Tingo

tingo

Around the World in Eighty Days by Jules Verne, is part of the HackerNoon Books Series. You can jump to any chapter in this book . DURING WHICH MR. FOGG AND PARTY CROSS THE PACIFIC OCEAN here CHAPTER XXIV. DURING WHICH MR. FOGG AND PARTY CROSS THE PACIFIC OCEAN What happened when the pilot-boat came in sight of Shanghai will be easily guessed. The signals made by the “Tankadere” had been seen by the captain of the Yokohama steamer, who, espying the flag at half-mast, had directed his course towards the little craft. Phileas Fogg, after paying the stipulated price of his passage to John Busby, and rewarding that worthy with the additional sum of five hundred and fifty pounds, ascended the steamer with Aouda and Fix; and they started at once for Nagasaki and Yokohama. They reached their destination on the morning of the 14th of November. Phileas Fogg lost no time in going on board the “Carnatic,” where he learned, to Aouda’s great delight—and perhaps to his own, though he betrayed no emotion—that Passepartout, a Frenchman, had really arrived on her the day before. The San Francisco steamer was announced to leave that very evening, and it became necessary to find Passepartout, if possible, without delay. Mr. Fogg applied in vain to the French and English consuls, and, after wandering through the streets a long time, began to despair of finding his missing servant. Chance, or perhaps a kind of presentiment, at last led him into the Honourable Mr. Batulcar’s theatre. He certainly would not have recognised Passepartout in the eccentric mountebank’s costume; but the latter, lying on his back, perceived his master in the gallery. He could not help starting, which so changed the position of his nose as to bring the “pyramid” pell-mell upon the stage. All this Passepartout learned from Aouda, who recounted to him what had taken place on the voyage from Hong Kong to Shanghai on the “Tankadere,” in company with one Mr. Fix. Passepartout did not change countenance on hearing this name. He thought that the time had not yet arrived to divulge to his master what had taken place between the detective and himself; and, in the account he gave of his absence, he simply excused himself for having been overtaken by drunkenness, in smoking opium at a tavern in Hong Kong. Mr. Fogg heard this narrative coldly, without a word; and then furnished his man with funds necessary to obtain clothing more in harmony with his position. Within an hour the Frenchman had cut off his nose and parted with his wings, and retained nothing about him which recalled the sectary of the god Tingou. The steamer which was about to depart from Yokohama to San Francisco belonged to the Pacific Mail Steamship Company, and was named the “General Grant.” She was a large paddle-wheel steamer of two thousand five hundred tons; well equipped and very fast. The massive walking-beam rose and fell above the deck; at one end a piston-rod worked up and down; and at the other was a connecting-rod which, in changing the rectilinear motion to a circular one, was directly connected with the shaft of the paddles. The “General Grant” was rigged with three masts, giving a large capacity for sails, and thus materially aiding the steam power. By making twelve miles an hour, she would cross the ocean in twenty-one days. Phileas Fogg was therefore justified in hoping that he would reach San Francisco by the 2nd of December, New York by the 11th, and London on the 20th—thus gaining several hours on the fatal date of the 21st of December. There was a full complement of passengers on board, among them English, many Americans, a large number of coolies on their way to California, and several East Indian officers, who were spending their vacation in making the tour of the world. Nothing of moment happened on the voyage; the steamer, sustained on its large paddles, rolled but little, and the “Pacific” almost justified its name. Mr. Fogg was as calm and taciturn as ever. His young companion felt herself more and more attached to him by other ties than gratitude; his silent but generous nature impressed her more than she thought; and it was almost unconsciously that she yielded to emotions which did not seem to have the least effect upon her protector. Aouda took the keenest interest in his plans, and became impatient at any incident which seemed likely to retard his journey. She often chatted with Passepartout, who did not fail to perceive the state of the lady’s heart; and, being the most faithful of domestics, he never exhausted his eulogies of Phileas Fogg’s honesty, generosity, and devotion. He took pains to calm Aouda’s doubts of a successful termination of the journey, telling her that the most difficult part of it had passed, that now they were beyond the fantastic countries of Japan and China, and were fairly on their way to civilised places again. A railway train from San Francisco to New York, and a transatlantic steamer from New York to Liverpool, would doubtless bring them to the end of this impossible journey round the world within the period agreed upon. On the ninth day after leaving Yokohama, Phileas Fogg had traversed exactly one half of the terrestrial globe. The “General Grant” passed, on the 23rd of November, the one hundred and eightieth meridian, and was at the very antipodes of London. Mr. Fogg had, it is true, exhausted fifty-two of the eighty days in which he was to complete the tour, and there were only twenty-eight left. But, though he was only half-way by the difference of meridians, he had really gone over two-thirds of the whole journey; for he had been obliged to make long circuits from London to Aden, from Aden to Bombay, from Calcutta to Singapore, and from Singapore to Yokohama. Could he have followed without deviation the fiftieth parallel, which is that of London, the whole distance would only have been about twelve thousand miles; whereas he would be forced, by the irregular methods of locomotion, to traverse twenty-six thousand, of which he had, on the 23rd of November, accomplished seventeen thousand five hundred. And now the course was a straight one, and Fix was no longer there to put obstacles in their way! It happened also, on the 23rd of November, that Passepartout made a joyful discovery. It will be remembered that the obstinate fellow had insisted on keeping his famous family watch at London time, and on regarding that of the countries he had passed through as quite false and unreliable. Now, on this day, though he had not changed the hands, he found that his watch exactly agreed with the ship’s chronometers. His triumph was hilarious. He would have liked to know what Fix would say if he were aboard! “The rogue told me a lot of stories,” repeated Passepartout, “about the meridians, the sun, and the moon! Moon, indeed! moonshine more likely! If one listened to that sort of people, a pretty sort of time one would keep! I was sure that the sun would some day regulate itself by my watch!” Passepartout was ignorant that, if the face of his watch had been divided into twenty-four hours, like the Italian clocks, he would have no reason for exultation; for the hands of his watch would then, instead of as now indicating nine o’clock in the morning, indicate nine o’clock in the evening, that is, the twenty-first hour after midnight precisely the difference between London time and that of the one hundred and eightieth meridian. But if Fix had been able to explain this purely physical effect, Passepartout would not have admitted, even if he had comprehended it. Moreover, if the detective had been on board at that moment, Passepartout would have joined issue with him on a quite different subject, and in an entirely different manner. Where was Fix at that moment? He was actually on board the “General Grant.” On reaching Yokohama, the detective, leaving Mr. Fogg, whom he expected to meet again during the day, had repaired at once to the English consulate, where he at last found the warrant of arrest. It had followed him from Bombay, and had come by the “Carnatic,” on which steamer he himself was supposed to be. Fix’s disappointment may be imagined when he reflected that the warrant was now useless. Mr. Fogg had left English ground, and it was now necessary to procure his extradition! “Well,” thought Fix, after a moment of anger, “my warrant is not good here, but it will be in England. The rogue evidently intends to return to his own country, thinking he has thrown the police off his track. Good! I will follow him across the Atlantic. As for the money, heaven grant there may be some left! But the fellow has already spent in travelling, rewards, trials, bail, elephants, and all sorts of charges, more than five thousand pounds. Yet, after all, the Bank is rich!” His course decided on, he went on board the “General Grant,” and was there when Mr. Fogg and Aouda arrived. To his utter amazement, he recognised Passepartout, despite his theatrical disguise. He quickly concealed himself in his cabin, to avoid an awkward explanation, and hoped—thanks to the number of passengers—to remain unperceived by Mr. Fogg’s servant. On that very day, however, he met Passepartout face to face on the forward deck. The latter, without a word, made a rush for him, grasped him by the throat, and, much to the amusement of a group of Americans, who immediately began to bet on him, administered to the detective a perfect volley of blows, which proved the great superiority of French over English pugilistic skill. When Passepartout had finished, he found himself relieved and comforted. Fix got up in a somewhat rumpled condition, and, looking at his adversary, coldly said, “Have you done?” “For this time—yes.” “Then let me have a word with you.” “But I—” “In your master’s interests.” Passepartout seemed to be vanquished by Fix’s coolness, for he quietly followed him, and they sat down aside from the rest of the passengers. “You have given me a thrashing,” said Fix. “Good, I expected it. Now, listen to me. Up to this time I have been Mr. Fogg’s adversary. I am now in his game.” “Aha!” cried Passepartout; “you are convinced he is an honest man?” “No,” replied Fix coldly, “I think him a rascal. Sh! don’t budge, and let me speak. As long as Mr. Fogg was on English ground, it was for my interest to detain him there until my warrant of arrest arrived. I did everything I could to keep him back. I sent the Bombay priests after him, I got you intoxicated at Hong Kong, I separated you from him, and I made him miss the Yokohama steamer.” Passepartout listened, with closed fists. “Now,” resumed Fix, “Mr. Fogg seems to be going back to England. Well, I will follow him there. But hereafter I will do as much to keep obstacles out of his way as I have done up to this time to put them in his path. I’ve changed my game, you see, and simply because it was for my interest to change it. Your interest is the same as mine; for it is only in England that you will ascertain whether you are in the service of a criminal or an honest man.” Passepartout listened very attentively to Fix, and was convinced that he spoke with entire good faith. “Are we friends?” asked the detective. “Friends?—no,” replied Passepartout; “but allies, perhaps. At the least sign of treason, however, I’ll twist your neck for you.” “Agreed,” said the detective quietly. Eleven days later, on the 3rd of December, the “General Grant” entered the bay of the Golden Gate, and reached San Francisco. Mr. Fogg had neither gained nor lost a single day. 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. Jules Verne (1994). Around the World in Eighty Days. Urbana, Illinois: Project Gutenberg. Retrieved October 2022 https://www.gutenberg.org/files/103/103-h/103-h.htm 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

DURING WHICH MR. FOGG AND PARTY CROSS THE PACIFIC OCEAN

Around the World in Eighty Days by Jules Verne, is part of the HackerNoon Books Series. You can jump to any chapter in this book . IN WHICH PASSEPARTOUT’S NOSE BECOMES OUTRAGEOUSLY LONG here CHAPTER XXIII. IN WHICH PASSEPARTOUT’S NOSE BECOMES OUTRAGEOUSLY LONG The next morning poor, jaded, famished Passepartout said to himself that he must get something to eat at all hazards, and the sooner he did so the better. He might, indeed, sell his watch; but he would have starved first. Now or never he must use the strong, if not melodious voice which nature had bestowed upon him. He knew several French and English songs, and resolved to try them upon the Japanese, who must be lovers of music, since they were for ever pounding on their cymbals, tam-tams, and tambourines, and could not but appreciate European talent. It was, perhaps, rather early in the morning to get up a concert, and the audience prematurely aroused from their slumbers, might not possibly pay their entertainer with coin bearing the Mikado’s features. Passepartout therefore decided to wait several hours; and, as he was sauntering along, it occurred to him that he would seem rather too well dressed for a wandering artist. The idea struck him to change his garments for clothes more in harmony with his project; by which he might also get a little money to satisfy the immediate cravings of hunger. The resolution taken, it remained to carry it out. It was only after a long search that Passepartout discovered a native dealer in old clothes, to whom he applied for an exchange. The man liked the European costume, and ere long Passepartout issued from his shop accoutred in an old Japanese coat, and a sort of one-sided turban, faded with long use. A few small pieces of silver, moreover, jingled in his pocket. “Good!” thought he. “I will imagine I am at the Carnival!” His first care, after being thus “Japanesed,” was to enter a tea-house of modest appearance, and, upon half a bird and a little rice, to breakfast like a man for whom dinner was as yet a problem to be solved. “Now,” thought he, when he had eaten heartily, “I mustn’t lose my head. I can’t sell this costume again for one still more Japanese. I must consider how to leave this country of the Sun, of which I shall not retain the most delightful of memories, as quickly as possible.” It occurred to him to visit the steamers which were about to leave for America. He would offer himself as a cook or servant, in payment of his passage and meals. Once at San Francisco, he would find some means of going on. The difficulty was, how to traverse the four thousand seven hundred miles of the Pacific which lay between Japan and the New World. Passepartout was not the man to let an idea go begging, and directed his steps towards the docks. But, as he approached them, his project, which at first had seemed so simple, began to grow more and more formidable to his mind. What need would they have of a cook or servant on an American steamer, and what confidence would they put in him, dressed as he was? What references could he give? As he was reflecting in this wise, his eyes fell upon an immense placard which a sort of clown was carrying through the streets. This placard, which was in English, read as follows: ACROBATIC JAPANESE TROUPE, HONOURABLE WILLIAM BATULCAR, PROPRIETOR, LAST REPRESENTATIONS, PRIOR TO THEIR DEPARTURE TO THE UNITED STATES, OF THE LONG NOSES! LONG NOSES! UNDER THE DIRECT PATRONAGE OF THE GOD TINGOU! GREAT ATTRACTION! “The United States!” said Passepartout; “that’s just what I want!” He followed the clown, and soon found himself once more in the Japanese quarter. A quarter of an hour later he stopped before a large cabin, adorned with several clusters of streamers, the exterior walls of which were designed to represent, in violent colours and without perspective, a company of jugglers. This was the Honourable William Batulcar’s establishment. That gentleman was a sort of Barnum, the director of a troupe of mountebanks, jugglers, clowns, acrobats, equilibrists, and gymnasts, who, according to the placard, was giving his last performances before leaving the Empire of the Sun for the States of the Union. Passepartout entered and asked for Mr. Batulcar, who straightway appeared in person. “What do you want?” said he to Passepartout, whom he at first took for a native. “Would you like a servant, sir?” asked Passepartout. “A servant!” cried Mr. Batulcar, caressing the thick grey beard which hung from his chin. “I already have two who are obedient and faithful, have never left me, and serve me for their nourishment and here they are,” added he, holding out his two robust arms, furrowed with veins as large as the strings of a bass-viol. “So I can be of no use to you?” “None.” “The devil! I should so like to cross the Pacific with you!” “Ah!” said the Honourable Mr. Batulcar. “You are no more a Japanese than I am a monkey! Who are you dressed up in that way?” “A man dresses as he can.” “That’s true. You are a Frenchman, aren’t you?” “Yes; a Parisian of Paris.” “Then you ought to know how to make grimaces?” “Why,” replied Passepartout, a little vexed that his nationality should cause this question, “we Frenchmen know how to make grimaces, it is true but not any better than the Americans do.” “True. Well, if I can’t take you as a servant, I can as a clown. You see, my friend, in France they exhibit foreign clowns, and in foreign parts French clowns.” “Ah!” “You are pretty strong, eh?” “Especially after a good meal.” “And you can sing?” “Yes,” returned Passepartout, who had formerly been wont to sing in the streets. “But can you sing standing on your head, with a top spinning on your left foot, and a sabre balanced on your right?” “Humph! I think so,” replied Passepartout, recalling the exercises of his younger days. “Well, that’s enough,” said the Honourable William Batulcar. The engagement was concluded there and then. Passepartout had at last found something to do. He was engaged to act in the celebrated Japanese troupe. It was not a very dignified position, but within a week he would be on his way to San Francisco. The performance, so noisily announced by the Honourable Mr. Batulcar, was to commence at three o’clock, and soon the deafening instruments of a Japanese orchestra resounded at the door. Passepartout, though he had not been able to study or rehearse a part, was designated to lend the aid of his sturdy shoulders in the great exhibition of the “human pyramid,” executed by the Long Noses of the god Tingou. This “great attraction” was to close the performance. Before three o’clock the large shed was invaded by the spectators, comprising Europeans and natives, Chinese and Japanese, men, women and children, who precipitated themselves upon the narrow benches and into the boxes opposite the stage. The musicians took up a position inside, and were vigorously performing on their gongs, tam-tams, flutes, bones, tambourines, and immense drums. The performance was much like all acrobatic displays; but it must be confessed that the Japanese are the first equilibrists in the world. One, with a fan and some bits of paper, performed the graceful trick of the butterflies and the flowers; another traced in the air, with the odorous smoke of his pipe, a series of blue words, which composed a compliment to the audience; while a third juggled with some lighted candles, which he extinguished successively as they passed his lips, and relit again without interrupting for an instant his juggling. Another reproduced the most singular combinations with a spinning-top; in his hands the revolving tops seemed to be animated with a life of their own in their interminable whirling; they ran over pipe-stems, the edges of sabres, wires and even hairs stretched across the stage; they turned around on the edges of large glasses, crossed bamboo ladders, dispersed into all the corners, and produced strange musical effects by the combination of their various pitches of tone. The jugglers tossed them in the air, threw them like shuttlecocks with wooden battledores, and yet they kept on spinning; they put them into their pockets, and took them out still whirling as before. It is useless to describe the astonishing performances of the acrobats and gymnasts. The turning on ladders, poles, balls, barrels, &c., was executed with wonderful precision. But the principal attraction was the exhibition of the Long Noses, a show to which Europe is as yet a stranger. The Long Noses form a peculiar company, under the direct patronage of the god Tingou. Attired after the fashion of the Middle Ages, they bore upon their shoulders a splendid pair of wings; but what especially distinguished them was the long noses which were fastened to their faces, and the uses which they made of them. These noses were made of bamboo, and were five, six, and even ten feet long, some straight, others curved, some ribboned, and some having imitation warts upon them. It was upon these appendages, fixed tightly on their real noses, that they performed their gymnastic exercises. A dozen of these sectaries of Tingou lay flat upon their backs, while others, dressed to represent lightning-rods, came and frolicked on their noses, jumping from one to another, and performing the most skilful leapings and somersaults. As a last scene, a “human pyramid” had been announced, in which fifty Long Noses were to represent the Car of Juggernaut. But, instead of forming a pyramid by mounting each other’s shoulders, the artists were to group themselves on top of the noses. It happened that the performer who had hitherto formed the base of the Car had quitted the troupe, and as, to fill this part, only strength and adroitness were necessary, Passepartout had been chosen to take his place. The poor fellow really felt sad when—melancholy reminiscence of his youth!—he donned his costume, adorned with vari-coloured wings, and fastened to his natural feature a false nose six feet long. But he cheered up when he thought that this nose was winning him something to eat. He went upon the stage, and took his place beside the rest who were to compose the base of the Car of Juggernaut. They all stretched themselves on the floor, their noses pointing to the ceiling. A second group of artists disposed themselves on these long appendages, then a third above these, then a fourth, until a human monument reaching to the very cornices of the theatre soon arose on top of the noses. This elicited loud applause, in the midst of which the orchestra was just striking up a deafening air, when the pyramid tottered, the balance was lost, one of the lower noses vanished from the pyramid, and the human monument was shattered like a castle built of cards! It was Passepartout’s fault. Abandoning his position, clearing the footlights without the aid of his wings, and, clambering up to the right-hand gallery, he fell at the feet of one of the spectators, crying, “Ah, my master! my master!” “You here?” “Myself.” “Very well; then let us go to the steamer, young man!” Mr. Fogg, Aouda, and Passepartout passed through the lobby of the theatre to the outside, where they encountered the Honourable Mr. Batulcar, furious with rage. He demanded damages for the “breakage” of the pyramid; and Phileas Fogg appeased him by giving him a handful of banknotes. At half-past six, the very hour of departure, Mr. Fogg and Aouda, followed by Passepartout, who in his hurry had retained his wings, and nose six feet long, stepped upon the American steamer. 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. Jules Verne (1994). Around the World in Eighty Days. Urbana, Illinois: Project Gutenberg. Retrieved October 2022 https://www.gutenberg.org/files/103/103-h/103-h.htm 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

IN WHICH PASSEPARTOUT’S NOSE BECOMES OUTRAGEOUSLY LONG

The founding fathers of America risked everything in the idea of freedom, limited government, and individual responsibility. I could go on for a long time about the parallels of the American Revolution and the digital revolution that's unfolding before our eyes, not from a contentious standpoint but a revolution, nonetheless. At the forefront of the digital revolution are the platforms and protocols that like the founding fathers reward and encourage freedom, equality, and individual responsibility. Insert , A banking protocol building on the Cardano Blockchain. MELD as a protocol is designed to enhance financial access and freedom. MELD Meld is a lending and borrowing protocol, which helps digital asset holders leverage the value of their holdings without selling them. Users can borrow up to 50% LTV (loan to Value) allowing them to unlock value while keeping a long position in their assets. Meld can also help citizens of developing nations escape being tied to weakening fiat currencies. I see playing a large role in financial inclusion in the following ways: MELD Allowing the public, the same access to financial instruments that institutions and accredited investors have. Ability to escape being tied to weakening fiat currencies with exposure to Gold Backed stable coins on the MELD protocol Financial services accessibility for the 1.7 billion Unbanked in the world. This includes Interest, savings, ability to provide liquidity, and earn yield doing so. Access to the MELD app through mobile carriers through direct partnerships like Tingo Mobile ISPO Meld decided to undertake a funding model in early July known as an Initial Stake Pool Offering. At its peak, the ISPO had over $1 billion USD in contributions locked in staking pools where delegators would be rewarded in MELD tokens. With almost 40,000 participants, the ISPO successfully generated funding which will be used to build out accessible new financial services for the 2 billion people in the world who are underbanked. Gold Backed Stable Coin Chairman Ken Olling announced plans to develop a stablecoin in an attempt to enable accessibility of a stable-backed asset for the developing world. This will allow users to store savings in the world reserve currency and not be pegged to dwindling value local fiat currencies. “The goal here is simplicity and clarity. Gold will be stored in a vault, tokenized and then fractionalized and divided so we can sell it” stated KEN Olling, the Chairman of MELD. - MELD and Vent Finance are building the ADAmatic bridge.  "The objective is to leverage the highly scalable and efficient infrastructure that Polygon and Cardano are providing, to support the creation of business opportunities that will benefit from cross-chain liquidity enabled by the ADAmatic bridge. DeFi projects on Polygon have been growing at a staggering rate and Cardano already has an ecosystem of up-and-coming projects that are ready to roll out as soon as smart contracts are live. We strongly believe that these ecosystems will become the powerhouse of DeFi and are confident that ADAmatic will play a key role in enabling cross-chain functionality for these dApps, like for projects launching on the VentUp Launchpad or the MELDed Assets service." Multi Chain Said Stuart Hollinger/Marketing manager of MELD. Meld has Successfully launched On January 30th, 2022, The ISPO Airdrop serviced nearly 40,000 people in under 90 minutes. The MELD app launched on January 31st, 2022.  With lending and borrowing still to come, users can connect their wallets to the app and have staking capability. MELD staking Currently, users can stake their MELD in 2 different pools, with flex staking coming soon 6 Month Pool with 12% APY 12 Month Pool with 15% APY Where can users currently buy MELD ? Museliswap Sundae Swap Bitrue FMFW I spoke earlier on the digital revolution unfolding before our eyes. I'm a strong believer that Dapps designed to utilize fiat will expedite adoption. For the normal person, this optically feels better and is much easier to use. For me, the true merit of MELD is giving the freedom of financial services to the Unbanked and underbanked. Imagine finding a " new world " of opportunity instead of needing to cross an ocean to get there, you only need internet access. Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of financial inclusion. That's . MELD

MELD a Banking protocol the founding fathers could get behind 

A New Paradigm For The Internet, Cryptography, Blockchain, And Online Societies 

The evolution of photo and video sharing platforms, like the ubiquitous Instagram, has been full of innovations and annoyances. From basic filters to complex AR face-changing features to the inclusion of video, then live-streaming and broadcasting, the evolution of social media content sharing has moved at breakneck speed. Along with changes in the medium and its immediacy, we've also seen innovations in monetization opportunities for creators. Long gone are the days of a simple banner ad below a YouTube video. Now, many social media platforms offer creators the instant gratification of being paid virtual gifts in return for their efforts. And, of course, the global pandemic has seen a huge spike in the use of virtual ways to connect with others, . spawning new apps and pivoting others I first saw this in action within the LiveMe broadcasting app, where broadcasters could receive everything from a simple "clap hands" emoji or a virtual latte to a fully animated 3D castle or humungous diamond. Gifts are converted to diamonds, and around 20,000 diamonds earn you a $50 payout. Ranked in the Top 5 Breakout Social Apps by Consumer Spend according to App Annie, - a social platform for live video broadcasting - similarly allows creators of all sizes to stream live content and receive gifts as a reward. As with other similar platforms, viewers purchase coins to reward "Livers" with virtual gifts in real-time. Livers can also engage in live games and competitions, prompting coin rewards for both themself and the winning viewers. Tango As with LiveMe, the addition of gifting in Tik Tok and Instagram Live it's not a new idea, but it is growing in prominence, and the numbers offer a compelling reason. Apps that feature live streaming as a core component accounted for $3 of every $4 spent in the top 25 social apps worldwide in 2021. Social media platform monetization is projected to grow in general, with global consumers expected to spend $78 billion on social apps through 2025, as forecasted by mobile data firm App Annie. This development will offer vast possibilities for live streamers to monetize their content. So what makes Tango different from the existing gift-enabled live broadcasting platforms? "In 2009, Tango invented the first mobile cross-platform, cross-network video chat platform," Uri Raz, CEO at Tango, told me. "We have over 35 patents and are number one for video quality in the industry. In addition, we are the only 'western company' with a western brand (UI) and all-in-one global content, engagement, and gamification tools." And for consumers on this side of the planet, that last point is essential and the first point of focus for the company - geography. In particular, China and Asia are swamped with similar platforms. Still, many have not been localized for anyone that doesn't speak Mandarin, Cantonese, Japanese, Korean, or other Asian languages. "The western market is a largely expanding space for live-streaming and User-Generated Content," Raz said. "With the ads business model shrinking and users growing tired of being blatantly monetized, social networks will quickly move to other monetization models. Tango already has a headstart in the Western market, and we are positioned to be at the forefront of this growth and change." Unlike Instagram, which it could be argued has started to become unwieldy compared to its humble (and easy to use) origins, there's another area of priority that is important to Tango's success - feature focus. "Tango is 'only live, always live,'" Raz said. "It is not simply a feature, but our main product. With no ads and minimal marketing, we function on micro-transactions that support micro-influencers to generate a real creator's economy in a 5G world. Consumers aren't constantly bombarded with ads and pop-ups, making for a more seamless and engaging user experience. Removing the traditional monetization model opens up a lot more room for connection, community, and uninterrupted entertainment." Tango already has more than 10 million registered users, and a total of 25 million hours of live content was streamed throughout 2021. Over 500,000 people use it daily, turning live connections into microtransactions. Indeed, it recently celebrated the first Tango-made millionaire in December of 2021 who, like other creators, is directly supported by their fanbase. Tango is another in a long line of "unicorns" coming out of Tel Aviv. So what's next for the live broadcasting app? "Tango is an agile and innovative company," Raz said. "We create engagement tools for our users to unlock their creativity and earn more, without direct consumer monetization. For example, we recently launched an NFT-like pilot with unique digital Tango Cards that have become very successful on the platform. We are continuing to roll out our NFT Marketplace so that, in addition to broadcasting live, our users can sell and trade their digital assets in the app. We will continue to lead the industry through change, always with the goal of fostering our Tango community in mind." This article originally appeared on Grit Daily and is reproduced with permission.

Live-streaming Unicorn Tango Shows how Focus can be the Difference

How Our Disentangled Learning Framework Tackles Lifelong Learning Challenges

Mankind's previously recognized rights, such as the privacy of even our innermost thoughts, will become an artifact of history if we don't consider how to protect ourselves against AI managed by corporations and governments. Researchers have used AI to decode images and strings of text seen by volunteers, as well as stories they hear or imagine. The technology–based on EEG, MEG, and fMRI machines–is still nascent. Nonetheless, its quick evolution underscores the urgent need for a renewed emphasis on human freedom and dignity, especially as it pertains to mind-reading and privacy. Our Thought Privacy Is On The Line In the not-too-distant future, tinfoil hats could become a fashion trend out of necessity; that is if we don't put proper AI standards and practices into place. There are two main approaches to managing the risk posed by mind-reading technology intruding on our thoughts, and they complement one another. The first way is called embedded ethics, which brings ethical reasoning to computer science and technology. This might work in various manners. For instance, perhaps companies create ethics departments to see to it that ethical considerations are made as part of the process of launching new products or designing new software. (There is a purpose for that philosophy degree, it turns out, after all). Companies might, on their own, decide to integrate safeguards into neuro-devices during the design and production stage. The second way to curtail threats posed by AI entails lawmakers, officials, and other civil society actors working together to develop domestic laws and international standards to safeguard the thoughts in our heads. Harvard took a big step toward incorporating this approach into its educational practices by embedding ethicists into its computer science curriculum so developers could learn to think rationally about the ethics of technology. The recognition of mental privacy as an extension of good old-fashioned privacy, rather than a new right for which people must fight, is essential to help AI titans and lawmakers think about how to approach mind-reading AI. Lawmakers might consider legislation that requires informed consent (without coercion) when it comes to brain data. Moreover, data protection laws should make it clear that mental data falls under the category of sensitive personal information. Mental Privacy Is Central To Individuals and Society Presently, mind-reading technology requires the cooperation of individuals who are able to resist the technology’s mind-reading capabilities at present–but that is ever so quickly changing as the world undergoes an AI revolution. State actors could one day commandeer the technology to obtain information from interrogees. In the novel 1984 by George Orwell, protagonists Winston and Julia both believe that the thoughts in their minds are free from the all-pervasive surveillance in their reality. “They can make you say anything–anything–but they can't make you believe it,” Julia tells Winston. Winston believes that “with all their cleverness, they had never mastered the secret of finding out what another human being was thinking.” Toward the end of the book, Julia and Winston learn the state can, in fact, read the minds of its subjects as O’Brien, Winston's captor, can recite Winston’s thoughts right back to him, like when Winston feared his backbone might snap. “You are afraid,” says O'Brien while keeping his eyes focused on Winston, “that in another moment, something is going to break. Your special fear is that it will be your backbone.” There are other instances where Orwell illustrates mind-reading capabilities in the hands of evil. “Then why bother to torture me?” Winston wonders bitterly. Orwell writes: O'Brien checked his step as though Winston had uttered the thought aloud. “You are thinking," he said, "that since we intend to destroy you utterly so that nothing that you say or do can make the smallest difference--in that case, why do we go about the trouble of interrogating you first? That is what you were thinking, was it not?" Winston: "Yes.” Our freedom depends on our inner cognition being our own and available to no one else. A dual approach of embedded ethics and jurisprudence will be key to safeguarding the future of our precious human rights on Earth. Mankind's previously recognized rights, such as the privacy of even our innermost thoughts, will become an artifact of history if we don't consider how to protect ourselves against AI managed by corporations and governments. Researchers have used AI to decode images and strings of text seen by volunteers, as well as stories they hear or imagine. decode The technology–based on EEG, MEG, and fMRI machines–is still nascent. Nonetheless, its quick evolution underscores the urgent need for a renewed emphasis on human freedom and dignity, especially as it pertains to mind-reading and privacy. Our Thought Privacy Is On The Line Our Thought Privacy Is On The Line In the not-too-distant future, tinfoil hats could become a fashion trend out of necessity; that is if we don't put proper AI standards and practices into place. There are two main approaches to managing the risk posed by mind-reading technology intruding on our thoughts, and they complement one another. The first way is called embedded ethics, which brings ethical reasoning to computer science and technology. This might work in various manners. For instance, perhaps companies create ethics departments to see to it that ethical considerations are made as part of the process of launching new products or designing new software. (There is a purpose for that philosophy degree, it turns out, after all). Companies might, on their own, decide to integrate safeguards into neuro-devices during the design and production stage. The second way to curtail threats posed by AI entails lawmakers, officials, and other civil society actors working together to develop domestic laws and international standards to safeguard the thoughts in our heads. Harvard took a big step toward incorporating this approach into its educational practices by embedding ethicists into its computer science curriculum so developers could learn to think rationally about the ethics of technology. The recognition of mental privacy as an extension of good old-fashioned privacy, rather than a new right for which people must fight, is essential to help AI titans and lawmakers think about how to approach mind-reading AI. Lawmakers might consider legislation that requires informed consent (without coercion) when it comes to brain data. Moreover, data protection laws should make it clear that mental data falls under the category of sensitive personal information. Mental Privacy Is Central To Individuals and Society Mental Privacy Is Central To Individuals and Society Presently, mind-reading technology requires the cooperation of individuals who are able to resist the technology’s mind-reading capabilities at present–but that is ever so quickly changing as the world undergoes an AI revolution. State actors could one day commandeer the technology to obtain information from interrogees. In the novel 1984 by George Orwell, protagonists Winston and Julia both believe that the thoughts in their minds are free from the all-pervasive surveillance in their reality. believe “They can make you say anything–anything–but they can't make you believe it,” Julia tells Winston. Winston believes that “with all their cleverness, they had never mastered the secret of finding out what another human being was thinking.” Toward the end of the book, Julia and Winston learn the state can, in fact, read the minds of its subjects as O’Brien, Winston's captor, can recite Winston’s thoughts right back to him, like when Winston feared his backbone might snap. “You are afraid,” says O'Brien while keeping his eyes focused on Winston, “that in another moment, something is going to break. Your special fear is that it will be your backbone.” There are other instances where Orwell illustrates mind-reading capabilities in the hands of evil. “Then why bother to torture me?” Winston wonders bitterly. Orwell writes: O'Brien checked his step as though Winston had uttered the thought aloud. O'Brien checked his step as though Winston had uttered the thought aloud. “You are thinking," he said, "that since we intend to destroy you utterly so that nothing that you say or do can make the smallest difference--in that case, why do we go about the trouble of interrogating you first? That is what you were thinking, was it not?" “You are thinking," he said, "that since we intend to destroy you utterly so that nothing that you say or do can make the smallest difference--in that case, why do we go about the trouble of interrogating you first? That is what you were thinking, was it not?" Winston: "Yes.” Winston: "Yes.” Our freedom depends on our inner cognition being our own and available to no one else. A dual approach of embedded ethics and jurisprudence will be key to safeguarding the future of our precious human rights on Earth.

How To Stop Mind Reading AI From Invading Our Thought Privacy

SEC v. Ripple Labs, Inc., Court Filing, retrieved on August 05, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part of this filing here. This part is 3 of 5. II. Disgorgement A. Legal Standard In addition to injunctive relief, a district court may also order disgorgement, which “serves to remedy securities law violations by depriving violators of the fruits of their illegal conduct.” SEC v. Contorinis, 743 F.3d 296, 301 (2d Cir. 2014). Disgorgement is an equitable remedy, permissible only where it “does not exceed a wrongdoer’s net profits and is awarded for victims.” Liu v. SEC, 591 U.S. 71, 75 (2020). [6] Following Liu, the Second Circuit clarified the meaning of “victims” in SEC v. Govil, 86 F.4th 89 (2d Cir. 2023). There, the defendant caused his company “to engage in three fraudulent securities offerings,” representing to investors that the company “would use the proceeds from the transactions to satisfy outstanding debts and for general corporate purposes.” Id. at 93. “Instead, he diverted over $7.3 million of the offering proceeds to his own private accounts.” Id. The district court determined that disgorgement was warranted, reasoning that the defrauded investors were victims of the defendant’s conduct because they were lied to, even if they “may not have been financially harmed” as a result of the lie. Id. at 97. The Second Circuit reversed, holding that “a ‘victim’ for purposes of § 78u(d)(5) is one who suffers pecuniary harm from the securities fraud.” Id. at 102. The Circuit explained that an equitable remedy is meant to “restore[] the status quo”—in the context of disgorgement, by “returning the funds to victims.” Id. at 103 (quoting Liu, 591 U.S. at 80, 88) (cleaned up). Allowing “defrauded investors who suffered no pecuniary harm . . . to receive the proceeds of disgorgement,” the Circuit reasoned, would “confer[] a windfall on those who received the benefit of the bargain.” Id. at 103. Therefore, for purposes of ordering disgorgement, it is not enough that investors are lied to and “thus denied the right to make an informed decision when considering whether to make [an] investment.” Id. at 105. “[O]ffending that right” does not result in pecuniary harm.” Id. (citing Ciminelli v. United States, 598 U.S. 306, 315 (2023)) B. Application The parties dispute whether the Circuit’s decision in Govil bars disgorgement of Ripple’s profits from Institutional Sales. The Court finds that it does. The SEC contends that ordering disgorgement would not run afoul of Govil because Ripple’s violation of Section 5, via “entirely tainted transactions, caused pecuniary harm to investors.” SEC Mem. at 17. Specifically, the SEC argues that Ripple sold XRP to certain Institutional Buyers at “deep undisclosed discounts” as high as [redacted]. Id. at 18. Because Ripple failed to publicly register these discounted Institutional Sales, the SEC argues, “non-favored investors” were deprived of “the information they needed to determine whether Ripple was treating them worse and whether they could purchase [] XRP at a better price.” Id. The SEC estimates that if Ripple had disclosed its “significant discounts to other investors,” non-favored investors could have saved “potentially more than [redacted].” Id. at 19–20. The SEC further contends that the discounted sales caused pecuniary harm by “put[ting] downward pressure on the market price of XRP,” as investors who bought discounted XRP could sell for below-market prices and still profit. Id. at 20. Govil forecloses this argument. The SEC contends that Ripple “appears to have not uniformly disclosed the disparate prices and discounts offered” to Institutional Buyers. Id. at 18. The Circuit held, however, that “the right to make an informed decision when considering whether to make [an] investment” is not a property interest that can be vindicated through disgorgement. Govil, 86 F.4th at 105. As Ripple argues, many of the Govil investors would have likely been dissuaded from investing—or, at least, valued the shares at a lower price—had they known that the company’s founder intended to pocket the funds for his own use. See Ripple Opp. at 20. Yet the Circuit found that the pecuniary-harm requirement was not satisfied, as the district court acknowledged that “the investors received the return on the investment contemplated at the outset.” Govil, 86 F.4th at 105. Here, the SEC offers only speculative evidence that the Institutional Buyers did not “receive[] the return on the investment contemplated.” Id; see also id. at 104 n.16 (noting that “whether the investors actually suffered pecuniary harm would depend on the type of securities held, the terms of those securities, and when those securities were sold,” a level of detail missing from the record in Govil). The SEC’s [redacted] estimate of lost potential savings comes from an analysis conducted by SEC accountant Andrea Fox, who calculated “how much less Institutional Buyers in the aggregate would have paid for XRP if the best price offered to Institutional Buyers had been obtained by every Institutional Buyer.”[7] Fox Decl. ¶ 34, ECF No. 946. But, the SEC does not (and cannot) establish that Ripple would have, in fact, offered any additional discounts to investors had it complied with Section 5’s registration requirements. It is possible that some investors “could have demanded and potentially paid lower prices.” SEC Mem. at 18. Yet, it is at least equally possible that Ripple would have opted to offer fewer and smaller discounts overall. Cf. id. at 17 (explaining that “unregistered shares . . . are [generally] worth less” than their registered counterparts). The fact that some investors “may have been able to negotiate better deals if discounts [offered to others] were disclosed as required,” SEC Mem. at 19, does not establish that they suffered pecuniary harm by paying the sticker price. Cf. Dura Pharms., Inc. v. Broudo, 544 U.S. 336, 342 (2005) (noting that in fraud-on-the-market cases, “an inflated purchase price will not itself constitute or proximately cause the relevant economic loss”).[8] Relying on SEC v. Ahmed, 72 F.4th 379 (2d Cir. 2023), the SEC also argues that disgorgement is appropriate because Ripple’s failure to disclose the discounts “tainted” each of the Institutional Sales. SEC Reply at 9, ECF No. 961. In Ahmed, the investment-manager defendant “stole over $65 million” from his employer and ten portfolio companies, including by negotiating transactions in which he had an undisclosed conflict of interest. 72 F.4th at 390. The Second Circuit found that the conflicted transactions were “entirely tainted,” holding that the defendant was obligated to disgorge the full amount he received. Id. at 397. But the Circuit’s inquiry into the permissible amount of disgorgement sheds little light on the threshold question here: whether the SEC has shown pecuniary harm at all such that disgorgement is warranted. In Ahmed, which involved the defendant’s knowing misappropriation of millions of dollars from his employer, there was no question that the employer had suffered an economic loss. See id. at 390–91. Here, pecuniary harm is far less apparent. Because binding Circuit precedent precludes disgorgement based on the facts of this case, the SEC’s request for disgorgement and prejudgment interest[9] is DENIED. Continue Reading Here. About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings.
This court case retrieved on August 07, 2024, dropbox.com is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. [6] Six months after Liu, “Congress enacted § 78u(d)(7), which “gives the SEC the power to ‘seek’ and federal courts the power to ‘order’ the remedy of ‘disgorgement.’” SEC v. Govil, 86 F.4th 89, 99–100 (2d Cir. 2023) (discussing 15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(7)). The Second Circuit has interpreted § 78u(d)(7) to limit disgorgement to the bounds established by the Supreme Court’s decision in Liu. Id. at 102 (citing SEC v. Ahmed, 72 F.4th 379, 396 (2d Cir. 2023)). But see SEC v. Hallam, 42 F.4th 316, 338 (5th Cir. 2022) (holding that “Section 78u(d) authorizes disgorgement in a legal—not equitable—sense.”). [7] Ripple separately moves to strike Fox’s declaration and supporting exhibits, arguing that they were filed late. ECF No. 951; see ECF Nos. 959, 960. In light of the Court’s finding that no disgorgement is permitted, the motion is DENIED as moot. [8] The SEC’s sole authority to the contrary, SEC v. iFresh, Inc., No. 22 Civ. 3200, 2024 WL 416709 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 5, 2024), is an unpublished district court opinion that found (without analysis) the fact that stock prices were artificially inflated sufficient to establish pecuniary harm. Id. at *3; see SEC Reply at 9, ECF No. 961. That case— involving a consent order—required the district court to accept the SEC’s allegations of stock price inflation as true. iFresh, Inc., 2024 WL 416709 at *3. [9] “[T]he amount on which a violator must pay prejudgment interest usually tracks the amount that the party is ordered to disgorge.” Contorinis, 743 F.3d at 308. SEC v. Ripple Labs, Inc., Court Filing, retrieved on August 05, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part of this filing here. This part is 3 of 5. SEC v. Ripple Labs, Inc., Court Filing, retrieved on August 05, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series . You can jump to any part of this filing here . This part is 3 of 5. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here II. Disgorgement A. Legal Standard A. Legal Standard In addition to injunctive relief, a district court may also order disgorgement, which “serves to remedy securities law violations by depriving violators of the fruits of their illegal conduct.” SEC v. Contorinis, 743 F.3d 296, 301 (2d Cir. 2014). Disgorgement is an equitable remedy, permissible only where it “does not exceed a wrongdoer’s net profits and is awarded for victims.” Liu v. SEC, 591 U.S. 71, 75 (2020). [6] Following Liu, the Second Circuit clarified the meaning of “victims” in SEC v. Govil, 86 F.4th 89 (2d Cir. 2023). There, the defendant caused his company “to engage in three fraudulent securities offerings,” representing to investors that the company “would use the proceeds from the transactions to satisfy outstanding debts and for general corporate purposes.” Id. at 93. “Instead, he diverted over $7.3 million of the offering proceeds to his own private accounts.” Id. The district court determined that disgorgement was warranted, reasoning that the defrauded investors were victims of the defendant’s conduct because they were lied to, even if they “may not have been financially harmed” as a result of the lie. Id. at 97. The Second Circuit reversed, holding that “a ‘victim’ for purposes of § 78u(d)(5) is one who suffers pecuniary harm from the securities fraud.” Id. at 102. The Circuit explained that an equitable remedy is meant to “restore[] the status quo”—in the context of disgorgement, by “returning the funds to victims.” Id. at 103 (quoting Liu, 591 U.S. at 80, 88) (cleaned up). Allowing “defrauded investors who suffered no pecuniary harm . . . to receive the proceeds of disgorgement,” the Circuit reasoned, would “confer[] a windfall on those who received the benefit of the bargain.” Id. at 103. Therefore, for purposes of ordering disgorgement, it is not enough that investors are lied to and “thus denied the right to make an informed decision when considering whether to make [an] investment.” Id. at 105. “[O]ffending that right” does not result in pecuniary harm.” Id. (citing Ciminelli v. United States, 598 U.S. 306, 315 (2023)) B. Application B. Application The parties dispute whether the Circuit’s decision in Govil bars disgorgement of Ripple’s profits from Institutional Sales. The Court finds that it does. The SEC contends that ordering disgorgement would not run afoul of Govil because Ripple’s violation of Section 5, via “entirely tainted transactions, caused pecuniary harm to investors.” SEC Mem. at 17. Specifically, the SEC argues that Ripple sold XRP to certain Institutional Buyers at “deep undisclosed discounts” as high as [redacted]. Id. at 18. Because Ripple failed to publicly register these discounted Institutional Sales, the SEC argues, “non-favored investors” were deprived of “the information they needed to determine whether Ripple was treating them worse and whether they could purchase [] XRP at a better price.” Id. The SEC estimates that if Ripple had disclosed its “significant discounts to other investors,” non-favored investors could have saved “potentially more than [redacted].” Id. at 19–20. The SEC further contends that the discounted sales caused pecuniary harm by “put[ting] downward pressure on the market price of XRP,” as investors who bought discounted XRP could sell for below-market prices and still profit. Id. at 20. Govil forecloses this argument. The SEC contends that Ripple “appears to have not uniformly disclosed the disparate prices and discounts offered” to Institutional Buyers. Id. at 18. The Circuit held, however, that “the right to make an informed decision when considering whether to make [an] investment” is not a property interest that can be vindicated through disgorgement. Govil, 86 F.4th at 105. As Ripple argues, many of the Govil investors would have likely been dissuaded from investing—or, at least, valued the shares at a lower price—had they known that the company’s founder intended to pocket the funds for his own use. See Ripple Opp. at 20. Yet the Circuit found that the pecuniary-harm requirement was not satisfied, as the district court acknowledged that “the investors received the return on the investment contemplated at the outset.” Govil, 86 F.4th at 105. Here, the SEC offers only speculative evidence that the Institutional Buyers did not “receive[] the return on the investment contemplated.” Id; see also id. at 104 n.16 (noting that “whether the investors actually suffered pecuniary harm would depend on the type of securities held, the terms of those securities, and when those securities were sold,” a level of detail missing from the record in Govil). The SEC’s [redacted] estimate of lost potential savings comes from an analysis conducted by SEC accountant Andrea Fox, who calculated “how much less Institutional Buyers in the aggregate would have paid for XRP if the best price offered to Institutional Buyers had been obtained by every Institutional Buyer.”[7] Fox Decl. ¶ 34, ECF No. 946. But, the SEC does not (and cannot) establish that Ripple would have, in fact, offered any additional discounts to investors had it complied with Section 5’s registration requirements. It is possible that some investors “could have demanded and potentially paid lower prices.” SEC Mem. at 18. Yet, it is at least equally possible that Ripple would have opted to offer fewer and smaller discounts overall. Cf. id. at 17 (explaining that “unregistered shares . . . are [generally] worth less” than their registered counterparts). The fact that some investors “may have been able to negotiate better deals if discounts [offered to others] were disclosed as required,” SEC Mem. at 19, does not establish that they suffered pecuniary harm by paying the sticker price. Cf. Dura Pharms., Inc. v. Broudo, 544 U.S. 336, 342 (2005) (noting that in fraud-on-the-market cases, “an inflated purchase price will not itself constitute or proximately cause the relevant economic loss”).[8] Relying on SEC v. Ahmed, 72 F.4th 379 (2d Cir. 2023), the SEC also argues that disgorgement is appropriate because Ripple’s failure to disclose the discounts “tainted” each of the Institutional Sales. SEC Reply at 9, ECF No. 961. In Ahmed, the investment-manager defendant “stole over $65 million” from his employer and ten portfolio companies, including by negotiating transactions in which he had an undisclosed conflict of interest. 72 F.4th at 390. The Second Circuit found that the conflicted transactions were “entirely tainted,” holding that the defendant was obligated to disgorge the full amount he received. Id. at 397. But the Circuit’s inquiry into the permissible amount of disgorgement sheds little light on the threshold question here: whether the SEC has shown pecuniary harm at all such that disgorgement is warranted. In Ahmed, which involved the defendant’s knowing misappropriation of millions of dollars from his employer, there was no question that the employer had suffered an economic loss. See id. at 390–91. Here, pecuniary harm is far less apparent. Because binding Circuit precedent precludes disgorgement based on the facts of this case, the SEC’s request for disgorgement and prejudgment interest[9] is DENIED. Continue Reading Here. Continue Reading Here . Here About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved on August 07, 2024, dropbox.com is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved on August 07, 2024, dropbox.com is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. dropbox.com [6] Six months after Liu, “Congress enacted § 78u(d)(7), which “gives the SEC the power to ‘seek’ and federal courts the power to ‘order’ the remedy of ‘disgorgement.’” SEC v. Govil, 86 F.4th 89, 99–100 (2d Cir. 2023) (discussing 15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(7)). The Second Circuit has interpreted § 78u(d)(7) to limit disgorgement to the bounds established by the Supreme Court’s decision in Liu. Id. at 102 (citing SEC v. Ahmed, 72 F.4th 379, 396 (2d Cir. 2023)). But see SEC v. Hallam, 42 F.4th 316, 338 (5th Cir. 2022) (holding that “Section 78u(d) authorizes disgorgement in a legal—not equitable—sense.”). [7] Ripple separately moves to strike Fox’s declaration and supporting exhibits, arguing that they were filed late. ECF No. 951; see ECF Nos. 959, 960. In light of the Court’s finding that no disgorgement is permitted, the motion is DENIED as moot. [8] The SEC’s sole authority to the contrary, SEC v. iFresh, Inc., No. 22 Civ. 3200, 2024 WL 416709 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 5, 2024), is an unpublished district court opinion that found (without analysis) the fact that stock prices were artificially inflated sufficient to establish pecuniary harm. Id. at *3; see SEC Reply at 9, ECF No. 961. That case— involving a consent order—required the district court to accept the SEC’s allegations of stock price inflation as true. iFresh, Inc., 2024 WL 416709 at *3. [9] “[T]he amount on which a violator must pay prejudgment interest usually tracks the amount that the party is ordered to disgorge.” Contorinis, 743 F.3d at 308.

Stories, News & Mentions about TINGO

Tingo’s Stories on HackerNoon