this means developing a more nuanced understanding of how policy shifts might impact the crypto markets. For policymakers, it means recognizing that cryptocurrency regulation isn't just a technical matter but an increasingly partisan one. The fourth halving may not have triggered the expected bull run. But the 2024 election certainly did. And that tells us something profound about what Bitcoin has become - a political asset whose price increasingly reflects the political landscape as much as its underlying technology. The data doesn't lie. The biggest moves aren't coming from mining economics anymore. They're coming from Washington. The fourth Bitcoin halving finished around one year ago today. If you read the crypto news at all, basically everyone predicted that Bitcoin's price would skyrocket. Yet, in the ensuing six months, Bitcoin's price remained remarkably stable (excluding a few 15% swings, which are baby steps for Bitcoin). That was until the night of the 2024 US Presidential election. President Trump's win caused Bitcoin's price to skyrocket over $35,000 in under four weeks, reaching a new all-time high. This begs the question: Is Bitcoin primarily a technological asset responding to its own internal mechanics, or has it evolved into something more politically charged? The data suggests the latter. When we look at the ETF flows data from Amberdata's intelligence platform, something interesting jumps out. The largest single-day inflow across all Bitcoin ETFs wasn't after the halving. In fact, the halving was basically irrelevant. It was immediately following the 2024 election. ETFs saw inflows topping $8 billion in a single day after Trump's victory was announced, dwarfing previous investment patterns. Money speaks louder than narratives. And since the election, money is screaming that Bitcoin is political. The Halving That Wasn't For years, the crypto community has operated under a simple premise: Bitcoin halvings lead to price explosions. The logic seemed sound. Every four years, the reward for mining Bitcoin gets cut in half, reducing new supply entering the market. Less new supply with consistent or growing demand should equal higher prices. This has been the pattern since Bitcoin's inception. The 2016 halving preceded the legendary 2017 bull run that put crypto on the map. The 2020 halving kicked off another massive price surge. But 2024's halving? Crickets. Looking at the annual performance chart from Amberdata's platform, the contrast couldn't be starker. While 2017 showed a dramatic upward curve reaching nearly 20x returns, and other post-halving years displayed notable gains, 2024 remained surprisingly flat after the halving event. Until November. When political winds shifted, so did Bitcoin's trajectory. This wasn't supposed to happen according to the techno-deterministic view of Bitcoin. The halving was supposed to be the catalyst, not an election. Yet here we are. The Trump Effect What makes the post-election Bitcoin surge different isn't just its timing but its character. This wasn't retail FOMO driving prices. It wasn't miners holding onto their reduced rewards. It was institutional money – massive, coordinated flows of capital through regulated ETF products. The ETF flow charts tell the story. BlackRock, Fidelity, 21Shares, Grayscale, and Bitwise all saw unprecedented inflows in the days following the election. These aren't crypto enthusiasts buying $500 worth of Bitcoin on Coinbase. These are pension funds, endowments, and financial advisors allocating billions. Why? Because Trump's victory represented a fundamental shift in the political positioning of Bitcoin. His administration's expected approach to crypto regulation signaled a dramatic departure from previous policy directions. Suddenly, Bitcoin wasn't just a hedge against inflation. It was a bet on a specific political outcome and its consequences. Bitcoin has always had libertarian underpinnings. Satoshi's white paper emerged in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, proposing a monetary system free from central bank control. But what we're seeing now goes beyond theoretical political alignment. Bitcoin has become a practical political asset – one whose value increasingly correlates with specific policy outcomes and partisan shifts. The massive ETF inflows weren't just celebrating a crypto-friendly president. They were placing institutional bets on a specific vision of America's economic future. One where traditional banking power centers might face new competition. One where regulatory approaches favor innovation over caution. One where the balance between state and private monetary control shifts dramatically. When we examine the data from Amberdata's performance metrics, another pattern emerges. While previous halvings triggered organic, gradual price growth over many months, the election-driven surge was immediate and sharp. It wasn't the technology changing. It was the political landscape. Investments in a Polarized World This transformation of Bitcoin into a political asset has profound implications for investors. For one, it suggests that traditional on-chain metrics and supply-based models may be less predictive than they once were. The next Bitcoin bull run might not be triggered by a halving event but by a midterm election. Or a Supreme Court decision. Or a regulatory announcement. This politicization also raises questions about portfolio construction. If Bitcoin increasingly correlates with political outcomes, does it still provide the same diversification benefits? Does holding Bitcoin now represent not just a technological bet but a political one? For institutional investors navigating this new landscape, data tools become even more crucial. Understanding not just price movements but capital flows can reveal the true drivers behind Bitcoin's valuation. The massive ETF inflows immediately following the election weren't random. They represented coordinated, institutional bets on a specific political future. And those bets paid off handsomely. While the US election provided the most dramatic example of Bitcoin's political nature, this phenomenon isn't limited to American politics. Bitcoin's price movements have increasingly responded to political developments worldwide. El Salvador's adoption of Bitcoin as legal tender. China's crypto mining ban. Argentina's new libertarian president expressing Bitcoin support. Each political shift triggers capital movements that manifest in Bitcoin's price. This suggests that Bitcoin isn't just reflecting American partisan politics but rather serving as a barometer for global attitudes toward monetary freedom, regulatory approaches, and state power. When viewed through this lens, Bitcoin becomes something more than just a technological innovation or an inflation hedge. It becomes a referendum on political systems themselves. A way for capital to vote with its feet. A mechanism for expressing confidence or concern about political directions that traditional assets can't capture with the same purity. As we look ahead to Bitcoin's future, the implications of its political nature become even more significant. Will price predictions need to factor in polling data? Will analyst reports start including political risk assessments alongside technical analyses? Will Bitcoin's correlation with political events strengthen or eventually fade? This political dimension isn't going away anytime soon. The unprecedented capital movements following the election reveal a market that's hyper-aware of political implications. For investors, this means developing a more nuanced understanding of how policy shifts might impact the crypto markets. For policymakers, it means recognizing that cryptocurrency regulation isn't just a technical matter but an increasingly partisan one. The fourth halving may not have triggered the expected bull run. But the 2024 election certainly did. And that tells us something profound about what Bitcoin has become - a political asset whose price increasingly reflects the political landscape as much as its underlying technology. The data doesn't lie. The biggest moves aren't coming from mining economics anymore. They're coming from Washington.

Bitcoin Isn’t a Financial Asset Anymore

Биткойн вече не е финансов актив

Bitcoin ja no és un actiu financer

Bitcoin ya no es un activo financiero

Bitcoin ei ole enää rahoitusomaisuus

Bitcoin više nije financijska imovina

Bitcoin se pa yon byen finansye ankò

Bitcoin Bukan Lagi Aset Keuangan

Bitcoin non è più un asset finanziario

ビットコインはもはや金融資産ではない

Bitcoin não é mais um ativo financeiro

Bitcoin nuk është më një asetet financiare

Bitcoin si mali ya kifedha tena

Authors:
(1) Anh V. Vu, University of Cambridge, Cambridge Cybercrime Centre (anh.vu@cl.cam.ac.uk);
(2) Alice Hutchings, University of Cambridge, Cambridge Cybercrime Centre (alice.hutchings@cl.cam.ac.uk);
(3) Ross Anderson, University of Cambridge, and University of Edinburgh (ross.anderson@cl.cam.ac.uk). Authors: Authors: (1) Anh V. Vu, University of Cambridge, Cambridge Cybercrime Centre (anh.vu@cl.cam.ac.uk); (2) Alice Hutchings, University of Cambridge, Cambridge Cybercrime Centre (alice.hutchings@cl.cam.ac.uk); (3) Ross Anderson, University of Cambridge, and University of Edinburgh (ross.anderson@cl.cam.ac.uk). Table of Links Abstract and 1 Introduction Abstract and 1 Introduction 2. Deplatforming and the Impacts 2. Deplatforming and the Impacts 2.1. Related Work 2.1. Related Work 2.2. The Kiwi Farms Disruption 2.2. The Kiwi Farms Disruption 3. Methods, Datasets, and Ethics, and 3.1. Forum and Imageboard Discussions 3. Methods, Datasets, and Ethics, and 3.1. Forum and Imageboard Discussions 3.2. Telegram Chats and 3.3. Web Traffic and Search Trends Analytics 3.2. Telegram Chats and 3.3. Web Traffic and Search Trends Analytics 3.4. Tweets Made by the Online Community and 3.5. Data Licensing 3.4. Tweets Made by the Online Community and 3.5. Data Licensing 3.6. Ethical Considerations 3.6. Ethical Considerations 4. The Impact on Forum Activity and Traffic, and 4.1. The Impact of Major Disruptions 4. The Impact on Forum Activity and Traffic, and 4.1. The Impact of Major Disruptions 4.2. Platform Displacement 4.2. Platform Displacement 4.3. Traffic Fragmentation 4.3. Traffic Fragmentation 5. The Impacts on Relevant Stakeholders and 5.1. The Community that Started the Campaign 5. The Impacts on Relevant Stakeholders and 5.1. The Community that Started the Campaign 5.2. The Industry Responses 5.2. The Industry Responses 5.3. The Forum Operators 5.3. The Forum Operators 5.4. The Forum Members 5.4. The Forum Members 6. Tensions, Challenges, and Implications and 6.1. The Efficacy of the Disruption 6. Tensions, Challenges, and Implications and 6.1. The Efficacy of the Disruption 6.2. Censorship versus Free Speech 6.2. Censorship versus Free Speech 6.3. The Role of Industry in Content Moderation 6.3. The Role of Industry in Content Moderation 6.4. Policy Implications 6.4. Policy Implications 6.5. Limitations and Future Work 6.5. Limitations and Future Work 7. Conclusion, Acknowledgments, and References 7. Conclusion, Acknowledgments, and References Appendix A. Appendix A. Abstract—Legislators and policymakers worldwide are debating options for suppressing illegal, harmful and undesirable material online. Drawing on several quantitative data sources, we show that deplatforming an active community to suppress online hate and harassment, even with a substantial concerted effort involving several tech firms, can be hard. Our case study is the disruption of the largest and longest-running harassment forum KIWI FARMS in late 2022, which is probably the most extensive industry effort to date. Despite the active participation of a number of tech companies over several consecutive months, this campaign failed to shut down the forum and remove its objectionable content. While briefly raising public awareness, it led to rapid platform displacement and traffic fragmentation. Part of the activity decamped to Telegram, while traffic shifted from the primary domain to previously abandoned alternatives. The forum experienced intermittent outages for several weeks, after which the community leading the campaign lost interest, traffic was directed back to the main domain, users quickly returned, and the forum was back online and became even more connected. The forum members themselves stopped discussing the incident shortly thereafter, and the net effect was that forum activity, active users, threads, posts and traffic were all cut by about half. The disruption largely affected casual users (of whom roughly 87% left), while half the core members remained engaged. It also drew many newcomers, who exhibited increasing levels of toxicity during the first few weeks of participation. Deplatforming a community without a court order raises philosophical issues about censorship versus free speech; ethical and legal issues about the role of industry in online content moderation; and practical issues on the efficacy of private-sector versus government action. Deplatforming a dispersed community using a series of court orders against individual service providers appears unlikely to be very effective if the censor cannot incapacitate the key maintainers, whether by arresting them, enjoining them or otherwise deterring them. Abstract—Legislators and policymakers worldwide are debating options for suppressing illegal, harmful and undesirable material online. Drawing on several quantitative data sources, we show that deplatforming an active community to suppress online hate and harassment, even with a substantial concerted effort involving several tech firms, can be hard. Our case study is the disruption of the largest and longest-running harassment forum KIWI FARMS in late 2022, which is probably the most extensive industry effort to date. Despite the active participation of a number of tech companies over several consecutive months, this campaign failed to shut down the forum and remove its objectionable content. While briefly raising public awareness, it led to rapid platform displacement and traffic fragmentation. Part of the activity decamped to Telegram, while traffic shifted from the primary domain to previously abandoned alternatives. The forum experienced intermittent outages for several weeks, after which the community leading the campaign lost interest, traffic was directed back to the main domain, users quickly returned, and the forum was back online and became even more connected. The forum members themselves stopped discussing the incident shortly thereafter, and the net effect was that forum activity, active users, threads, posts and traffic were all cut by about half. The disruption largely affected casual users (of whom roughly 87% left), while half the core members remained engaged. It also drew many newcomers, who exhibited increasing levels of toxicity during the first few weeks of participation. Deplatforming a community without a court order raises philosophical issues about censorship versus free speech; ethical and legal issues about the role of industry in online content moderation; and practical issues on the efficacy of private-sector versus government action. Deplatforming a dispersed community using a series of court orders against individual service providers appears unlikely to be very effective if the censor cannot incapacitate the key maintainers, whether by arresting them, enjoining them or otherwise deterring them. Abstract 1. Introduction Online content is now prevalent, widely accessible, and influential in shaping public discourse. Yet while online places facilitate free speech, they do the same for hate speech [1], and the line between the two is often contested. Some cases of stalking, bullying, and doxxing such as Gamergate have had real-world consequences, including violent crime and political mobilisation [2]. Content moderation has become a critical function of tech companies, but also a political tussle space, since abusive accounts may affect online communities in significantly different ways [3]. Online social platforms employ various mechanisms, for example, artificial intelligence [4], to detect, moderate, and suppress objectionable content [5], including “hard” and “soft” techniques [6]. These range from reporting users of illegal content to the police, through deplatforming users breaking terms of service [7], to moderating legal but obnoxious content [8], which may involve actions such as flagging it with warnings, downranking it in recommendation algorithms [9], or preventing its being monetised through ads [10]. Deplatforming may mean blocking individual users, but sometimes the target is not a single bad actor, but a whole community, such as one involved in crime [11]. It can be undertaken by industry, as when Cloudflare, GoDaddy, Google and some other firms terminated service for the DAILY STORMER after the Unite the Right rally in Virginia in 2017 [12] and for 8CHAN in August 2019 [13]; or by law enforcement, as with the FBI taking down DDoS-forhire services in 2018 [14], [15] and 2022 [16], [17], and seizing RAID FORUMS in 2022 [18]. Industry disruption has often been short-lived; both 8CHAN and DAILY STORMER reemerged or relocated shortly after being disrupted. Police intervention is often slow and less effective, and its impact may also be temporary [11]. After the FBI terminated SILK ROAD [19], the online drug market fragmented among multiple smaller ones [20]. The seizure of RAID FORUMS [18] led to the emergence of its successors BREACH FORUMS, EXPOSED FORUMS, and ONNI FORUMS. Furthermore, the FBI takedowns of DDoS-for-hire services cut the attack volume significantly, yet the market recovered rapidly [14], [15]. KIWI FARMS is the largest and longest-running online harassment forum [21]. It is often associated with real-life trolling and doxxing campaigns against feminists, gay rights campaigners and minorities such as disabled, transgender, and autistic individuals; some have killed themselves after being harassed [22]. Despite being unpleasant and widely controversial, the forum has been online for a decade and had been shielded by Cloudflare’s DDoS protection for years. This came to an end following serious harassment by forum members of a Canadian trans activist, culminating in a swatting incident in August 2022.[1] This resulted in a community-led campaign on Twitter to pressure Cloudflare and other tech firms to drop the forum [23]. This escalated quickly, generating significant social media attention and mainstream headlines. A series of tech firms then attempted to take the forum down; they included DDoS protection services, infrastructure providers, and even some Tier-1 networks [24], [25], [26], [27]. This extraordinary series of events lasted for a few months and was the most sustained effort to date to suppress an active online hate community. It is notable that tech firms gave in to public pressure in this case, while they have in the past resisted substantial pressure from governments. Existing studies have investigated the efficacy of deplatforming social-media users [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], yet there has been limited research – both quantitative and qualitative – into the effectiveness of industry disruptions against standalone hate communities such as bulletin-board forums, which tend to be more resilient as the content can be fully backed up and restored by the admins. This paper investigates how well the industry – the entities offering digital infrastructure for online services such as hosting and domain providers, security and protection services, certificate authorities, and ISP networks – dealt with a hate and harassment site. We outline the disruption landscape in §2, then describe our methods, datasets, and ethics in §3. Our ultimate goal is to evaluate the efficacy of the effort, and to understand the impacts and challenges of deplatforming as a means to suppress online hate and harassment. Our primary research questions are tackled in subsequent sections: the impact of deplatforming on the forum activity and traffic is assessed in §4; the changes in the behaviour of forum members when their gathering place is disrupted, as well as the effects on the forum operators and the community who started the campaign are examined in §5. We discuss the role of industry in tackling online harassment, censorship and content regulation, as well as legal, ethical, and policy implications of the incident in §6. Our data collection and analyses were approved by our institutional Ethics Review Board (ERB). Our data and scripts are available to academics on request. This paper is available on arxiv under CC BY 4.0 DEED license. This paper is available on arxiv under CC BY 4.0 DEED license. available on arxiv [1] This is when a harasser falsely reports a violent crime in progress at the victim’s home, resulting in the arrival of a special-weapons-and-tactics (SWAT) team to storm the premises, placing the victim and family at risk.

How Hard Is It to Deplatform Online Hate Communities?

የመስመር ላይ ከባድ ኩባንያዎችን ለመፍጠር እንዴት ቀላል ነው?

Wie schwer ist es, Online-Hass-Gemeinschaften zu demontieren?

Πόσο δύσκολο είναι να καταστρέψουμε τις κοινότητες μίσους στο διαδίκτυο;

¿Qué tan difícil es desplomarse las comunidades de odio en línea?

Canto é difícil desplantar as comunidades de odio en liña?

ऑनलाइन घृणा समुदायों को उजागर करना कितना मुश्किल है?

Seberapa sulit untuk menghancurkan komunitas kebencian online?

オンラインの憎しみコミュニティをデプラットフォーム化することはどのくらい難しいですか?

Ohatrinona no sarotra ny manafoana ny fiaraha-monina amin'ny fankahalàna an-tserasera?

Hur svårt är det att deplottera online hatgemenskaper?

Kung paano malaki ang mga komunidad ng hate online?

Làm thế nào khó để loại bỏ các cộng đồng hận thù trực tuyến?

Hello World is a weekly newsletter—delivered every Saturday morning—that goes deep into our original reporting and the questions we put to big thinkers in the field. Browse the archive here. Hello World is a weekly newsletter—delivered every Saturday morning—that goes deep into our original reporting and the questions we put to big thinkers in the field. Browse the archive here. Browse the archive here Hello readers, Happy Labor Day weekend. I’m Monique O. Madan (pronounced Mad-din), one of The Markup’s newest investigative reporters. I started here a month ago after finishing up parental leave, and I’m working on a beat I’m extremely passionate about. Monique O. Madan newest investigative reporters Here’s the beat I’m building: investigating technology at the intersection of criminal justice, social justice, government accountability, and immigration. Yes, that’s a mouthful, but there’s so much to uncover! So many buried stories that have yet to be told. And it’s not my first time thinking about how nuanced, complex, and urgent this intersection is. Before joining The Markup, I was a reporter for 15 years, including at USA Today and the Miami Herald, where I worked on investigations and covering immigration, government, and police. My reporting uncovered how former Trump chief of staff John Kelly profited from the detention of migrant children, revealed deficient construction and evidence of money laundering behind a Florida condo collapse, and led to the freedom of a man detained by ICE for a record 11 years. reporting profited from the detention of migrant children Florida condo collapse led to the freedom After getting tipped off by a prison guard, it took me more than a year to earn the trust of that man, Heriberto DelValle. And like DelValle, more than 400 others trusted me with their stories from behind bars. During the rolling reporting process of “The Immigration Pandemic,” a broader, award-winning investigation that exposed the abusive living conditions of those in ICE custody during the COVID pandemic, my phone number got passed around on tiny pieces of paper and written on the walls of bathroom stalls. When detained people were shuffled to different facilities across the country, they wrote the digits on their arms. “The Immigration Pandemic,” Contact Monique (786) 369-6249 (phone, SMS/text, WhatsApp, Signal) madan@themarkup.org madan@themarkup.org Twitter/X: @MoniqueOMadan @MoniqueOMadan Instagram: MoniqueOMadan MoniqueOMadan Facebook: MoniqueOMadan MoniqueOMadan Snail mail: Monique O. Madan Snail mail: P.O. Box 832155 Miami, FL 33283 Those stories eventually led to a federal judge ordering ICE to release hundreds of detainees from three Florida facilities. In another case, families were reunited after my story reached the floors of Congress. Another piece uncovered how ICE was coercing detainees to self-deport. The agency halted the practice. release hundreds families were reunited coercing detainees to self-deport With a background in people-centered accountability journalism—told from a local, national, and international lens—I plan to penetrate the world of Big Tech. My hope is to change the way people think about technology reporting and bring to light stories that are affecting real people in real ways. Today, tech can be the divide between life and death. Algorithms can be racist and decide who deserves what. Privacy is a thing of the past, leading to a more nuanced conversation about risks, consequences, and ethics. The rise of artificial intelligence has taken over every aspect of our day—and there’s a lot of money behind it. Who’s reaping the benefits? At what cost? Who’s getting hurt, and who’s getting rich off it? At The Markup, we are best positioned to attack these stories and execute them in ways that continue to make change. Here are some of the many areas where I’d like to start: The digitization of U.S. border surveillance
Tech and algorithm use within the prison system and immigration detention
Artificial intelligence and the criminal and immigration court systems
Government accountability and independent tech contractors
Misappropriated government funds used for technology initiatives
Technology’s undermining of social justice, equity, and inclusion
Technology’s impact on human trafficking, crime, policing, and law enforcement
Mobile apps enabling sexual assault
Negligence, conflicts of interest, and abuses of power in technology companies or the government entities overseeing them The digitization of U.S. border surveillance Tech and algorithm use within the prison system and immigration detention Artificial intelligence and the criminal and immigration court systems Government accountability and independent tech contractors Misappropriated government funds used for technology initiatives Technology’s undermining of social justice, equity, and inclusion Technology’s impact on human trafficking, crime, policing, and law enforcement Mobile apps enabling sexual assault Negligence, conflicts of interest, and abuses of power in technology companies or the government entities overseeing them Here’s where I need your help. I’m looking to connect with people who: Work or have worked in any of the above systems who can share any behind-the-scenes insight
Are or have been affected by any of these systems
Study these systems as academics, activists, or policymakers
Have news tips, story ideas, data, or documents to share
Want to collaborate on stories
Can introduce and connect me to anyone above Work or have worked in any of the above systems who can share any behind-the-scenes insight Are or have been affected by any of these systems Study these systems as academics, activists, or policymakers Have news tips, story ideas, data, or documents to share Want to collaborate on stories Can introduce and connect me to anyone above I’m bilingual and Latina, and I invite non-English-speaking sources to get in touch as well. (This post is also available to read in Spanish.) My contact information is in the callout box above, and also at the bottom of this post. also available to read in Spanish If there’s any time to tell stories about how technology is affecting people, it’s now. We interact with it daily, whether we notice it or not. And my goal is to humanize those stories, while working to expose abuse, wrongdoing, and inequities affecting vulnerable communities. My approach to investigative journalism is traditional yet rare. Dogged and old-school. It’s boots-on-the-ground and human-to-human with a strong touch of data and FOIAs galore. I’m a narrative storyteller with an investigative soul. I believe in this work. It’s important for me to tell your story with care and authenticity. It’s why I don’t take your time lightly. and Thank you for reading, and I look forward to being in touch! Monique O. Madan Investigative Reporter The Markup How to contact me: How to contact me Please leave a way to get in touch with you. All will be confidential. (347) 717-4094, ext. 1010 madan@themarkup.org madan@themarkup.org Twitter/X: @MoniqueOMadan @MoniqueOMadan Instagram: MoniqueOMadan MoniqueOMadan Facebook: MoniqueOMadan MoniqueOMadan Snail mail: Snail mail: Monique O. Madan P.O. Box 832155 Miami, FL 33283 Credits: Monique O. Madan, Investigative Reporter Monique O. Madan Photo Selection Gabriel Hongsdusit Gabriel Hongsdusit Gabriel Hongsdusit Engagement Maria Puertas Maria Puertas Maria Puertas Copy Editing and Production Monica Riese Monica Riese Monica Riese Editing Soo Oh
Sisi Wei Soo Oh Soo Oh Sisi Wei Sisi Wei Also published here here

Help The Markup Investigate Immigration, Criminal Justice, and More

The Cybersecurity Gap Starts April 16th, 2025 There’s no way to sugar coat this; it’s bad. As of April 16, 2025, the Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVE) program — the global standard for identifying and tracking cybersecurity vulnerabilities — will no longer be funded by the U.S. federal government. This news, confirmed by MITRE Corporation, marks a serious inflection point for software security, infrastructure resilience, and global vulnerability coordination. We don’t have anything ready to take its place. For over two decades, the CVE system has provided a shared language and authoritative catalog of security flaws. It is trusted by national governments, private companies, open-source communities, and international standards bodies. It ensures that when a critical vulnerability is discovered, everyone — from cloud providers to cybersecurity researchers to DevSecOps engineers — refers to the same identifier, the same metadata, and the same remediation timeline. That system has now been destabilized, not by a cyberattack but by budgetary neglect. If you don’t understand how serious this could be, let’s here it from MITRE directly, “If a break in service were to occur, we anticipate multiple impacts to CVE, including deterioration of national vulnerability databases and advisories, tool vendors, incidence response operations, and all manner of critical infrastructure.” “If a break in service were to occur, we anticipate multiple impacts to CVE, including deterioration of national vulnerability databases and advisories, tool vendors, incidence response operations, and all manner of critical infrastructure.” CVE Was More Than a Database At its core, CVE has always been a shared map of risk. The program established a consistent, vendor-neutral way to refer to vulnerabilities in operating systems, cloud platforms, applications, libraries, and embedded systems. It allowed cross-team coordination, integration with automated security tools, and the operationalization of threat intelligence. When vulnerabilities were identified, the CVE system ensured that every stakeholder was speaking the same language — critical for patch triage, security alerting, and incident response. Without it, the cybersecurity community faces not just a lack of information but a breakdown in trust, coordination, and consistency. The Timing Could Not Be Worse The shutdown of CVE funding comes amid a broader collapse in federal cybersecurity support. MITRE has already initiated layoffs, reportedly affecting more than 400 employees after over $28 million in contract cancellations. Simultaneously, CISA is downsizing teams and allowing key contracts to lapse. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), which maintains the National Vulnerability Database (NVD), is overwhelmed by a growing backlog of submissions and has acknowledged that its current tooling cannot scale with modern vulnerability volume. This convergence of defunding and dysfunction is not just inconvenient — it creates systemic blind spots in how we identify, respond to, and contain cybersecurity threats. The structural weakness was long-standing for years, and the CVE program operated under pressure. Community maintainers and security researchers raised concerns about inconsistencies in ID assignments, bottlenecks in processing, and limited transparency in the criteria for prioritizing vulnerabilities. Despite those issues, CVE remained the cornerstone of global vulnerability coordination because of its neutrality and accessibility. However, the program's reliance on single-source funding, outdated tooling, and manual enrichment processes meant that it was never built to handle today’s scale of interconnected vulnerabilities, especially in a world of SBOMs, zero-day exploit markets, and increasingly AI-powered attack surfaces. The Consequences of Losing CVE The discontinuation of federal support for CVE will create cascading challenges across the ecosystem. Vendors will likely create proprietary systems for tracking vulnerabilities, introducing fragmentation and the loss of a shared security vocabulary. This will complicate vulnerability management and create dangerous inconsistencies across toolchains. Security advisories and alerts may lose their effectiveness without consistent identifiers to anchor their relevance. Incident response teams will face delays or confusion when trying to correlate logs, CVSS scores, exploit indicators, or upstream project disclosures. Tool vendors will have to rework integrations and lose access to standardized feeds that power detection and remediation pipelines. More importantly, critical infrastructure sectors — including healthcare, energy, transportation, and finance — that depend on CVE IDs for regulatory compliance and vulnerability assessments may now face increased exposure without clear replacements. A Fork in the Road for Open Source Security The open source community may be hit hardest. For smaller projects without enterprise backing, CVE provided a way to disclose vulnerabilities responsibly and coordinate fixes with users and distributors. That process is now at risk of being delayed or replaced by inconsistent, non-standard reporting systems. The open source security ecosystem, already stretched thin, may lose visibility into vulnerabilities that fall outside of high-profile commercial tooling. In the worst case, vulnerability information will become a fragmented patchwork of inconsistent naming conventions, delayed notifications, and reduced trust in automated tooling. Steps Forward: Addressing the Gap In light of this development, the broader cybersecurity community must act quickly and with purpose to prevent a systemic breakdown in vulnerability coordination. The following are immediate and longer-term recommendations: Preserve access to existing CVE data. Organizations should mirror the existing CVE database and GitHub repositories before access is interrupted. Open-source communities can work collaboratively to create distributed mirrors that remain publicly accessible and verifiable.


Transition to distributed vulnerability identifiers. Open Source Vulnerabilities (OSV.dev), the GitHub Advisory Database, and SPDX security advisories are emerging alternatives that can help fill the gap. These systems should be evaluated, expanded, and supported as potential successors to centralized CVE tracking.


Invest in AI-powered vulnerability enrichment. The backlog at NIST’s NVD highlights the need for scalable enrichment and triaging of vulnerabilities. Open-source tooling that automates metadata classification, patch tracking, and exploit correlation using machine learning should be prioritized and funded.


Formalize open governance around vulnerability disclosure. The CVE program lacked a clear public governance model that empowered open-source contributors. New systems must include governance structures that are transparent, accountable, and representative of global stakeholders — including open-source projects, civil society, and international contributors.


Pressure policymakers to treat vulnerability management as critical infrastructure. Coordinated vulnerability disclosure is not a peripheral function. It is foundational to national and global cybersecurity. Advocacy is urgently needed to reframe CVE as a public safety utility that deserves permanent, nonpartisan support — not an expendable budget line.


Support a community-led security trust layer. As vulnerabilities proliferate across software supply chains, we need a public, community-owned infrastructure for assigning, verifying, and distributing vulnerability information. This may include the federation of trusted assigners, integration with SBOMs, and standardized APIs for tooling.
Regulatory Fallout: CVE Loss Meets EU Cyber Resilience Act
The implications of CVE’s defunding are magnified by the regulatory shifts now underway with the European Union’s Cyber Resilience Act (CRA). Finalized in early 2024 and entering into effect over the next two years, the CRA introduces mandatory vulnerability handling and disclosure requirements for digital products placed on the European market. This includes explicit obligations for software producers — including open-source maintainers in some cases — to track, report, and remediate vulnerabilities under strict timelines.
These obligations depend on the very infrastructure that CVE provided.The CRA’s requirements hinge on accurate vulnerability identification, consistent metadata, and traceable timelines from disclosure to mitigation. Without a globally recognized vulnerability ID system like CVE, many companies and maintainers will struggle to meet these compliance demands. The fragmentation of vulnerability data sources could result in delays or discrepancies in CRA reporting, increasing the risk of penalties, liability, and reputational damage.Moreover, the CRA encourages regulators and product security incident response teams (PSIRTs) to rely on existing standards and tooling — most of which have been built around CVE and its integrations. Without continuity in these systems, organizations may need to rebuild compliance workflows from scratch, including re-validating SBOM entries, rebuilding security advisories, and integrating with new, potentially untested vulnerability databases.There is a real risk that in trying to enhance cybersecurity through regulatory pressure, the EU’s own enforcement infrastructure may be undermined by the sudden loss of one of its foundational data sources. Unless mitigation efforts are prioritized, companies operating in both U.S. and EU jurisdictions may find themselves caught between regulatory expectations and the collapse of the very system that enabled compliance. Preserve access to existing CVE data. Organizations should mirror the existing CVE database and GitHub repositories before access is interrupted. Open-source communities can work collaboratively to create distributed mirrors that remain publicly accessible and verifiable. Preserve access to existing CVE data. Organizations should mirror the existing CVE database and GitHub repositories before access is interrupted. Open-source communities can work collaboratively to create distributed mirrors that remain publicly accessible and verifiable. Preserve access to existing CVE data. Transition to distributed vulnerability identifiers. Open Source Vulnerabilities (OSV.dev), the GitHub Advisory Database, and SPDX security advisories are emerging alternatives that can help fill the gap. These systems should be evaluated, expanded, and supported as potential successors to centralized CVE tracking. Transition to distributed vulnerability identifiers. Open Source Vulnerabilities (OSV.dev), the GitHub Advisory Database, and SPDX security advisories are emerging alternatives that can help fill the gap. These systems should be evaluated, expanded, and supported as potential successors to centralized CVE tracking. Transition to distributed vulnerability identifiers. Invest in AI-powered vulnerability enrichment. The backlog at NIST’s NVD highlights the need for scalable enrichment and triaging of vulnerabilities. Open-source tooling that automates metadata classification, patch tracking, and exploit correlation using machine learning should be prioritized and funded. Invest in AI-powered vulnerability enrichment. The backlog at NIST’s NVD highlights the need for scalable enrichment and triaging of vulnerabilities. Open-source tooling that automates metadata classification, patch tracking, and exploit correlation using machine learning should be prioritized and funded. Invest in AI-powered vulnerability enrichment. Formalize open governance around vulnerability disclosure. The CVE program lacked a clear public governance model that empowered open-source contributors. New systems must include governance structures that are transparent, accountable, and representative of global stakeholders — including open-source projects, civil society, and international contributors. Formalize open governance around vulnerability disclosure. The CVE program lacked a clear public governance model that empowered open-source contributors. New systems must include governance structures that are transparent, accountable, and representative of global stakeholders — including open-source projects, civil society, and international contributors. Formalize open governance around vulnerability disclosure. Pressure policymakers to treat vulnerability management as critical infrastructure. Coordinated vulnerability disclosure is not a peripheral function. It is foundational to national and global cybersecurity. Advocacy is urgently needed to reframe CVE as a public safety utility that deserves permanent, nonpartisan support — not an expendable budget line. Pressure policymakers to treat vulnerability management as critical infrastructure. Coordinated vulnerability disclosure is not a peripheral function. It is foundational to national and global cybersecurity. Advocacy is urgently needed to reframe CVE as a public safety utility that deserves permanent, nonpartisan support — not an expendable budget line. Pressure policymakers to treat vulnerability management as critical infrastructure. Support a community-led security trust layer. As vulnerabilities proliferate across software supply chains, we need a public, community-owned infrastructure for assigning, verifying, and distributing vulnerability information. This may include the federation of trusted assigners, integration with SBOMs, and standardized APIs for tooling.
Regulatory Fallout: CVE Loss Meets EU Cyber Resilience Act
The implications of CVE’s defunding are magnified by the regulatory shifts now underway with the European Union’s Cyber Resilience Act (CRA). Finalized in early 2024 and entering into effect over the next two years, the CRA introduces mandatory vulnerability handling and disclosure requirements for digital products placed on the European market. This includes explicit obligations for software producers — including open-source maintainers in some cases — to track, report, and remediate vulnerabilities under strict timelines.
These obligations depend on the very infrastructure that CVE provided.The CRA’s requirements hinge on accurate vulnerability identification, consistent metadata, and traceable timelines from disclosure to mitigation. Without a globally recognized vulnerability ID system like CVE, many companies and maintainers will struggle to meet these compliance demands. The fragmentation of vulnerability data sources could result in delays or discrepancies in CRA reporting, increasing the risk of penalties, liability, and reputational damage.Moreover, the CRA encourages regulators and product security incident response teams (PSIRTs) to rely on existing standards and tooling — most of which have been built around CVE and its integrations. Without continuity in these systems, organizations may need to rebuild compliance workflows from scratch, including re-validating SBOM entries, rebuilding security advisories, and integrating with new, potentially untested vulnerability databases.There is a real risk that in trying to enhance cybersecurity through regulatory pressure, the EU’s own enforcement infrastructure may be undermined by the sudden loss of one of its foundational data sources. Unless mitigation efforts are prioritized, companies operating in both U.S. and EU jurisdictions may find themselves caught between regulatory expectations and the collapse of the very system that enabled compliance. Support a community-led security trust layer. As vulnerabilities proliferate across software supply chains, we need a public, community-owned infrastructure for assigning, verifying, and distributing vulnerability information. This may include the federation of trusted assigners, integration with SBOMs, and standardized APIs for tooling. Support a community-led security trust layer. Regulatory Fallout: CVE Loss Meets EU Cyber Resilience Act The implications of CVE’s defunding are magnified by the regulatory shifts now underway with the European Union’s Cyber Resilience Act (CRA). Finalized in early 2024 and entering into effect over the next two years, the CRA introduces mandatory vulnerability handling and disclosure requirements for digital products placed on the European market. This includes explicit obligations for software producers — including open-source maintainers in some cases — to track, report, and remediate vulnerabilities under strict timelines. Cyber Resilience Act (CRA) These obligations depend on the very infrastructure that CVE provided. The CRA’s requirements hinge on accurate vulnerability identification, consistent metadata, and traceable timelines from disclosure to mitigation. Without a globally recognized vulnerability ID system like CVE, many companies and maintainers will struggle to meet these compliance demands. The fragmentation of vulnerability data sources could result in delays or discrepancies in CRA reporting, increasing the risk of penalties, liability, and reputational damage. Moreover, the CRA encourages regulators and product security incident response teams (PSIRTs) to rely on existing standards and tooling — most of which have been built around CVE and its integrations. Without continuity in these systems, organizations may need to rebuild compliance workflows from scratch, including re-validating SBOM entries, rebuilding security advisories, and integrating with new, potentially untested vulnerability databases. There is a real risk that in trying to enhance cybersecurity through regulatory pressure, the EU’s own enforcement infrastructure may be undermined by the sudden loss of one of its foundational data sources. Unless mitigation efforts are prioritized, companies operating in both U.S. and EU jurisdictions may find themselves caught between regulatory expectations and the collapse of the very system that enabled compliance. Final Thoughts The termination of CVE funding is more than a policy failure. It is an inflection point in how we understand digital risk. If we treat security intelligence as disposable, we should not be surprised when breaches become normalized. The CVE system allowed engineers to speak the same language about risk. It gave defenders the time and tools to act. Without it, we lose not just a dataset — we lose our map of the terrain. The road ahead must be paved by the community, for the community. We cannot rely on unstable government funding to maintain the most critical systems that protect our digital future. If we treat security intelligence as disposable, we should not be surprised when breaches become normalized. This is a quick post to get awareness out; I’ll write a more in-depth analysis and protocol for vulnerability coverage as this develops. If this event teaches us anything, it is this: cybersecurity cannot be outsourced, and safety cannot be paused.

The Collapse of CVE: How a Funding Failure Threatens Global Cybersecurity

Can you introduce yourself and tell us about LATOKEN? I’m Valentin Preobrazhenskiy, CEO and founder of LATOKEN, one of the leading cryptocurrency exchanges focused on altcoins. Previously, I managed a hedge fund where I developed a passion for discovering promising investments and now help traders find hidden crypto gems while empowering founders to successfully launch tokens that gain real community traction. How did you get the idea to launch LATOKEN? Before LATOKEN, I ran a long-short equity hedge fund where I successfully predicted geopolitical risks in 2014, moving my portfolio away from exposure to Russian markets towards more global opportunities. At that turning point, I had two choices: join the highly competitive Wall Street environment or pursue an entirely new avenue—blockchain technology—that very few understood at the time. Organizing hundreds of tech meetups opened my eyes to blockchain and ICO trends. Ethereum, launched by Vitalik Buterin, particularly intrigued me because startups suddenly had the tools to essentially “print their own money” through tokenization. It became clear to me that blockchain would soon revolutionize asset ownership. Millions of assets would be tokenized, demanding a completely new infrastructure. That’s when I transitioned part of my team from my home equity loan platform to build LATOKEN. We launched our ICO in 2017 and quickly grew from there. How has LATOKEN evolved since launching? Today, LATOKEN supports more than 4 million user accounts from 127 countries and lists over 2,000 digital assets. We're consistently ranked among the top 50 crypto exchanges globally according to CoinMarketCap and CoinGecko, and Forbes named us one of the Top 30 Remote Employers worldwide. Our strength lies in identifying innovative tokens early, providing investors a first-mover advantage. What fuels your passion for this mission? My passion is deeply personal. Growing up in post-Soviet Russia during the economic collapse of the 1990s profoundly shaped my worldview. I vividly remember being with my family, picking berries in a peaceful forest, while at home, hyperinflation had wiped out our savings overnight. My parents, both highly skilled engineers, lost their jobs during that turbulent time. Studying economics at the New Economic School further reinforced my belief in secure property rights as the foundation for stability and growth. Blockchain captivated me precisely because it provides a transparent, secure method to protect wealth, independent of unreliable institutions or politics. That potential continues to inspire everything I do at LATOKEN. How will blockchain and altcoins reshape the financial industry? Blockchain addresses one critical global issue: secure property rights without costly institutional oversight. Traditional financial systems require extensive infrastructure—armies, police, courts, central banks—to guarantee property ownership. Many countries simply can't sustain such complex institutions, leaving billions excluded from financial stability. Blockchain technology eliminates these barriers, allowing anyone to open accounts and trade digital assets easily, like signing up for an email service. Beyond inclusivity, altcoins offer a hedge against fiat currency devaluation and create a web3 economy where users become stakeholders and founders scale rapidly. What role does AI play in the crypto world? AI significantly streamlines crypto operations, helping traders discover new tokens through advanced analytics, recommendations, and market summarization. At LATOKEN, we've embraced AI to automate processes like customer interactions during token listings, qualifying leads, and even transforming our HR department. AI-powered tools screen resumes, conduct candidate assessments, and organize streamlined interviews. This allowed us to efficiently build and manage a fully remote global team of over 150 experts, reflecting the blockchain ethos of transparency and efficiency internally. What's your outlook on the current crypto market? Currently, altcoins face challenging liquidity conditions due to high interest rates drawing capital away from the crypto sector. However, I view this as a temporary downturn. As soon as macroeconomic pressures ease, liquidity will rapidly return—first into Bitcoin and Ethereum, and later into strong altcoins backed by vibrant communities and practical use-cases. Hedge funds are already positioning themselves to capitalize on these undervalued assets, signaling an upcoming market revival. What are your thoughts on recent crypto policy developments in the US? Recent regulatory moves in the US have been cautiously optimistic. Authorities recognize the value of stablecoins and tokenized treasuries to expand the dollar's global footprint without cumbersome intermediaries. By halting the push for a central bank digital currency, the US has subtly embraced decentralized innovation over centralized alternatives, potentially unlocking institutional capital and fostering wider adoption. Tell us about your involvement with the Founder Institute. At the Founder Institute, a global startup accelerator with alumni companies exceeding $20 billion in valuation, I served as both a Director and Mentor. I guided early-stage entrepreneurs through the critical phases of refining their ideas, crafting viable products, and raising funds. Drawing on my LATOKEN journey, I shared firsthand experiences on scaling operations, overcoming fundraising challenges, and staying competitive in fast-evolving markets. What about your role in the Blockchain Economic Forum? Launching the Blockchain Economic Forum (BEF) in 2017 is among my proudest achievements. BEF became a unique global platform connecting blockchain innovators with policymakers and institutional investors. We held impactful forums in cities like Davos, New York, San Francisco, and London, gathering influential leaders including presidents, EU policymakers, SEC leadership, and top economists. The aim was to facilitate transition of DeFi into the mainstream financial system. I love connecting founders to build the future and made over 500 documented tech meetups. You've also judged startup pitch competitions—can you elaborate on this experience? I’ve had the privilege of judging international startup competitions focused on Web3 at Gain Web3 Pitch Competitions in partnership with Duke University's Web3 Ecosystem, DevCon and Blockchain life forums in 2024. Judging allowed me to help founders sharpen their market strategies, refine their products, and prepare for scaling. Do you have any unique or controversial views you'd like to share? I believe that the universal goal of life can be measured as global economy capitalization with a Nasdaq as a well-known proxy. Currency is a control right to use energy for the self-replication of symbiosis of programs, constituting Sapience. Future cash flow essentially reflects strategic viability of life. I find this concept useful to prioritize conflicting goals and run a website to share this framework. Any final thoughts? My mission remains steadfast: ensure every person has meaningful access to economic opportunity. Whether through LATOKEN, mentoring founders, or facilitating global forums, my goal is removing barriers to financial inclusion. Access to the global financial system shouldn't be a privilege—it should be universally accessible, creating a more stable and united world. -- Can you introduce yourself and tell us about LATOKEN? Can you introduce yourself and tell us about LATOKEN? I’m Valentin Preobrazhenskiy, CEO and founder of LATOKEN, one of the leading cryptocurrency exchanges focused on altcoins. Previously, I managed a hedge fund where I developed a passion for discovering promising investments and now help traders find hidden crypto gems while empowering founders to successfully launch tokens that gain real community traction. How did you get the idea to launch LATOKEN? How did you get the idea to launch LATOKEN? Before LATOKEN, I ran a long-short equity hedge fund where I successfully predicted geopolitical risks in 2014, moving my portfolio away from exposure to Russian markets towards more global opportunities. At that turning point, I had two choices: join the highly competitive Wall Street environment or pursue an entirely new avenue—blockchain technology—that very few understood at the time. Organizing hundreds of tech meetups opened my eyes to blockchain and ICO trends. Ethereum, launched by Vitalik Buterin, particularly intrigued me because startups suddenly had the tools to essentially “print their own money” through tokenization. It became clear to me that blockchain would soon revolutionize asset ownership. Millions of assets would be tokenized, demanding a completely new infrastructure. That’s when I transitioned part of my team from my home equity loan platform to build LATOKEN. We launched our ICO in 2017 and quickly grew from there. How has LATOKEN evolved since launching? How has LATOKEN evolved since launching? Today, LATOKEN supports more than 4 million user accounts from 127 countries and lists over 2,000 digital assets. We're consistently ranked among the top 50 crypto exchanges globally according to CoinMarketCap and CoinGecko, and Forbes named us one of the Top 30 Remote Employers worldwide. Our strength lies in identifying innovative tokens early, providing investors a first-mover advantage. What fuels your passion for this mission? What fuels your passion for this mission? My passion is deeply personal. Growing up in post-Soviet Russia during the economic collapse of the 1990s profoundly shaped my worldview. I vividly remember being with my family, picking berries in a peaceful forest, while at home, hyperinflation had wiped out our savings overnight. My parents, both highly skilled engineers, lost their jobs during that turbulent time. Studying economics at the New Economic School further reinforced my belief in secure property rights as the foundation for stability and growth. Blockchain captivated me precisely because it provides a transparent, secure method to protect wealth, independent of unreliable institutions or politics. That potential continues to inspire everything I do at LATOKEN. How will blockchain and altcoins reshape the financial industry? How will blockchain and altcoins reshape the financial industry? Blockchain addresses one critical global issue: secure property rights without costly institutional oversight. Traditional financial systems require extensive infrastructure—armies, police, courts, central banks—to guarantee property ownership. Many countries simply can't sustain such complex institutions, leaving billions excluded from financial stability. Blockchain technology eliminates these barriers, allowing anyone to open accounts and trade digital assets easily, like signing up for an email service. Beyond inclusivity, altcoins offer a hedge against fiat currency devaluation and create a web3 economy where users become stakeholders and founders scale rapidly. What role does AI play in the crypto world? What role does AI play in the crypto world? AI significantly streamlines crypto operations, helping traders discover new tokens through advanced analytics, recommendations, and market summarization. At LATOKEN, we've embraced AI to automate processes like customer interactions during token listings, qualifying leads, and even transforming our HR department. AI-powered tools screen resumes, conduct candidate assessments, and organize streamlined interviews. This allowed us to efficiently build and manage a fully remote global team of over 150 experts, reflecting the blockchain ethos of transparency and efficiency internally. What's your outlook on the current crypto market? What's your outlook on the current crypto market? Currently, altcoins face challenging liquidity conditions due to high interest rates drawing capital away from the crypto sector. However, I view this as a temporary downturn. As soon as macroeconomic pressures ease, liquidity will rapidly return—first into Bitcoin and Ethereum, and later into strong altcoins backed by vibrant communities and practical use-cases. Hedge funds are already positioning themselves to capitalize on these undervalued assets, signaling an upcoming market revival. What are your thoughts on recent crypto policy developments in the US? What are your thoughts on recent crypto policy developments in the US? Recent regulatory moves in the US have been cautiously optimistic. Authorities recognize the value of stablecoins and tokenized treasuries to expand the dollar's global footprint without cumbersome intermediaries. By halting the push for a central bank digital currency, the US has subtly embraced decentralized innovation over centralized alternatives, potentially unlocking institutional capital and fostering wider adoption. Tell us about your involvement with the Founder Institute. Tell us about your involvement with the Founder Institute. At the Founder Institute, a global startup accelerator with alumni companies exceeding $20 billion in valuation, I served as both a Director and Mentor. I guided early-stage entrepreneurs through the critical phases of refining their ideas, crafting viable products, and raising funds. Drawing on my LATOKEN journey, I shared firsthand experiences on scaling operations, overcoming fundraising challenges, and staying competitive in fast-evolving markets. What about your role in the Blockchain Economic Forum? Launching the Blockchain Economic Forum (BEF) in 2017 is among my proudest achievements. BEF became a unique global platform connecting blockchain innovators with policymakers and institutional investors. We held impactful forums in cities like Davos, New York, San Francisco, and London, gathering influential leaders including presidents, EU policymakers, SEC leadership, and top economists. The aim was to facilitate transition of DeFi into the mainstream financial system. I love connecting founders to build the future and made over 500 documented tech meetups. You've also judged startup pitch competitions—can you elaborate on this experience? You've also judged startup pitch competitions—can you elaborate on this experience? I’ve had the privilege of judging international startup competitions focused on Web3 at Gain Web3 Pitch Competitions in partnership with Duke University's Web3 Ecosystem, DevCon and Blockchain life forums in 2024. Judging allowed me to help founders sharpen their market strategies, refine their products, and prepare for scaling. Do you have any unique or controversial views you'd like to share? Do you have any unique or controversial views you'd like to share? I believe that the universal goal of life can be measured as global economy capitalization with a Nasdaq as a well-known proxy. Currency is a control right to use energy for the self-replication of symbiosis of programs, constituting Sapience. Future cash flow essentially reflects strategic viability of life. I find this concept useful to prioritize conflicting goals and run a website to share this framework. website Any final thoughts? Any final thoughts? My mission remains steadfast: ensure every person has meaningful access to economic opportunity. Whether through LATOKEN, mentoring founders, or facilitating global forums, my goal is removing barriers to financial inclusion. Access to the global financial system shouldn't be a privilege—it should be universally accessible, creating a more stable and united world. --

Opening Financial Markets to Everyone: An Interview with Valentin Preobrazhenskiy, CEO of LATOKEN

የፋይናንስ ገበያዎች ለሁሉም ይሰጣል: የ LATOKEN CEO Valentine Preobrazhenskiy ጋር አንድ መለያ

فتح الأسواق المالية للجميع: مقابلة مع فيلين Preobrazhenskiy، رئيس شركة LATOKEN

Abriendo los mercados financieros a todos: una entrevista con Valentin Preobrazhenskiy, CEO de LATOKEN

金融市場をすべての人に開く:LATOKENのCEOであるValentin Preobrazhenskiyとのインタビュー

모든 사람에게 금융 시장을 열기 : 라토켄의 CEO인 발렌타인 프레오브라스키 (Valentin Preobrazhenskiy)과의 인터뷰

Deschiderea piețelor financiare pentru toți: un interviu cu Valentin Preobrazhenskiy, CEO al LATOKEN

Öppna finansmarknaderna för alla: En intervju med Valentin Preobrazhenskiy, VD för LATOKEN

Відкриття фінансових ринків для всіх: Інтерв'ю з Валентином Преображенським, генеральним директором LATOKEN

Ukuvula iimarike zentengiso bonke: I-Interview kunye noValentin Preobrazhenskiy, CEO ye-LATOKEN

The direction of federal vapor product regulation in the United States hangs in the balance following leadership changes within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. While many vapers and industry advocates welcome the departure of certain vocal anti-vaping officials, a sense of uncertainty prevails. Meaningful policy reform is still needed to translate President Trump’s renewed commitment to "save flavored vaping" into tangible reality for millions of American adults who rely on these products. The current regulatory framework, critics argue, remains deeply flawed, hindering access to potentially life-saving alternatives to combustible cigarettes. leadership changes save flavored vaping Vaping's Emergence Coincides with Record Low Smoking Rates Despite being commercially available for nearly two decades, electronic cigarettes and nicotine vapor products face ongoing condemnation from influential public health groups, numerous policymakers, and a significant portion of the public. This persistent opposition exists even as their market presence has directly paralleled a dramatic, historic reduction in cigarette smoking among American adults. This shift marks a stark departure from the mid-century "Mad Men" era where tobacco advertising reigned supreme. Underscoring this trend, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) highlighted in a March 2025 Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report that “adult cigarette smoking prevalence remains at its lowest level in 60 years.” While some conventional tobacco control measures, like targeted taxes or public use restrictions, likely contributed, proponents of harm reduction argue that the introduction and adoption of innovative vaping technology correlates with the most significant declines in deadly combustible cigarette use. They posit that offering smokers less harmful ways to consume nicotine is a powerful public health tool. a March 2025 Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report A History Rooted in Harm Reduction, Not Big Tobacco Challenging popular anti-vaping rhetoric, the modern e-cigarette was not a creation of Big Tobacco aimed at addicting a new generation. Its origins trace back to Hon Lik, a Chinese pharmacist seeking a less harmful alternative to smoking, effectively inventing it as a smoking cessation device. Since entering the U.S. market around 2007, e-cigarettes have undergone significant evolution driven largely by independent companies responding to consumer needs. Initial "cigalikes" mimicking traditional cigarettes gave way to more powerful, customizable "open system" devices, followed by convenient "pod mods," and most recently, the ubiquitous disposable vapes. It wasn't until 2012, a full five years after vaping's US debut, that a major tobacco company made its first significant move by acquiring the blu brand. The landscape truly shifted when the FDA asserted regulatory authority over e-cigarettes as tobacco products, a move upheld by courts, leading to the 2016 "deeming rule." Only then did Big Tobacco begin introducing its own vaping products, navigating a complex and often ambiguous regulatory pathway. Hon Lik acquiring the blu brand deeming rule The PMTA Gauntlet: Stifling Innovation, Favoring Giants Before this federal oversight intensified, American vapor manufacturers operated with agility, quickly adapting products based on user feedback and technological advancements. The 2016 deeming rule, however, implemented the burdensome Premarket Tobacco Product Application (PMTA) process. This regulation mandated that all vaping products introduced after February 15, 2007, undergo rigorous, expensive FDA review and receive explicit marketing authorization before being legally sold. Critics describe the PMTA process as a nearly insurmountable barrier for the small and medium-sized independent businesses that pioneered the industry. The extensive data requirements and high costs associated with submitting a PMTA created a regulatory bottleneck that effectively stifled innovation and favored companies with deep pockets – namely, Big Tobacco. PMTA all before The results are stark: As of April 1, 2025, the FDA had authorized only 34 vapor products for sale nationwide. Tellingly, all these authorized products are owned by just three major tobacco corporations, entities that continue to derive substantial profits from selling the very combustible cigarettes vaping aims to replace. Furthermore, the agency continues to authorize far more new combustible cigarette products than innovative, potentially harm-reducing vapor alternatives. FDA had authorized only 34 vapor products The Tobacco Control Act: The Underlying Hurdle? While changes in FDA leadership or enforcement priorities might offer temporary shifts, many argue the fundamental problem lies within the 2009 Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (TCA). This legislation, championed by Senator Dick Durbin (D-Ill.)—a long-standing opponent of both traditional tobacco and vaping products—imposes severe limitations on adult access to reduced-risk nicotine alternatives. Any product launched after the 2007 predicate date faces the daunting PMTA pathway. In the decade-plus since its implementation, a mere 76 novel tobacco/nicotine products (including those 34 vape products) have successfully navigated this process, compared to the thousands of combustible cigarette products grandfathered in or approved through less stringent pathways. 2009 Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act TCA Global Harm Reduction Acceptance vs. US Hesitancy During President Trump’s first term, FDA leadership expressed some recognition of tobacco harm reduction's potential. However, under the subsequent Biden administration, this forward momentum appeared to stall, replaced by a more prohibitive stance. This contrasts sharply with public health approaches in other developed nations. Health bodies in Canada, the United Kingdom, and New Zealand, among others, publicly acknowledge that e-cigarettes are significantly less harmful than combustible cigarettes. Some, like Public Health England (now the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities), have actively encouraged adult smokers unable to quit nicotine entirely to switch to vaping. Yet, the US regulatory environment largely remains entrenched in what critics call a regressive, fear-based mindset that downplays or ignores the potential benefits for adult smokers. appeared to stall Canada Canada United Kingdom United Kingdom New Zealand New Zealand Allegations of Disinformation and Market Capture This policy stagnation, some contend, may also reflect the increasing influence of Big Tobacco companies within the regulatory sphere. Critics allege these companies, having gained the President's ear, have engaged in spreading misinformation – ranging from amplifying fears about youth vaping (often used to justify flavor bans that disproportionately affect adult smokers) to promoting sensationalist claims about illicit fentanyl-laced vapes from China. Concurrently, state legislatures nationwide are advancing "vapor product registry" bills. While often framed as state-level enforcement tools, these bills frequently restrict sales to only those products that have received federal PMTA authorization – effectively locking out competitors and handing the market to the few Big Tobacco companies whose products dominate the short list of FDA-approved vapes, all enforced at taxpayer expense. vapor product registry The Overlooked Adult Vaper and the Call for Reform Big Tobacco, though late to innovate in the vapor space, shouldn't necessarily be barred from offering potentially safer nicotine alternatives. However, critics argue vehemently against allowing them to monopolize a grassroots harm reduction movement initiated by former smokers and independent entrepreneurs. The demographic reality is that among adults aged 25 and older who vape, the vast majority are either current or, more often, former smokers specifically seeking a less dangerous way to consume nicotine. Yet, hampered by outdated legislation like the TCA and a federal regulatory framework seemingly detached from real-world science and consumer behavior, these adults face growing uncertainty and shrinking access to the products, particularly the flavors, that helped them quit smoking. President Trump made a clear promise to protect flavored vaping options. With over 20 million adult vapers in America – many of whom are former smokers potentially saved from returning to deadly cigarettes – the expectation for decisive action and meaningful regulatory reform is immense. They await policies that acknowledge harm reduction, foster responsible innovation, and prioritize the needs of adults seeking safer alternatives. 20 million adult vapers in America

So Are Vapes Making a Comeback Under the Trump Administration?

Stories, News & Mentions about POLICYME

Categories

Trending Topics

Stories, News & Mentions about POLICYME

Policyme’s Stories on HackerNoon

Categories

Trending Topics