Volantio is a leader in travel technology software focused on revenue and capacity optimization for airlines

Volantio

volantio

Navigating Bitcoin’s Volatile Waters: Why Now Might Be the Right Time to Invest Bitcoin has always been a rollercoaster ride for investors. As we delve into the current landscape, it's essential to understand the factors driving Bitcoin's price and why now could be an opportune moment to consider investing. Mount Gox Repayments The fall of Mt. Gox, once the largest Bitcoin exchange, left a significant mark on the cryptocurrency world. Fast forward to today, the process of repaying creditors has begun. Over 142,000 BTC and 143,000 BCH are being released into the market, stirring fears of increased selling pressure. However, this event, while introducing short-term volatility, also symbolizes the closure of one of Bitcoin’s most infamous chapters, paving the way for a more stable and transparent market​ (Coin Telegraph). Germany’s Strategic BTC Sale In a parallel development, the German government is liquidating a substantial amount of Bitcoin seized from the illegal streaming site Movie2k.to. This sale has injected additional supply into the market, further contributing to price fluctuations. However, the strategic liquidation of these assets is part of a broader trend where governments are becoming more engaged with cryptocurrencies, understanding their value and potential​ (Coin Telegraph)​​. Navigating Election Year Adding to the complexity is the uncertainty brought by election years. Political changes and potential shifts in economic policy can impact market sentiment. While this introduces short-term volatility, it also underscores Bitcoin’s role as a hedge against traditional financial uncertainties. Investors often turn to Bitcoin during turbulent times, recognizing its potential to provide stability and growth amid economic fluctuations. The Nature of Bitcoin Bitcoin’s journey has always been characterized by its volatility. Large corrections are part of its nature, driven by profit-taking, macroeconomic factors, and significant market news. While this volatility can be daunting, it also presents opportunities for savvy investors to buy during dips and capitalize on future price increases. The Dawn of Bitcoin Spot ETFs The approval and launch of Bitcoin spot ETFs have brought a wave of institutional interest and investment. These ETFs offer a regulated and accessible way for investors to gain exposure to Bitcoin, driving substantial inflows and enhancing market liquidity. The success of these ETFs demonstrates growing confidence in Bitcoin’s legitimacy and long-term potential​ (CoinDesk)​​. Technological Advancements Bitcoin’s technological infrastructure is also evolving. Notably, Bitcoin side chains like Rootstock (RSK) are introducing smart contract capabilities to the Bitcoin ecosystem. Rootstock leverages Bitcoin’s security while enabling more complex transactions and decentralized applications. This integration of smart contracts on Bitcoin’s network enhances its functionality and opens up new use cases, making Bitcoin more versatile and practical for various applications (https://rootstock.io/powpeg/). Side chains are separate blockchains that are attached to the main Bitcoin blockchain. They enable the transfer of assets between the main chain and the side chain, allowing for greater flexibility and experimentation without affecting the main Bitcoin network. Side chains can host smart contracts, enable faster transactions, and introduce new features that enhance Bitcoin’s capabilities. Runes and Other Innovations In addition to side chains, innovations like Runes are pushing the boundaries of what Bitcoin can do. Runes are a new type of digital asset that can be used within the Bitcoin network to create more advanced financial instruments and decentralized applications. These technological advancements are making Bitcoin more competitive with other smart contract platforms and expanding its use cases beyond just a store of value or a medium of exchange. Embracing the Opportunity While Bitcoin faces a mix of challenges and opportunities, and while the price continues to struggle, reverting attention back to your core thesis behind Bitcoin is important. The resolution of long-standing issues like the Mt. Gox repayments, and the inherent volatility of Bitcoin all contribute to its volatility. However, with positive developments such as the launch of Bitcoin spot ETFs, increasing adoption by companies and countries, and continuous technological advancements like Bitcoin side chains with smart contracts and innovations like Runes, Bitcoin’s future looks promising. For investors, these factors suggest that now might be an opportune time to buy Bitcoin. By navigating the complexities and embracing the potential, investors can position themselves to benefit from Bitcoin’s enduring growth and transformative impact on the global financial system. Of course, this writing is not to be taken as financial advice; this piece is a call for those who may be doubting their decision to get involved in Bitcoin and crypto to zoom out and look at the bigger picture to understand that Bitcoin is fundamentally stronger than ever. Navigating Bitcoin’s Volatile Waters: Why Now Might Be the Right Time to Invest Bitcoin has always been a rollercoaster ride for investors. As we delve into the current landscape, it's essential to understand the factors driving Bitcoin's price and why now could be an opportune moment to consider investing. Mount Gox Repayments Mount Gox Repayments The fall of Mt. Gox, once the largest Bitcoin exchange, left a significant mark on the cryptocurrency world. Fast forward to today, the process of repaying creditors has begun. Over 142,000 BTC and 143,000 BCH are being released into the market, stirring fears of increased selling pressure. However, this event, while introducing short-term volatility, also symbolizes the closure of one of Bitcoin’s most infamous chapters, paving the way for a more stable and transparent market​ ( Coin Telegraph ). Coin Telegraph Germany’s Strategic BTC Sale Germany’s Strategic BTC Sale In a parallel development, the German government is liquidating a substantial amount of Bitcoin seized from the illegal streaming site Movie2k.to. This sale has injected additional supply into the market, further contributing to price fluctuations. However, the strategic liquidation of these assets is part of a broader trend where governments are becoming more engaged with cryptocurrencies, understanding their value and potential​ ( Coin Telegraph )​​. Coin Telegraph Navigating Election Year Navigating Election Year Adding to the complexity is the uncertainty brought by election years. Political changes and potential shifts in economic policy can impact market sentiment. While this introduces short-term volatility, it also underscores Bitcoin’s role as a hedge against traditional financial uncertainties. Investors often turn to Bitcoin during turbulent times, recognizing its potential to provide stability and growth amid economic fluctuations. The Nature of Bitcoin The Nature of Bitcoin Bitcoin’s journey has always been characterized by its volatility. Large corrections are part of its nature, driven by profit-taking, macroeconomic factors, and significant market news. While this volatility can be daunting, it also presents opportunities for savvy investors to buy during dips and capitalize on future price increases. The Dawn of Bitcoin Spot ETFs The Dawn of Bitcoin Spot ETFs The approval and launch of Bitcoin spot ETFs have brought a wave of institutional interest and investment. These ETFs offer a regulated and accessible way for investors to gain exposure to Bitcoin, driving substantial inflows and enhancing market liquidity. The success of these ETFs demonstrates growing confidence in Bitcoin’s legitimacy and long-term potential​ ( CoinDesk )​​. CoinDesk Technological Advancements Technological Advancements Bitcoin’s technological infrastructure is also evolving. Notably, Bitcoin side chains like Rootstock (RSK) are introducing smart contract capabilities to the Bitcoin ecosystem. Rootstock leverages Bitcoin’s security while enabling more complex transactions and decentralized applications. This integration of smart contracts on Bitcoin’s network enhances its functionality and opens up new use cases, making Bitcoin more versatile and practical for various applications ( https://rootstock.io/powpeg/ ). https://rootstock.io/powpeg/ Side chains are separate blockchains that are attached to the main Bitcoin blockchain. They enable the transfer of assets between the main chain and the side chain, allowing for greater flexibility and experimentation without affecting the main Bitcoin network. Side chains can host smart contracts, enable faster transactions, and introduce new features that enhance Bitcoin’s capabilities. Runes and Other Innovations In addition to side chains, innovations like Runes are pushing the boundaries of what Bitcoin can do. Runes are a new type of digital asset that can be used within the Bitcoin network to create more advanced financial instruments and decentralized applications. These technological advancements are making Bitcoin more competitive with other smart contract platforms and expanding its use cases beyond just a store of value or a medium of exchange. Embracing the Opportunity Embracing the Opportunity While Bitcoin faces a mix of challenges and opportunities, and while the price continues to struggle, reverting attention back to your core thesis behind Bitcoin is important. The resolution of long-standing issues like the Mt. Gox repayments, and the inherent volatility of Bitcoin all contribute to its volatility. However, with positive developments such as the launch of Bitcoin spot ETFs, increasing adoption by companies and countries, and continuous technological advancements like Bitcoin side chains with smart contracts and innovations like Runes, Bitcoin’s future looks promising. For investors, these factors suggest that now might be an opportune time to buy Bitcoin. By navigating the complexities and embracing the potential, investors can position themselves to benefit from Bitcoin’s enduring growth and transformative impact on the global financial system. Of course, this writing is not to be taken as financial advice; this piece is a call for those who may be doubting their decision to get involved in Bitcoin and crypto to zoom out and look at the bigger picture to understand that Bitcoin is fundamentally stronger than ever.

Navigating Bitcoin’s Volatile Waters

SEC v. Consensys Software Inc. Court Filing, retrieved on June 28, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part in this filing here. This part is 25 of 26. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, the Commission respectfully requests that the Court enter a Final Judgment: I. Permanently enjoining Defendant and its agents, servants, employees and attorneys and all persons in active concert or participation with any of them from violating, directly or indirectly, Securities Act Sections 5(a) and (c) [15 U.S.C. §§ 77e(a), 77e(c)] and Exchange Act Section 15(a) [15 U.S.C. § 78o(a)]. II. Ordering Defendant to pay civil monetary penalties under Securities Act Section 20(d) [15 U.S.C. § 77t(d)] and Exchange Act Section 21(d)(3) [15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(3)]; and III. Granting any other and further relief this Court may deem appropriate or necessary for the benefit of investors pursuant to Section 21(d)(5) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(5)]. 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 June 28, 2024, storage.courtlistener.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. SEC v. Consensys Software Inc. Court Filing, retrieved on June 28, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part in this filing here. This part is 25 of 26. SEC v. Consensys Software Inc. Court Filing, retrieved on June 28, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series . You can jump to any part in this filing here . This part is 25 of 26. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, the Commission respectfully requests that the Court enter a Final Judgment: I. Permanently enjoining Defendant and its agents, servants, employees and attorneys and all persons in active concert or participation with any of them from violating, directly or indirectly, Securities Act Sections 5(a) and (c) [15 U.S.C. §§ 77e(a), 77e(c)] and Exchange Act Section 15(a) [15 U.S.C. § 78o(a)]. II. Ordering Defendant to pay civil monetary penalties under Securities Act Section 20(d) [15 U.S.C. § 77t(d)] and Exchange Act Section 21(d)(3) [15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(3)]; and III. Granting any other and further relief this Court may deem appropriate or necessary for the benefit of investors pursuant to Section 21(d)(5) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(5)]. 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 June 28, 2024, storage.courtlistener.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 June 28, 2024, storage.courtlistener.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. storage.courtlistener.com

SEC Requests Court to Halt Consensys and Impose Fines Over Staking Program Violations

SEC v. Consensys Software Inc. Court Filing, retrieved on June 28, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part in this filing here. This part is 4 of 26. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 18. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, Sections 20(b), 20(d), and 22 of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 77t(b), 77t(d), and 77v], and Sections 21(d), 21(e), and 27 of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 78u(d), 78u(e), and 78aa]. 19. Defendant, directly and indirectly, has made use of the means or instrumentalities of interstate commerce or of the mails in connection with the transactions, acts, practices, and courses of business alleged herein. 20. Venue lies in this District under Securities Act Section 22(a) [15 U.S.C. § 77v(a)] and Exchange Act Section 27 [15 U.S.C. § 78aa]. Defendants may be found in, are inhabitants of, or transact business in the Eastern District of New York, and certain of the acts, practices, transactions, and courses of business alleged in this Complaint occurred within this District. Prior to February 2024, Consensys was based in Brooklyn, New York, and still maintains offices in Brooklyn. 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 June 28, 2024, storage.courtlistener.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. SEC v. Consensys Software Inc. Court Filing, retrieved on June 28, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part in this filing here. This part is 4 of 26. SEC v. Consensys Software Inc. Court Filing, retrieved on June 28, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series . You can jump to any part in this filing here . This part is 4 of 26. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here JURISDICTION AND VENUE 18. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, Sections 20(b), 20(d), and 22 of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 77t(b), 77t(d), and 77v], and Sections 21(d), 21(e), and 27 of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 78u(d), 78u(e), and 78aa]. 19. Defendant, directly and indirectly, has made use of the means or instrumentalities of interstate commerce or of the mails in connection with the transactions, acts, practices, and courses of business alleged herein. 20. Venue lies in this District under Securities Act Section 22(a) [15 U.S.C. § 77v(a)] and Exchange Act Section 27 [15 U.S.C. § 78aa]. Defendants may be found in, are inhabitants of, or transact business in the Eastern District of New York, and certain of the acts, practices, transactions, and courses of business alleged in this Complaint occurred within this District. Prior to February 2024, Consensys was based in Brooklyn, New York, and still maintains offices in Brooklyn. 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 June 28, 2024, storage.courtlistener.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 June 28, 2024, storage.courtlistener.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. storage.courtlistener.com

Consensys Faces Federal Court in NY Over Securities Violations

SEC v. Consensys Software Inc. Court Filing, retrieved on June 28, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part in this filing here. This part is 3 of 26. NATURE OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND RELIEF SOUGHT 16. The Commission brings this action pursuant to the authority conferred upon it by Securities Act Sections 20(b) and 20(d) [15 U.S.C. §§ 77t(b) and 77t(d)], and Exchange Act Section 21(d) [15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)]. 17. The Commission seeks a final judgment: (a) permanently enjoining Defendant from violating the federal securities laws this Complaint alleges it has violated; (b) ordering Defendant to pay civil money penalties pursuant to Securities Act Section 20(d) [15 U.S.C. § 77t(d)] and Exchange Act Section 21(d)(3) [15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(3)]; and (c) ordering any other and further relief, including equitable relief and other relief pursuant to Exchange Act Section 21(d) [15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)], the Court may deem just and proper. 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 June 28, 2024, storage.courtlistener.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. SEC v. Consensys Software Inc. Court Filing, retrieved on June 28, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part in this filing here. This part is 3 of 26. SEC v. Consensys Software Inc. Court Filing, retrieved on June 28, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series . You can jump to any part in this filing here . This part is 3 of 26. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here NATURE OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND RELIEF SOUGHT 16. The Commission brings this action pursuant to the authority conferred upon it by Securities Act Sections 20(b) and 20(d) [15 U.S.C. §§ 77t(b) and 77t(d)], and Exchange Act Section 21(d) [15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)]. 17. The Commission seeks a final judgment: (a) permanently enjoining Defendant from violating the federal securities laws this Complaint alleges it has violated; (b) ordering Defendant to pay civil money penalties pursuant to Securities Act Section 20(d) [15 U.S.C. § 77t(d)] and Exchange Act Section 21(d)(3) [15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(3)]; and (c) ordering any other and further relief, including equitable relief and other relief pursuant to Exchange Act Section 21(d) [15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)], the Court may deem just and proper. 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 June 28, 2024, storage.courtlistener.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 June 28, 2024, storage.courtlistener.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. storage.courtlistener.com

Civil Penalties Loom as SEC Pursues Consensys for Securities Violations

SEC v. Consensys Software Inc. Court Filing, retrieved on June 28, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part in this filing here. This part is 2 of 26. VIOLATIONS 13. By engaging in the conduct set forth in this Complaint, including the operation of its MetaMask Swaps and MetaMask Staking platforms, Consensys has acted as a broker, without registering as such, in violation of Section 15(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) [15 U.S.C. § 78o]. 14. In addition, through the MetaMask Staking program, Consensys has engaged in unregistered offers and sales of securities in violation of Sections 5(a) and (c) of the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”) [15 U.S.C. §§ 77e(a) and 77e(c)]. 15. Unless Defendant is restrained and enjoined, it will engage in the acts, practices, transactions, and courses of business set forth in this Complaint or in acts, practices, transactions, and courses of business of similar type and object. 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 June 28, 2024, storage.courtlistener.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. SEC v. Consensys Software Inc. Court Filing, retrieved on June 28, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part in this filing here. This part is 2 of 26. SEC v. Consensys Software Inc. Court Filing, retrieved on June 28, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series . You can jump to any part in this filing here . This part is 2 of 26. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here VIOLATIONS 13. By engaging in the conduct set forth in this Complaint, including the operation of its MetaMask Swaps and MetaMask Staking platforms, Consensys has acted as a broker, without registering as such, in violation of Section 15(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) [15 U.S.C. § 78o]. 14. In addition, through the MetaMask Staking program, Consensys has engaged in unregistered offers and sales of securities in violation of Sections 5(a) and (c) of the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”) [15 U.S.C. §§ 77e(a) and 77e(c)]. 15. Unless Defendant is restrained and enjoined, it will engage in the acts, practices, transactions, and courses of business set forth in this Complaint or in acts, practices, transactions, and courses of business of similar type and object. 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 June 28, 2024, storage.courtlistener.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 June 28, 2024, storage.courtlistener.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. storage.courtlistener.com

SEC Sues Consensys for Violations of Securities Exchange Act

In the world of UK FinTech, nothing stays still for long. Just when you think you’ve got the hang of the latest trend, the landscape shifts beneath your feet. From sky-high investments to Brexit-induced headaches, it’s been a whirlwind few years for Britain’s financial innovators. Investment Trends: Peaks and Valleys The last few years have been nothing short of a financial rollercoaster for the UK FinTech sector. Once the darling of the innovation economy, it’s now grappling with shrinking investments and a tough economic climate. According to innovatefinance.com, in 2023, global FinTech investment plummeted to $51.2 billion from $99 billion the previous year. The UK saw a significant drop, too, attracting just $5.1 billion compared to $14.6 billion in 2022. Forbes provides data for 2024: in the first quarter, British startups attracted $3.9 billion in investment, down from $4.8 billion the previous quarter. Early-stage pre-seed and seed funding accounted for $279 million of that total, while $769 million was raised in Series A rounds. This improvement in early-stage investment was a rare bright spot amidst the gloomy numbers. Jason Miles, founder of Payment Solutions Consultants in Britain, observed, “The overall market trends have shifted from stability to volatility.” He noted that in 2020 and 2021, capital raising was a breeze for FinTech firms. “If you had a good idea, you just raised some money and started to implement it,” he said. “Now, venture capitalists want a thorough business plan in place. They want to meet regularly.” Mr. Miles also mentioned increased scrutiny of FinTech teams, their backgrounds, and compliance records. This shift is attributed to rising interest rates, higher capital costs, and geopolitical uncertainties. A turbulent public market and inflation fears are also impacting capital raising. He highlighted that venture capitalists now often disburse funds in tranches, linking further investment to milestone achievements. Down rounds are becoming more common, where firms raise new capital at valuations lower than previous rounds. “There is a higher level of due diligence. Depending upon performance, you may see some down rounds of funding occurring,” added Mr Miles. The Other Hurdles for UK FinTech While businesses panicked over COVID-19, FinTech companies thrived in the new normal, benefiting from their digital-first approach. This period highlighted the fragility of legacy banking systems, which struggled with the shift online. FinTech firms, already digital-centric, capitalized on this shift, accelerating innovation and the adoption of digital financial solutions. However, it wasn't all smooth sailing — Brexit soon occurred, bringing with it a labyrinth of new regulations and licensing requirements for the FinTech industry. UK-based companies wanting to do business in Europe now need European licenses and must adhere to EU data storage and client norms. It’s a costly and complex endeavor, limiting the scalability of British FinTech firms. The ability of British FinTech companies to scale has weakened as access to EU markets is restricted. The forced relocation of parts of the business to the EU means a loss of revenue for the UK from FinTech companies. Major British FinTech companies are more inclined to merge with or acquire technology companies outside the UK, which could lead to a loss of potential investments in the coming years. As the online presence and number of FinTech services grow, the frequency and sophistication of cybercrimes are increasing proportionally.  A new wave began with the widespread adoption of AI – I wrote about this in the article “FinTech Wary as AI Fuels Financial Crime Surge.” The rise in cybercrime is pushing FinTech firms to up their game. FinTech companies are increasing their investments in cybersecurity, allocating more resources to the development and implementation of advanced protection technologies, staff training, and cyber threat monitoring. Machine learning and artificial intelligence are being deployed to detect abnormal behavior and prevent cyberattacks. Multi-factor authentication, including the use of biometric data and one-time passwords, is enhancing user security. Enhanced data protection measures, regular monitoring for data breaches, and strict security policies are becoming standard. According to the FinTech Payrow, financial companies are establishing partnerships with specialised cybersecurity firms and startups to gain access to advanced technologies and expertise in cybersecurity. The government has also taken measures to enhance data security, such as the introduction of the Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Act, which mandates that smart devices meet minimum security standards and provides security issue reporting contact details and update durations. Innovation Amidst Chaos Technology has always been the lifeblood of FinTech firms, enabling them to outpace traditional banks. Over the past five years, automation, AI integration, and niche products have become the norm. The digital transformation was more than a buzzword; it was a necessity. As consumers and businesses moved online, FinTech companies were ready with user-friendly interfaces, swift transactions, and low fees. Automation has streamlined operations, while AI has revolutionized service delivery and decision-making processes. Niche products tailored to specific customer needs have gained popularity, and open banking has made financial services more transparent. Technologies like IoT, AI, and Big Data are leading this era, with the sector’s value projected to reach between $11 to $17 trillion by 2030, according to reports from McKinsey. The Road Ahead In 2024, financial inclusion remains a key objective. As we forge ahead with the development of the Fintech industry, the barriers for startups are getting higher. To stay in the game, founders need to focus on building user-friendly products, forming smart partnerships, thinking about scalability, and being diligent about security and reputation. So, what can FinTech companies do to maintain and grow their customer base? Several ideas are thrown around in the article “Scaling FinTech Startups in 2024: Strategies and Challenges.” The suggestions include making the most of strategic alliances, building scalable solutions, focusing on security, reputation, and trust, prioritizing the customer experience, monetizing intelligently, and not being afraid to experiment. Regarding government support, the UK offers some unique perks for FinTech startups, including the Talent Visa and tax incentives such as EIS/SEIS. These measures provide substantial benefits to FinTech companies, founders, and employees during the early stages. However, low startup valuations compared to the US and a cautious stance from venture investors are not conducive to rapid growth in the UK FinTech sector. In the world of UK FinTech, nothing stays still for long. Just when you think you’ve got the hang of the latest trend, the landscape shifts beneath your feet. From sky-high investments to Brexit-induced headaches, it’s been a whirlwind few years for Britain’s financial innovators. Investment Trends: Peaks and Valleys The last few years have been nothing short of a financial rollercoaster for the UK FinTech sector. Once the darling of the innovation economy, it’s now grappling with shrinking investments and a tough economic climate. According to innovatefinance.com , in 2023, global FinTech investment plummeted to $51.2 billion from $99 billion the previous year. The UK saw a significant drop, too, attracting just $5.1 billion compared to $14.6 billion in 2022. innovatefinance.com innovatefinance.com Forbes provides data for 2024 : in the first quarter, British startups attracted $3.9 billion in investment, down from $4.8 billion the previous quarter. Early-stage pre-seed and seed funding accounted for $279 million of that total, while $769 million was raised in Series A rounds. This improvement in early-stage investment was a rare bright spot amidst the gloomy numbers. Forbes provides data for 2024 Forbes provides data for 2024 Jason Miles, founder of Payment Solutions Consultants in Britain, observed , “The overall market trends have shifted from stability to volatility.” He noted that in 2020 and 2021, capital raising was a breeze for FinTech firms. “If you had a good idea, you just raised some money and started to implement it,” he said. “Now, venture capitalists want a thorough business plan in place. They want to meet regularly.” Jason Miles, founder of Payment Solutions Consultants in Britain, observed Jason Miles, founder of Payment Solutions Consultants in Britain, observed Mr. Miles also mentioned increased scrutiny of FinTech teams, their backgrounds, and compliance records. This shift is attributed to rising interest rates, higher capital costs, and geopolitical uncertainties. A turbulent public market and inflation fears are also impacting capital raising. He highlighted that venture capitalists now often disburse funds in tranches, linking further investment to milestone achievements. Down rounds are becoming more common, where firms raise new capital at valuations lower than previous rounds. “There is a higher level of due diligence. Depending upon performance, you may see some down rounds of funding occurring,” added Mr Miles. The Other Hurdles for UK FinTech The Other Hurdles for UK FinTech While businesses panicked over COVID-19, FinTech companies thrived in the new normal, benefiting from their digital-first approach. This period highlighted the fragility of legacy banking systems, which struggled with the shift online. FinTech firms, already digital-centric, capitalized on this shift, accelerating innovation and the adoption of digital financial solutions. However, it wasn't all smooth sailing — Brexit soon occurred, bringing with it a labyrinth of new regulations and licensing requirements for the FinTech industry. UK-based companies wanting to do business in Europe now need European licenses and must adhere to EU data storage and client norms. It’s a costly and complex endeavor, limiting the scalability of British FinTech firms. The ability of British FinTech companies to scale has weakened as access to EU markets is restricted. The forced relocation of parts of the business to the EU means a loss of revenue for the UK from FinTech companies. Major British FinTech companies are more inclined to merge with or acquire technology companies outside the UK, which could lead to a loss of potential investments in the coming years. As the online presence and number of FinTech services grow, the frequency and sophistication of cybercrimes are increasing proportionally.  A new wave began with the widespread adoption of AI – I wrote about this in the article “ FinTech Wary as AI Fuels Financial Crime Surge .” FinTech Wary as AI Fuels Financial Crime Surge FinTech Wary as AI Fuels Financial Crime Surge The rise in cybercrime is pushing FinTech firms to up their game. FinTech companies are increasing their investments in cybersecurity, allocating more resources to the development and implementation of advanced protection technologies, staff training, and cyber threat monitoring. Machine learning and artificial intelligence are being deployed to detect abnormal behavior and prevent cyberattacks. Multi-factor authentication, including the use of biometric data and one-time passwords, is enhancing user security. Enhanced data protection measures, regular monitoring for data breaches, and strict security policies are becoming standard. According to the FinTech Payrow , financial companies are establishing partnerships with specialised cybersecurity firms and startups to gain access to advanced technologies and expertise in cybersecurity. According to the FinTech Payrow According to the FinTech Payrow The government has also taken measures to enhance data security, such as the introduction of the Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Act, which mandates that smart devices meet minimum security standards and provides security issue reporting contact details and update durations. Innovation Amidst Chaos Technology has always been the lifeblood of FinTech firms, enabling them to outpace traditional banks. Over the past five years, automation, AI integration, and niche products have become the norm. The digital transformation was more than a buzzword; it was a necessity. As consumers and businesses moved online, FinTech companies were ready with user-friendly interfaces, swift transactions, and low fees. Automation has streamlined operations, while AI has revolutionized service delivery and decision-making processes. Niche products tailored to specific customer needs have gained popularity, and open banking has made financial services more transparent. Technologies like IoT, AI, and Big Data are leading this era, with the sector’s value projected to reach between $11 to $17 trillion by 2030, according to reports from McKinsey. according to reports from McKinsey. according to reports from McKinsey. The Road Ahead The Road Ahead In 2024, financial inclusion remains a key objective. As we forge ahead with the development of the Fintech industry, the barriers for startups are getting higher. To stay in the game, founders need to focus on building user-friendly products, forming smart partnerships, thinking about scalability, and being diligent about security and reputation. So, what can FinTech companies do to maintain and grow their customer base? Several ideas are thrown around in the article “ Scaling FinTech Startups in 2024: Strategies and Challenges .” The suggestions include making the most of strategic alliances, building scalable solutions, focusing on security, reputation, and trust, prioritizing the customer experience, monetizing intelligently, and not being afraid to experiment. Scaling FinTech Startups in 2024: Strategies and Challenges Scaling FinTech Startups in 2024: Strategies and Challenges Regarding government support, the UK offers some unique perks for FinTech startups, including the Talent Visa and tax incentives such as EIS/SEIS. These measures provide substantial benefits to FinTech companies, founders, and employees during the early stages. However, low startup valuations compared to the US and a cautious stance from venture investors are not conducive to rapid growth in the UK FinTech sector.

Is the UK Still a FinTech Hub Amidst Market Volatility?

Today I'm speaking with John Brian Carthy, and we'll discuss had his experiences building Levana. Let's get straight into it! Please tell us your name, what you do and how you got into the blockchain space My name is John Brian Carthy, Head of Marketing and Socials at Levana. Back in 2020, I bought my first sats after many years of looking on with curiosity and never looked back! Everything took off from there and I went down a path of learning and exploration, writing, doing interviews and making videos. All this led to now, where my conviction in the importance of decentralisation is strong and I’m immersed in the space from my work with Levana and Helios Staking. What inspired the creation of Levana under the Delphi Labs program, and how does it differentiate it from other projects launched under the same initiative? Delphi Labs initially incubated multiple projects on Terra such as Mars, Astroport and indeed, Levana, before the crash. After the crash each project deployed on multiple chains on Cosmos. What makes Levana different is simple. Levana saw an opportunity to create a platform that firstly allowed people to leverage trade using their native assets such as BTC, ETH, and INJ as collateral, allowing more passive exposure to the upside potential of crypto while still being able to trade. Secondly, people can take those assets and provide liquidity to markets on Levana, essentially earning acting as the counter-liquidity to traders - and profiting from the statistical unprofitability of traders, earning in their asset of choice. Levana wants to create a self-sustaining trading ecosystem where the community can benefit at every level. These two opportunities are unique in the DeFi space and set Levana apart from other projects. Could you detail your platform's specific trading options for commodities such as gold, the Chinese yuan, the euro, the British pound, and silver? Levana offers Crypto, Commodities and Forex markets. People can use some of their favorite crypto assets such as BTC, ETH, INJ and more as collateral, along with stablecoins, to trade a wide range of markets including Bitcoin, Ethereum, Gold, Silver, Euro and the Chinese Yuan. Levana is also the only platform that allows users to leverage trade liquid staking tokens, allowing them to benefit from a triple-compounding effect of accumulating staking rewards, benefitting from price increases of the underlying asset, and earning more of the asset itself through providing liquidity or leverage trading. What challenges did Levana face in integrating these commodities into a DeFi context, and how were they overcome? The biggest challenge in integrating commodities into Levana was obtaining accurate and trustless price feeds for things like Gold and Silver. Levana wanted to create a protocol that could support any asset, so the key challenge was to speedily and reliably integrate smart contract-compatible price feeds for real-world assets (RWA). Pyth’s Oracle allows Levana to integrate hundreds of smart contract-compatible price feeds into the platform, which is pivotal to these integrations. The support of other partners and the work of Levana’s outstanding team have also been integral, and continue to be. Levana allows users to profit from other traders' fees or losses, much like "being the house" in a casino. How does this feature work, and what has been the user response? With other platforms the only way to make money is by trading, trading is statistically unprofitable for most, but not all. Levana allows users to ‘be the house’ and provide liquidity for traders to trade against as LPs. Users can simply passively benefit from the statistical probability that most traders will lose money. The more people that come and trade, the more Levana LPs earn. Rather uniquely, markets on Levana are collateralised in a wide range of assets. Therefore there are a wide range of assets available to deposit and earn in that asset itself. For example, users can deposit INJ into the LP on Levana’s INJ/USD market and earn all their rewards in INJ, maintaining a greater exposure to the asset with greater upside potential. Could you describe the mechanism behind turning non-working crypto assets into working assets through collateralized markets? Let’s take Bitcoin, for example. At its core, it’s a non-working asset, but DeFi changes that dynamic. On Levana, you can deposit wrapped BTC into our heavily audited contracts and put it to work. You then get paid LP fees from providing the counter-collateral to traders positions, and fortunately for LPs, most traders lose. We do the same for Liquid Staking Tokens, native tokens, and offer a more dynamic way to put the asset to work to earn significant yield than for staking and spot trading. Levana offers 30x leverage on trades with native tokens. What measures are in place to manage the risks associated with high leverage? Levana takes a robust and comprehensive approach to launching new markets, with certain criteria that need to be met. These criteria ensure minimal risk of spot price manipulation by having minimum thresholds for trading volume and liquidity. The protocol is carefully designed to minimize risk to users and ensure the integrity of the markets and assets listed on Levana. How do you maintain a zero insolvency risk, and what does this mean for users’ profit and loss (PnL) security? When traders open positions on Levana, either the platform sets a max gain, or the user sets a manual TP point. Once there is no more counter-collateral to pay the theoretical maximum trade winnings open on the market, no more positions can be opened. So in essence, Levana always has enough liquidity to pay the maximum gain of every open position. Following the collapse of the Terra blockchain, Levana had to pivot significantly. What were the major changes, and how have they impacted the platform’s strategy? On Terra, Levana had broader applications, including a Leverage ETF, Options Trading, NFTs, GameFi, and Perps. After the crash, the team was cut down, and Levana's core focus switched to delivering a novel new perps platform. I wasn't with the team at that moment, but I would say the major challenge has been rebuilding the community. A lot of our core community was significantly affected by those events and departed. It’s definitely been a challenge, but the team has never stopped building, and now it’s time to find the new wave of community members. Levana are proud to have had the resourcefulness and ingenuity to come out the other side of these challenges, having seen other promising projects shut down because of the turmoil. The vision and roadmap had to pivot and we have brought and continue to work hard to bring Levana to a new audience on Cosmos, with whom it’s values and the opportunity it presents resonates. This is reflected by the numbers with over $2.5bn of trading volume and over $3m of rewards distributed to Levana’s LPs. How has Levana integrated with other platforms like Osmosis, Sei, and Injective, and what has been the impact of these integrations on your user base and liquidity? It made sense to choose these chains because they offer a robust tech stack to build upon in terms of cost, speed, and user experience. The respective foundations offered great support to us and enhanced platform activity, so the integrations have been nothing but positive. The expansion and growth to new chains is aligned with Levana’s mission of empowering users to leverage any asset, as it means the platform can integrate the native assets from the respective chains. The expansion and integration of new chains are also aligned with Levana's overall growth in terms of users and trading volume. More expansion is planned in terms of integrating new ecosystems into Levana, so keep an eye out for that! How do you anticipate the market for these trading options evolving in the coming years? I can only see the demand for DeFi and by extension, the trading options Levana offer growing, especially as the digital asset market matures, and trust and credibility of both the assets and the on-chain opportunities it presents are widely established with education, awareness and integration. Advances like account abstraction are going to play a huge role in onboarding new users to blockchain, allowing them to maintain self-custody, while simultaneously allowing them to circumnavigate the complexity of it. People will be using blockchain without knowing what blockchain is. How might upcoming regulatory changes affect leverage trading practices? Levana are hopeful that more regulatory clarity will emerge in the near future and we are optimistic that the value of decentralized technologies can bring forward to society as a whole will be recognised by those who have the power to create an environment for DeFi to grow and thrive. Levana will remain agile and continue taking all the appropriate steps to comply with regulations as they emerge and become clear. Today I'm speaking with John Brian Carthy, and we'll discuss had his experiences building Levana. Let's get straight into it! Please tell us your name, what you do and how you got into the blockchain space My name is John Brian Carthy, Head of Marketing and Socials at Levana. Back in 2020, I bought my first sats after many years of looking on with curiosity and never looked back! Everything took off from there and I went down a path of learning and exploration, writing, doing interviews and making videos. All this led to now, where my conviction in the importance of decentralisation is strong and I’m immersed in the space from my work with Levana and Helios Staking. What inspired the creation of Levana under the Delphi Labs program, and how does it differentiate it from other projects launched under the same initiative? Delphi Labs initially incubated multiple projects on Terra such as Mars, Astroport and indeed, Levana, before the crash. After the crash each project deployed on multiple chains on Cosmos. What makes Levana different is simple. Levana saw an opportunity to create a platform that firstly allowed people to leverage trade using their native assets such as BTC, ETH, and INJ as collateral, allowing more passive exposure to the upside potential of crypto while still being able to trade. Secondly, people can take those assets and provide liquidity to markets on Levana, essentially earning acting as the counter-liquidity to traders - and profiting from the statistical unprofitability of traders, earning in their asset of choice. Levana wants to create a self-sustaining trading ecosystem where the community can benefit at every level. These two opportunities are unique in the DeFi space and set Levana apart from other projects. Could you detail your platform's specific trading options for commodities such as gold, the Chinese yuan, the euro, the British pound, and silver? Levana offers Crypto, Commodities and Forex markets. People can use some of their favorite crypto assets such as BTC, ETH, INJ and more as collateral, along with stablecoins, to trade a wide range of markets including Bitcoin, Ethereum, Gold, Silver, Euro and the Chinese Yuan. Levana is also the only platform that allows users to leverage trade liquid staking tokens, allowing them to benefit from a triple-compounding effect of accumulating staking rewards, benefitting from price increases of the underlying asset, and earning more of the asset itself through providing liquidity or leverage trading. What challenges did Levana face in integrating these commodities into a DeFi context, and how were they overcome? The biggest challenge in integrating commodities into Levana was obtaining accurate and trustless price feeds for things like Gold and Silver. Levana wanted to create a protocol that could support any asset, so the key challenge was to speedily and reliably integrate smart contract-compatible price feeds for real-world assets (RWA). Pyth’s Oracle allows Levana to integrate hundreds of smart contract-compatible price feeds into the platform, which is pivotal to these integrations. The support of other partners and the work of Levana’s outstanding team have also been integral, and continue to be. Levana allows users to profit from other traders' fees or losses, much like "being the house" in a casino. How does this feature work, and what has been the user response? With other platforms the only way to make money is by trading, trading is statistically unprofitable for most, but not all. Levana allows users to ‘be the house’ and provide liquidity for traders to trade against as LPs. Users can simply passively benefit from the statistical probability that most traders will lose money. The more people that come and trade, the more Levana LPs earn. Rather uniquely, markets on Levana are collateralised in a wide range of assets. Therefore there are a wide range of assets available to deposit and earn in that asset itself. For example, users can deposit INJ into the LP on Levana’s INJ/USD market and earn all their rewards in INJ, maintaining a greater exposure to the asset with greater upside potential. Could you describe the mechanism behind turning non-working crypto assets into working assets through collateralized markets? Let’s take Bitcoin, for example. At its core, it’s a non-working asset, but DeFi changes that dynamic. On Levana, you can deposit wrapped BTC into our heavily audited contracts and put it to work. You then get paid LP fees from providing the counter-collateral to traders positions, and fortunately for LPs, most traders lose. We do the same for Liquid Staking Tokens, native tokens, and offer a more dynamic way to put the asset to work to earn significant yield than for staking and spot trading. Levana offers 30x leverage on trades with native tokens. What measures are in place to manage the risks associated with high leverage? Levana takes a robust and comprehensive approach to launching new markets, with certain criteria that need to be met. These criteria ensure minimal risk of spot price manipulation by having minimum thresholds for trading volume and liquidity. The protocol is carefully designed to minimize risk to users and ensure the integrity of the markets and assets listed on Levana. How do you maintain a zero insolvency risk, and what does this mean for users’ profit and loss (PnL) security? When traders open positions on Levana, either the platform sets a max gain, or the user sets a manual TP point. Once there is no more counter-collateral to pay the theoretical maximum trade winnings open on the market, no more positions can be opened. So in essence, Levana always has enough liquidity to pay the maximum gain of every open position. Following the collapse of the Terra blockchain, Levana had to pivot significantly. What were the major changes, and how have they impacted the platform’s strategy? On Terra, Levana had broader applications, including a Leverage ETF, Options Trading, NFTs, GameFi, and Perps. After the crash, the team was cut down, and Levana's core focus switched to delivering a novel new perps platform. I wasn't with the team at that moment, but I would say the major challenge has been rebuilding the community. A lot of our core community was significantly affected by those events and departed. It’s definitely been a challenge, but the team has never stopped building, and now it’s time to find the new wave of community members. Levana are proud to have had the resourcefulness and ingenuity to come out the other side of these challenges, having seen other promising projects shut down because of the turmoil. The vision and roadmap had to pivot and we have brought and continue to work hard to bring Levana to a new audience on Cosmos, with whom it’s values and the opportunity it presents resonates. This is reflected by the numbers with over $2.5bn of trading volume and over $3m of rewards distributed to Levana’s LPs. How has Levana integrated with other platforms like Osmosis, Sei, and Injective, and what has been the impact of these integrations on your user base and liquidity? It made sense to choose these chains because they offer a robust tech stack to build upon in terms of cost, speed, and user experience. The respective foundations offered great support to us and enhanced platform activity, so the integrations have been nothing but positive. The expansion and growth to new chains is aligned with Levana’s mission of empowering users to leverage any asset, as it means the platform can integrate the native assets from the respective chains. The expansion and integration of new chains are also aligned with Levana's overall growth in terms of users and trading volume. More expansion is planned in terms of integrating new ecosystems into Levana, so keep an eye out for that! How do you anticipate the market for these trading options evolving in the coming years? I can only see the demand for DeFi and by extension, the trading options Levana offer growing, especially as the digital asset market matures, and trust and credibility of both the assets and the on-chain opportunities it presents are widely established with education, awareness and integration. Advances like account abstraction are going to play a huge role in onboarding new users to blockchain, allowing them to maintain self-custody, while simultaneously allowing them to circumnavigate the complexity of it. People will be using blockchain without knowing what blockchain is. How might upcoming regulatory changes affect leverage trading practices? Levana are hopeful that more regulatory clarity will emerge in the near future and we are optimistic that the value of decentralized technologies can bring forward to society as a whole will be recognised by those who have the power to create an environment for DeFi to grow and thrive. Levana will remain agile and continue taking all the appropriate steps to comply with regulations as they emerge and become clear.

Leverage and Loss: Handling Highly Volatile Blockchain Trades

Authors:
(1) Vinod S. Khandkar and Manjesh K. Hanawal, Industrial Engineering and Operations Research Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Mumbai, India and {vinod.khandkar, mhanawal}@iitb.ac.in. Table of Links Abstract & Introduction Related Work and Background Challenges in TD Detection Measurement Setup Development Case Study : Wehe - TD Detection Tool for Mobile Environment Shortcoming of Wehe on HTTPS Traffic TD Detection of HTTPS Traffic Conclusion & References Abstract We consider the problem of detecting deliberate traffic discrimination on the Internet. Given the complex nature of the Internet, detection of deliberate discrimination is not easy to detect, and tools developed so far suffer from various limitations. We study challenges in detecting the violations (focusing on the HTTPS traffic) and discuss possible mitigation approaches. We focus on ‘Wehe,’ the most recent tool developed to detect net-neutrality violations. Wehe hosts traffic from all services of interest in a common server and replays them to mimic the behavior of the traffic from original servers. Despite Wehe’s vast utility and possible influences over policy decisions, its mechanisms are not yet validated by others. In this work, we highlight critical weaknesses in Wehe where its replay traffic is not being correctly classified as intended services by the network middleboxes. We validate this observation using a commercial traffic shaper. We propose a new method in which the SNI parameter is set appropriately in the initial TLS handshake to overcome this weakness. Using commercial traffic shapers, we validate that SNI makes the replay traffic gets correctly classified as the intended traffic by the middleboxes. Our new approach thus provides a more realistic method for detecting neutrality violations of HTTPS traffic. Index Terms—Net neutrality, traffic differentiation, detection tools I. INTRODUCTION Net neutrality is a guiding principle promoting the “equal” treatment of all packets over the Internet. However, for economic benefits, ISPs may apply traffic differentiation to a specific service, user, content provider, or any other traffic group on the Internet without making any public declaration. It gives rise to a need to have tools that can detect such malicious activities over the Internet. Traffic differentiation (TD) detection involves the coalescence of many elements such as end-systems (user-client and server), probing traffic generation, expected network responses, and TD detection algorithms. These are interdependent components or operations. Hence, in developing TD detection tools, one faces challenges such as crafting internet traffic and conditioning measured network response that suits their detection algorithm. Moreover, as HTTPS traffic becomes prevalent, it is unclear what policies the middle-boxes apply for discrimination as payload provides no signatures. Our first goal is to study various challenges in designing a reliable TD detection mechanism for HTTPS traffic Several methods have been proposed in the literature to detect Network neutrality violations as documented in recent surveys [1], [2]. The literature is rich with various forms of discrimination and its detection, like discrimination of content providers [3], end-users [4], specific services like BitTorrent [5]. Our interest in this work is discrimination of services, specifically on streaming services (both audio and video) which are potential candidates from description due to their commercial values and high bandwidth requirements. Recently several tools are developed to detect discrimination of services like, NANO [6] ChkDiff [7], Netpolice [8], Shaperprobe [9], Packsen [10], Glasnost [11], Bonafide [12], and Wehe [13]. NANO is based on passive measurements, and all others are based on either active or differential probes. Wehe is the latest tool that overcomes many of the drawbacks of the other tools. However, due to the Internet’s complexity, many issues persist that prevent its use as a reliable tool. Wehe [13] follows a client-service architecture in which content of service of interests (Youtube, Netflix, etc.) are copied (or sniffed) from their respective original servers and hosted on a common server (referred to as replay server). To check if a particular service is discriminated, the client accesses the content of that service from the replay server. The server transfers the requested data with timing relations that mimic the original service’s data transfer characteristics over the Internet. The client accesses content from the replay server with and without VPN and compares them to ascertain if there was any difference in the quality. The basic idea of Wehe is that connection over VPN is encapsulated and will not be subjected to any discrimination as the middleboxes cannot classify the traffic correctly. Whereas content accessed without VPN can be classified correctly due to the signatures induced by the timing relations and can be subjected to discrimination policies. Despite the Wehe tool’s vast utility and possible influences over policy decisions, its mechanisms are not yet fully validated by other researchers. We investigate Wehe’s differentiation detection’s performance on traffic using HTTPS protocol, which is predominantly used by all services for security reasons and to avoid detection. We noticed that Wehe uses port 80 (HTTP) for all communications. Middleboxes process all the traffic on this port as non-encrypted traffic and may not classify them correctly as they will not see any signatures (recall that replayed traffic is HTTPS). On the other hand, when Wehe access traffic over port 443 (HTTP), traffic is not classified as intended traffic as we demonstrate it using a commercial traffic shaper. As middleboxes do not see traffic from the Wehe’s replay server as that coming from the original server, they may not apply intended traffic discrimination policies. Thus Wehe may not detect any deliberate discrimination resulting in false negatives. in false negatives. To overcome the limitations of Wehe for HTTPS traffic, we propose a new method in which traffic is accessed on port 443, but with a modification in the TLS handshake. In the TLS handshake, we explicitly send the Server Name Indication (SNI) corresponding to the actual service. We demonstrate that the HTTPS traffic get correctly classified by the middleboxes with these modifications. Our method ensures the middleboxes classify traffic from replay servers in the same way they do from the original servers for each service and apply the same discriminate policies (if any) on traffic from both replay and original servers. Thus, our method makes it possible to detect discrimination of HTTPS traffic in a realistic setting. Our contributions can be summarized as: We study various challenges associated with detection of discrimination of HTTPS traffic. We present the categorization of these challenges based on their source, e.g., as protocol and operational environment.


We demonstrate limitations of Wehe in detection of discrimination of HTTPS traffic. Specifically, we demonstrate that HTTPS traffic will not be correctly classified in the Wehe setup using a commercial traffic shaper.


We propose a mechanism in which traffic of services accessed from the replay server is treated as if it originated from the actual servers. Thus traffic from the replay server also gets subjected to the same discriminated policies applied on the actual service. We


We validate that replay traffic of our mechanism is treated in the same way originating from actual servers using a commercial traffic shaper. The paper is organizaed as follows. Sec. II provides the necessary background and related work. Sec. III describes all identified challenges in measurement setup for TD detection. Sec. IV describes the Wehe tool and its mechanisms in the context of identified challenges, Sec. V provides the validation results. Our proposed method is described in Sec. VI and Sec. VII gives the conclusions. This paper is available on arxiv under CC 4.0 license. Authors: (1) Vinod S. Khandkar and Manjesh K. Hanawal, Industrial Engineering and Operations Research Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Mumbai, India and {vinod.khandkar, mhanawal}@iitb.ac.in. Authors: Authors: (1) Vinod S. Khandkar and Manjesh K. Hanawal, Industrial Engineering and Operations Research Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Mumbai, India and {vinod.khandkar, mhanawal}@iitb.ac.in. Table of Links Abstract & Introduction Abstract & Introduction Related Work and Background Related Work and Background Challenges in TD Detection Measurement Setup Development Challenges in TD Detection Measurement Setup Development Case Study : Wehe - TD Detection Tool for Mobile Environment Case Study : Wehe - TD Detection Tool for Mobile Environment Shortcoming of Wehe on HTTPS Traffic Shortcoming of Wehe on HTTPS Traffic TD Detection of HTTPS Traffic TD Detection of HTTPS Traffic Conclusion & References Conclusion & References Abstract We consider the problem of detecting deliberate traffic discrimination on the Internet. Given the complex nature of the Internet, detection of deliberate discrimination is not easy to detect, and tools developed so far suffer from various limitations. We study challenges in detecting the violations (focusing on the HTTPS traffic) and discuss possible mitigation approaches. We focus on ‘Wehe,’ the most recent tool developed to detect net-neutrality violations. Wehe hosts traffic from all services of interest in a common server and replays them to mimic the behavior of the traffic from original servers. Despite Wehe’s vast utility and possible influences over policy decisions, its mechanisms are not yet validated by others. In this work, we highlight critical weaknesses in Wehe where its replay traffic is not being correctly classified as intended services by the network middleboxes. We validate this observation using a commercial traffic shaper. We propose a new method in which the SNI parameter is set appropriately in the initial TLS handshake to overcome this weakness. Using commercial traffic shapers, we validate that SNI makes the replay traffic gets correctly classified as the intended traffic by the middleboxes. Our new approach thus provides a more realistic method for detecting neutrality violations of HTTPS traffic. Index Terms —Net neutrality, traffic differentiation, detection tools Index Terms I. INTRODUCTION Net neutrality is a guiding principle promoting the “equal” treatment of all packets over the Internet. However, for economic benefits, ISPs may apply traffic differentiation to a specific service, user, content provider, or any other traffic group on the Internet without making any public declaration. It gives rise to a need to have tools that can detect such malicious activities over the Internet. Traffic differentiation (TD) detection involves the coalescence of many elements such as end-systems (user-client and server), probing traffic generation, expected network responses, and TD detection algorithms. These are interdependent components or operations. Hence, in developing TD detection tools, one faces challenges such as crafting internet traffic and conditioning measured network response that suits their detection algorithm. Moreover, as HTTPS traffic becomes prevalent, it is unclear what policies the middle-boxes apply for discrimination as payload provides no signatures. Our first goal is to study various challenges in designing a reliable TD detection mechanism for HTTPS traffic Several methods have been proposed in the literature to detect Network neutrality violations as documented in recent surveys [1], [2]. The literature is rich with various forms of discrimination and its detection, like discrimination of content providers [3], end-users [4], specific services like BitTorrent [5]. Our interest in this work is discrimination of services, specifically on streaming services (both audio and video) which are potential candidates from description due to their commercial values and high bandwidth requirements. Recently several tools are developed to detect discrimination of services like, NANO [6] ChkDiff [7], Netpolice [8], Shaperprobe [9], Packsen [10], Glasnost [11], Bonafide [12], and Wehe [13]. NANO is based on passive measurements, and all others are based on either active or differential probes. Wehe is the latest tool that overcomes many of the drawbacks of the other tools. However, due to the Internet’s complexity, many issues persist that prevent its use as a reliable tool. Wehe [13] follows a client-service architecture in which content of service of interests (Youtube, Netflix, etc.) are copied (or sniffed) from their respective original servers and hosted on a common server (referred to as replay server). To check if a particular service is discriminated, the client accesses the content of that service from the replay server. The server transfers the requested data with timing relations that mimic the original service’s data transfer characteristics over the Internet. The client accesses content from the replay server with and without VPN and compares them to ascertain if there was any difference in the quality. The basic idea of Wehe is that connection over VPN is encapsulated and will not be subjected to any discrimination as the middleboxes cannot classify the traffic correctly. Whereas content accessed without VPN can be classified correctly due to the signatures induced by the timing relations and can be subjected to discrimination policies. Despite the Wehe tool’s vast utility and possible influences over policy decisions, its mechanisms are not yet fully validated by other researchers. We investigate Wehe’s differentiation detection’s performance on traffic using HTTPS protocol, which is predominantly used by all services for security reasons and to avoid detection. We noticed that Wehe uses port 80 (HTTP) for all communications. Middleboxes process all the traffic on this port as non-encrypted traffic and may not classify them correctly as they will not see any signatures (recall that replayed traffic is HTTPS). On the other hand, when Wehe access traffic over port 443 (HTTP), traffic is not classified as intended traffic as we demonstrate it using a commercial traffic shaper. As middleboxes do not see traffic from the Wehe’s replay server as that coming from the original server, they may not apply intended traffic discrimination policies. Thus Wehe may not detect any deliberate discrimination resulting in false negatives. in false negatives. To overcome the limitations of Wehe for HTTPS traffic, we propose a new method in which traffic is accessed on port 443, but with a modification in the TLS handshake. In the TLS handshake, we explicitly send the Server Name Indication (SNI) corresponding to the actual service. We demonstrate that the HTTPS traffic get correctly classified by the middleboxes with these modifications. Our method ensures the middleboxes classify traffic from replay servers in the same way they do from the original servers for each service and apply the same discriminate policies (if any) on traffic from both replay and original servers. Thus, our method makes it possible to detect discrimination of HTTPS traffic in a realistic setting. Our contributions can be summarized as: We study various challenges associated with detection of discrimination of HTTPS traffic. We present the categorization of these challenges based on their source, e.g., as protocol and operational environment. We demonstrate limitations of Wehe in detection of discrimination of HTTPS traffic. Specifically, we demonstrate that HTTPS traffic will not be correctly classified in the Wehe setup using a commercial traffic shaper. We propose a mechanism in which traffic of services accessed from the replay server is treated as if it originated from the actual servers. Thus traffic from the replay server also gets subjected to the same discriminated policies applied on the actual service. We We validate that replay traffic of our mechanism is treated in the same way originating from actual servers using a commercial traffic shaper. We study various challenges associated with detection of discrimination of HTTPS traffic. We present the categorization of these challenges based on their source, e.g., as protocol and operational environment. We study various challenges associated with detection of discrimination of HTTPS traffic. We present the categorization of these challenges based on their source, e.g., as protocol and operational environment. We demonstrate limitations of Wehe in detection of discrimination of HTTPS traffic. Specifically, we demonstrate that HTTPS traffic will not be correctly classified in the Wehe setup using a commercial traffic shaper. We demonstrate limitations of Wehe in detection of discrimination of HTTPS traffic. Specifically, we demonstrate that HTTPS traffic will not be correctly classified in the Wehe setup using a commercial traffic shaper. We propose a mechanism in which traffic of services accessed from the replay server is treated as if it originated from the actual servers. Thus traffic from the replay server also gets subjected to the same discriminated policies applied on the actual service. We We propose a mechanism in which traffic of services accessed from the replay server is treated as if it originated from the actual servers. Thus traffic from the replay server also gets subjected to the same discriminated policies applied on the actual service. We We validate that replay traffic of our mechanism is treated in the same way originating from actual servers using a commercial traffic shaper. We validate that replay traffic of our mechanism is treated in the same way originating from actual servers using a commercial traffic shaper. The paper is organizaed as follows. Sec. II provides the necessary background and related work. Sec. III describes all identified challenges in measurement setup for TD detection. Sec. IV describes the Wehe tool and its mechanisms in the context of identified challenges, Sec. V provides the validation results. Our proposed method is described in Sec. VI and Sec. VII gives the conclusions. This paper is available on arxiv under CC 4.0 license. This paper is available on arxiv under CC 4.0 license. available on arxiv

Challenges in Net Neutrality Violation Detection: A Case Study of Wehe Tool and Improvements

X Corp. v. Center for Countering Digital Hate, INC. Court Filing, retrieved on March 25, 2024 is part of . You can jump to any part in this filing . This part is 14 of 19. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here C. Violation of CFAA[26] The complaint’s second cause of action is for violation of the CFAA. See FAC ¶¶ 80–88. “Congress enacted the CFAA in 1984 primarily to address the growing problem of computer hacking.” United States v. Nosal, 676 F.3d 854, 858 (9th Cir. 2012) (“Nosal I”). Under the CFAA, a party may be subject to liability if it “intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains . . . information from any protected computer.” 18 U.S.C § 1030(a)(2)(C).[27] Courts are to interpret this prong of the statute narrowly, as the CFAA “is primarily a criminal statute” and is interpreted similarly across criminal and civil cases. See LVRC Holdings LLC v. Brekka, 581 F.3d 1127, 1134 (9th Cir. 2009). A private right of action is available to “[a]ny person who suffers damage or loss by reason of a violation of this section.” 18 U.S.C. § 1030(g). X Corp. alleges that “Defendants, except ECF, have violated the CFAA by knowingly, and with intent to defraud X Corp., accessing a protected computer, without authorization, and by means of such conduct furthered the fraud and obtained one or more things of value.” FAC ¶ 82. It alleges that X Corp. provided non-public data to Brandwatch, which Brandwatch stored on a protected computer “accessible to only those with login credentials.” Id. ¶ 83. It alleges that Defendants other than ECF “were never validly given login credentials,” knew that the data was secured by the Brandwatch Agreements, and knew that they did not have authorization to access it, but nonetheless “conspired with ECF[] to share its login credentials.” Id. ¶ 84. It continues: “Defendants other than ECF then accessed that data without authorization” in order to mischaracterize the data in CCDH publications. Id. It further alleges that ECF and CCDH conspired to violate the CFAA so that CCDH could access X Corp.’s data, and, in knowing violation of X Corp.’s agreements with Brandwatch and ECF’s agreements with Brandwatch, ECF gave CCDH its login credentials. Id. ¶ 85. X Corp. finally alleges that it suffered a loss of over $5,000 as a result of the violations, including money spent on internal investigations, employee resources and time to assist in those investigations, and attorneys’ fees. Id. ¶ 87. CCDH argues that X Corp. fails to state a claim for violation of the CFAA because (1) X Corp. has not adequately alleged that CCDH accessed the Brandwatch data “without authorization”; (2) X Corp. has not adequately alleged loss; and (3) X Corp. has failed to specify which CFAA subsection was violated. MTD&S at 19–23. The Court concludes that CCDH’s argument about loss is persuasive, and does not reach CCDH’s other arguments. A civil claim under the CFAA requires “loss to 1 or more persons during any 1-year period . . . aggregating at least $5,000 in value.” 18 U.S.C. § 1030(c)(4)(A)(i)(I); Andrews v. Sirius XM Radio Inc., 932 F.3d 1253, 1262 (9th Cir. 2019). The CFAA “defines ‘loss’ as ‘any reasonable cost to any victim, including the cost of responding to an offense, conducting a damages assessment, and restoring the data, program, system, or information to its condition prior to the offense, and any revenue lost, cost incurred, or other consequential damages incurred because of interruption of service.’” Andrews, 932 F.3d at 1262 (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 1030(e)(11)). CCDH argues that X Corp.’s loss allegations are inadequate because they are not losses from technical harms. MTD&S at 21. That is indeed a requirement under the CFAA, as the Supreme Court held in Van Buren v. United States, 141 S. Ct. 1648, 1659– 60 (2021). The Court explained that “[t]he term ‘loss’ . . . relates to costs caused by harm to computer data, programs, systems, or information services.” Id. Despite X Corp.’s suggestion at the motion hearing that only damages must relate to “damage to the system,” see Tr. of 2/29/24 Hearing at 26:9–24, the Court in Van Buren stated that both damages and loss under the CFAA “focus on technological harms—such as the corruption of files— of the type unauthorized users cause to computer systems and data,” Van Buren, 141 S. Ct. at 1660. It observed that “[l]imiting ‘damage’ and ‘loss’ in this way makes sense in a scheme ‘aimed at preventing the typical consequences of hacking.’” Id. (quoting Royal Truck & Trailer Sales & Serv., Inc. v. Kraft, 974 F.3d 756, 760 (6th Cir. 2020)). The Ninth Circuit recognized this required showing of “technological harms” in the hiQ case. See hiQ 2022 Circuit opinion, 31 F.4th at 1195 n.12 (quoting Van Buren, 141 S. Ct. at 1659–60). X Corp. responds that “[c]osts to investigate and stop alleged violations of the CFAA are cognizable losses,” but it cites only to an unopposed Report and Recommendation, and a distinguishable one. See Opp’n at 26 (citing Facebook, Inc. v. Holper, No. 20-cv-6023-JCS, 2022 WL 17167958, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 27, 2022)). In Holper, 2022 WL 17167958, at *8, in trying to meet the CFAA’s damages threshold, Facebook pointed to its employees’ “efforts to investigate and stop” the defendant’s conduct. Facebook’s employees had disabled the defendant’s accounts, blocked his access, and sent him a cease and desist letter. Id. at *2. Here, though, X Corp. employees did not disable CCDH’s Brandwatch account, or block CCDH’s Brandwatch access, and they could not “stop” CCDH from accessing Brandwatch, because X Corp. is not Brandwatch. X Corp.’s losses in connection with “attempting to conduct internal investigations in efforts to ascertain the nature and scope of CCDH’s unauthorized access to the data,” see FAC ¶ 87, are not technological in nature. The data that CCDH accessed does not belong to X Corp., see Kaplan Decl. Ex. A at 13 (providing that users own their content and grant X Corp. “a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license”), and there is no allegation that it was corrupted, changed, or deleted. Moreover, the servers that CCDH accessed are not even X Corp.’s servers. X Corp. asserted at the motion hearing that its servers “stream data to Brandwatch servers in response to queries from a logged in user” and so “you cannot say fairly it’s not our systems.” Tr. of 2/29/24 Hearing at 28:16–20. But that is not what the complaint alleges. The complaint alleges that “X Corp. provided non-public data to Brandwatch” and “[t]hat data was then stored on a protected computer.” FAC ¶ 83; see also id. ¶ 86 (“the Licensed Materials were stored on servers located in the United States that Brandwatch used for its applications. CCDH and ECF thus knew that, in illegally using ECF’s login credentials and querying the Licensed Materials, CCDH was targeting and gaining unauthorized access to servers used by Brandwatch in the United States.”) (emphasis added); id. ¶ 29 (Twitter would stream its Licensed Materials from its servers, “including in California,” to “servers used by Brandwatch [] located in the United States, which Brandwatch’s applications accessed to enable [its] users with login credentials to analyze the data.”).[28] It is therefore hard to see how an investigation by X Corp. into what data CCDH copied from Brandwatch’s servers could amount to “costs caused by harm to computer data, programs, systems, or information services.” See Van Buren, 141 S. Ct. at 1659–60. Additionally, it is impossible to see how attorneys’ fees could amount to technological harm. See Delacruz v. State Bar of Cal., No. 16-cv–6858-BLF, 2018 WL 3077750, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 12, 2018) (“legal expenses are not a cognizable loss under the CFAA”) (citing Wichansky v. Zowine, 150 F. Supp. 3d 1055, 1071–72 (D. Ariz. 2015); Nexans Wires S.A. v. Sark-USA, Inc., 319 F. Supp. 2d 468, 474–75 (S.D.N.Y. 2004)); cf. Fraser v. Mint Mobile, LLC, No. C 22-138 WHA, 2022 WL 2391000, at *2 (N.D. Cal. July 1, 2022) (fees to expert to trace stolen assets “were not related to remedying technological harms inflicted on the breached computer or system”). Loss incurred “not . . . to assess the breached system but to ‘assess [one’s] damages’” are not cognizable under the CFAA. See Fraser, 2022 WL 2391000, at *2. The Court will therefore dismiss the CFAA claim based on X Corp.’s failure to allege losses based on technological harms. See also NovelPoster v. Javitch Canfield Grp., 140 F. Supp. 3d 954, 964 (N.D. Cal. 2014) (“the majority of cases cited by defendants in which the court found an absence of CFAA-qualifying loss are summary judgment cases,” but “[t]hose cases cited by defendants that do concern pleading motions involve situations where the plaintiff failed to allege that the defendant’s conduct caused impairment of data or interruption of service.”). Continue Reading . Here [26] Again, the CFAA cause of action is not subject to the motion to strike because it is federal. See Hilton, 599 F.3d at 901 (“[T[he anti-SLAPP statute does not apply to federal law causes of action.”). [27] A “protected computer” includes essentially any computer connected to the Internet. See hiQ 2022 Circuit opinion, 31 F.4th at 1195; 18 U.S.C. § 1030(e)(2). [28] FAC ¶ 36 is a slightly closer fit to what X Corp. argued at the motion hearing, as it references both X Corp.’s servers and Brandwatch’s servers, but it is vaguer than paragraphs 29, 83, and 86 about where the Licensed Materials were stored. Even if the Licensed Materials were stored on the X Corp. servers and then streamed to Brandwatch servers whenever a Brandwatch user ran a query, X Corp. did not articulate how CCDH logging into the Brandwatch system using a Brandwatch subscriber’s valid login information could cause technological harm to X Corp.’s server. About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved on March 25, 2024, from is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. storage.courtlistener

X (Formerly Twitter) v CCDH: Analysis of CFAA Violation Claim

United States v. Apple INC Court Filing, retrieved on March 21, 2024 is part of . You can jump to any part in this filing . This part is 24 of 25. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here F. Sixth Claim for Relief: Violations of Wisconsin State Law 229. Plaintiff State of Wisconsin repeats and re-alleges and incorporates by reference every paragraph and allegation in this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 230. The aforementioned practices by Apple violate Wisconsin’s Antitrust Act, Wis. Stat. Ch. § 133.03 et seq. These violations substantially affect the people of Wisconsin and have impacts within the State of Wisconsin. 231. Plaintiff State of Wisconsin, through its Attorney General and under its antitrust enforcement authority in Wis. Stat. Ch. 133, is entitled to all remedies available under Wis. Stat. §§ 133.03, 133.16, 133.17, and 133.18. 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 March 21, 2024, from is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. justice.gov

Apple Faces Allegations in Wisconsin: Accused of Antitrust Violations Impacting Consumers

United States v. Apple INC Court Filing, retrieved on March 21, 2024 is part of . You can jump to any part in this filing . This part is 19 of 25. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here A. First Claim for Relief: Monopolization of the Performance Smartphone Market in the United States in Violation of Sherman Act § 2 199. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 198 above. 200. Performance smartphones in the United States is a relevant antitrust market, and Apple has monopoly power in that market. 201. Apple has willfully monopolized the performance smartphone market in the United States through an exclusionary course of conduct and the anticompetitive acts described herein. Each of Apple’s actions individually and collectively increased, maintained, or protected its performance smartphone monopoly. 202. Apple’s anticompetitive acts include, but are not limited to, its contractual restrictions against app creation, distribution, and access to APIs that have impeded apps and technologies including, but not limited to, super apps, cloud streaming, messaging, wearables, and digital wallets. The areas identified in this complaint reflect a non-exhaustive list of recent anticompetitive acts but as technology advances, both the technologies impeded and the specific manner of impediment may shift in response to technological and regulatory change consistent with Apple’s past conduct. 203. While each of Apple’s acts is anticompetitive in its own right, Apple’s interrelated and interdependent actions have had a cumulative and self-reinforcing effect that has harmed competition and the competitive process. Apple’s anticompetitive acts have had harmful effects on competition and consumers. 204. Apple’s exclusionary conduct lacks a procompetitive justification that offsets the harm caused by Apple’s anticompetitive and unlawful conduct. 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 March 21, 2024, from is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. justice.gov

United States Slams Apple for Sherman Act Violation

Pure functions produce the same output for the same input and have no side effects. TL;DR: Your functions should be replaceable by the computation result. Problems Readability Principle of least astonishment violation Testability Coupling Solutions Avoid side effects and erratic behavior Context Breaking referential transparency occurs when the code introduces side effects or relies on a mutable state. This violates the principle that an expression or function can be replaced with its value without changing the program's behavior. Sample Code Wrong # Global mutable variable
counter = 0

# Function with side effect
def increment_counter():
    global counter
    counter += 1
    return counter

# Function with implicit dependency and non-deterministic
def get_random_number():
    import random
    return random.randint(1, 100)

# Function with non-deterministic behavior
def get_current_time():
    import time
    return time.time() Right import random
import time

# Function without side effects
def increment_counter(counter):
    return counter + 1

# Function without side effects (but not deterministic)
def get_random_number():
    return random.randint(1, 100)

# Function without side effects (can also be injected)
def get_current_time(timesource):
    return timesource.time() Detection Semi-Automatic [x] Many linters warn you when you violate referential transparency Tags Coupling Level Intermediate [x] AI Assistants Most AI assistants will avoid violating referential transparency. Conclusion is known for its ability to enable concise, expressive, and maintainable code, as well as facilitating parallel and concurrent programming due to its emphasis on immutable data and pure functions. Functional programming There are many concepts to borrow from it. Relations Code Smell 209 - Side Effects More Info Coupling - The one and only software design problem Disclaimer: Code Smells are my . opinion Credit(s): Lead photo by on Wilhelm Gunkel Unsplash Referential transparency is a very desirable property: it implies that functions consistently yield the same results given the same input, irrespective of where and when they are invoked - Edward Garson. https://hackernoon.com/400-thought-provoking-software-engineering-quotes?embedable=true

Code Smell 241 - Referential Transparency Violation

States Seek Relief Against Meta for COPPA Violations

The United States v Meta Platforms Court Filing October 24, 2023 is part of . You can jump to any part in this filing . This is part 96 of 100. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here COUNT LI: VIOLATIONS OF VIRGINIA CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, VA. CODE §§ 59.1-198 TO 59.1-207 1151. The Commonwealth of Virginia, ex rel. Jason S. Miyares, Attorney General, incorporates and realleges each of the paragraphs 1 through 850 as if fully set forth herein. 1152. Meta is or was during all relevant times a “supplier” of “goods” and/or “services” in connection with “consumer transactions” as those terms are defined in § 59.1-198 of the Virginia Consumer Protection Act (VCPA). 1153. The Commonwealth of Virginia alleges that the aforesaid acts and practices of Meta, including but not limited to those described in paragraph 846, constitute violations of the VCPA, including Virginia Code § 59.1-200(A)(5), (6), and (14). 1154. Individual consumers have suffered losses as a result of Meta’s violations of the VCPA. 1155. Meta has willfully engaged in the acts and practices described in this Complaint in violation of the VCPA. 1156. Pursuant to Va. Code §§ 59.1-203, 205, and 206, the Commonwealth of Virginia seeks a permanent injunction against Meta restraining future VCPA violations; restitution for consumers for monies acquired by means of any VCPA violations; and civil penalties, costs, reasonable expenses, and attorneys’ fees. 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 4:23-cv-05448 retrieved on October 25, 2023, from is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. Washingtonpost.com

Virginia Attorney General Targets Meta for Consumer Protection Violations

The United States v Meta Platforms Court Filing October 24, 2023 is part of . You can jump to any part in this filing . This is part 91 of 100. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here COUNT XLVI: VIOLATIONS OF OREGON’S UTPA, O.R.S. § 646.608(1)(t) 1116. The State of Oregon, ex rel. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, incorporates and realleges each of the paragraphs 1 through 850 and Counts XLIV and XLV as if fully set forth herein. 1117. Meta, acting in the course of its businesses, vocations, or occupations, violated O.R.S. § 646.608(1)(t) when Meta failed to disclose concurrent with tender or delivery of Meta’s Social Media Platforms known material defects and material nonconformities resulting in young users’ compulsive and unhealthy use of and addiction to Meta’s Social Media Platforms. 1118. Meta’s violations of the UTPA set forth herein were willful because Meta knew or should have known that its conduct violated the UTPA. 1119. Pursuant to O.R.S. §§ 646.632, 646.636, and 646.642, the State of Oregon seeks a permanent injunction against Meta; restitution for consumers; civil penalties up to $25,000 per willful violation; and costs, reasonable expenses, and attorneys’ fees. 1120. Meta and each Defendant was served with a notice in writing that identified the alleged unlawful conduct and the relief the State would seek. Neither Meta nor any Defendant executed and delivered a satisfactory assurance of voluntary compliance as provided in O.R.S. § 646.632(2). 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 4:23-cv-05448 retrieved on October 25, 2023, from is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. Washingtonpost.com

Oregon Pursues Legal Action Against Meta Over Alleged UTPA Violations

Authors: (1) Dominic Petrak, UKP Lab, Department of Computer Science, Technical University of Darmstadt, Germany; (2) Nafise Sadat Moosavi, Department of Computer Science, The University of Sheffield, United Kingdom; (3) Ye Tian, Wluper, London, United Kingdom; (4) Nikolai Rozanov, Wluper, London, United Kingdom; (5) Iryna Gurevych, UKP Lab, Department of Computer Science, Technical University of Darmstadt, Germany. Table of Links Abstract & Introduction Related Work Datasets Examined Manual Error Type Analysis and Taxonomies Automatic Filtering for Potentially Relevant Dialogs Statistical Analysis Evaluation and Experiments Discussion Conclusion, Limitation, Acknowledgments, and References A Integrated Error Taxonomy – Details B Error-Indicating Sentences And Phrases C Automatic Filtering – Implementation D Automatic Filtering – Sentence-Level Analysis E Task-Oriented Dialogs – Examples F Effectiveness Of Automatic Filtering – A Detailed Analysis G Inter-Annotator Agreement – Detailed Analysis H Annotation Guidelines I Hyperparameters and Baseline Experiments J Human-Human Dialogs – Examples A Integrated Error Taxonomy – Details In this section, we describe the Integrated Error Taxonomy as proposed by Higashinaka et al. (2021). In principle, they differentiate between form violation and content violation. The form violation usually represents errors that oppose some kind of meta criteria, e.g., the form of language or the ignorance of social norms. In contrast, content violations refer to, e.g., inconsistent or redundant utterances, or other things that might cause a dialog breakdown. Content violation is hereinafter abbreviated as CV (form violation as FV). Furthermore, they generally refer to utterances, while we refer to system utterance, as this is evident from their examples and simplifies understanding (from our perspective). A.1 Utterance-Level Utterance-level errors typically expose languagegeneration deficiencies of the system. • Uninterpretable (I1), FV – The system’s utterance does not contain recognizable words or is just a text fragment, e.g., the utterance just consists of the words of yours. • Grammatical Error (I2), FV – The system’s utterance is grammatical incorrect, e.g., he will attend yesterday. • Semantic Error (I3), CV – The combination of predicates and arguments does not result in any meaning, e.g., I feel painting. • Wrong Information (I4), CV – The given information is clearly wrong, e.g., Meat Loaf was the songwriter of Jim Steinman (it was vice versa). A.2 Response-Level Response-level errors describe errors in system utterances, e.g., in responses to user questions or requests. • Ignore Question (I5), FV – The system utterance ignores the user’s question, e.g., U: What will the weather be like tomorrow? S: Look at these beautiful flowers... • Ignore Request (I6), FV – The system ignores the user’s request to do something, e.g., U: Please book me a room in the west part of town. S: I like sports. • Ignore Proposal (I7), FV – The system ignores the user’s proposal to do something, e.g., U: Let’s talk about movies. S: I like pizza. • Ignore Greeting (I8), FV – The system ignores the user’s greeting, e.g., U: Hello, my friend! S: What do you want from me? • Ignore Expectation (I9), CV – The system utterance does not have the expected content but the user’s intention has been successfully conveyed, e.g., U: Do you have a favorite football team? S: Yes. (the system should tell the user the name of his favorite football team). A.3 Context-Level Context-level errors refer not only to the local context, i.e., adjacent pairs of user utterance and system utterance, but to a broader (sometimes global) context. • Unclear Intention (I10), FV – The system utterance is on the current topic, but the intention is unclear, e.g., U: What is your favorite movie? S: I like Daddy’s Home 2. U: Oh, yes! Mel Gibson is so good in this role... S: The Evil Dead is so bloody... • Topic Transition Error (I11), FV – The system suddenly switches to another topic without explanation, e.g., U: I really enjoyed Feynman’s physics lecture. So enlightening! S: Well, what is your favorite food? • Lack of Information (I12), FV – The system utterance misses important information, such as subject, object, or modifier, e.g., U: It’s a beautiful day, isn’t it? S: I hate. (object is missing). • Self-Contradiction (I13), CV – The system utterance contradicts what it said before, e.g., S: I’m from Boston, Massachusetts. U: Oh, wow! I’m from Bartlesville, Oklahoma! S: Really? I’m from Seattle, Washington! • Contradiction (I14), CV – The system utterance contradicts what has been said by the user, e.g., U: I like strawberries. S: Oh, why don’t you like strawberries? • Repetition (I15), CV – The system repeats something it has already said before (this includes repeated questioning), e.g., S: I look forward to the concert. U: Oh, which concert? S: I look forward to the concert. A.4 Society-Level Society-level errors refer to errors that indicate that the system lacks etiquette or common sense. • Lack of Sociality (I16), FV – The system utterance lacks consideration towards the user and contains hate speech or is in general disrespectful, e.g., U: Yesterday I went to the federal employment agency. S: Okay. Are you incapable of finding a job on your own? • Lack of Common Sense (I17), CV – The system utterance contains content that differs from the opinion of the majority, e.g., S: I like to eat chicken raw. U: Oh, dear... You have to cook it first! This paper is under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 DEED license. available on arxiv

Integrated Error Taxonomy: Form Violation vs Content Violation

The United States v Meta Platforms Court Filing October 24, 2023 is part of . You can jump to any part in this filing . This is part 90 of 100. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here COUNT XLV: VIOLATIONS OF OREGON’S UTPA, O.R.S. § 646.608(1)(e) 1111. The State of Oregon, ex rel. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, incorporates and realleges each of the paragraphs 1 through 850 and Count XLIV as if fully set forth herein. 1112. Meta, acting in the course of its businesses, vocations, or occupations, violated O.R.S. § 646.608(1)(e) when Meta expressly and by implication made false or misleading representations that its goods or services have characteristics, uses, benefits or qualities that the goods or services do not have. The representations relate to Meta’s Social Media Platforms, including but not limited to those representations described in paragraph 846. 1113. Meta’s violations of the UTPA set forth herein were willful because Meta knew or should have known that its conduct violated the UTPA. 1114. Pursuant to O.R.S. §§ 646.632, 646.636, and 646.642, the State of Oregon seeks a permanent injunction against Meta; restitution for consumers; civil penalties up to $25,000 per willful violation; and costs, reasonable expenses, and attorneys’ fees. 1115. Meta and each Defendant was served with a notice in writing that identified the alleged unlawful conduct and the relief the State would seek. Neither Meta nor any Defendant executed and delivered a satisfactory assurance of voluntary compliance as provided in O.R.S. § 646.632(2). 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 4:23-cv-05448 retrieved on October 25, 2023, from is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. Washingtonpost.com

Oregon's Legal Battle with Meta Intensifies: UTPA Violations Highlighted

The United States v Meta Platforms Court Filing October 24, 2023 is part of . You can jump to any part in this filing . This is part 87 of 100. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here COUNT XLII: VIOLATIONS OF OHIO CONSUMER SALES PRACTICES ACT – UNFAIR OR DECEPTIVE ACTS OR PRACTICES - OHIO REVISED CODE § 1345.02 1095. Ohio realleges and incorporates herein by reference each of the allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs 1 through 850 as though fully alleged in this cause of action. 1096. Meta and each Defendant are “suppliers,” as they engaged in the business of effecting “consumer transactions” by soliciting “consumers” either directly or indirectly for services, including access to Meta’s Social Media Platforms in exchange for users’ personal data and time, for a purpose that was primarily for personal, family, or household use, as those terms are defined by Ohio Rev. Code §1345.01(A), (C), and (D). 1097. In numerous instances in connection with the advertising, marketing, promotion, and other representations regarding its products, including through the means described in Section XI, paragraphs 846 through 850, Meta committed unfair or deceptive acts or practices in violation of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act (CSPA), Ohio Rev. Code §1345.02(A), by making the deceptive representations, directly or indirectly, expressly or by implication, with the intent that consumers rely on the deceptive representations, including, but not limited to, the representations outlined in Section XI, paragraphs 846 through 850. 1098. Further, Meta committed unfair or deceptive acts or practices in violation of the CSPA, Ohio Rev. Code §1345.02(A), by engaging in unfair acts and omissions that caused young users’ compulsive and unhealthy use of, and addiction to, Meta’s Social Media Platforms. At all relevant times, Meta had a thorough understanding of the mental and physical harms and addiction suffered by young users of its Platforms. Instead of taking adequate measures to mitigate these damaging effects, Meta knowingly persisted in exploiting young users’ psychological vulnerabilities. Meta’s acts and omissions constitute knowing decisions causing unnecessary and unjustified harm to young users for Meta’s financial gain. Meta’s unfair acts include, but are not limited to, the acts outlined in Section XI, paragraphs 846 through 850. 1099. Each unfair or deceptive act or practice engaged in by Meta as recited above constitutes a separate violation of the CSPA. 1100. The acts or practices described above have been previously determined by Ohio courts to violate the CSPA, Ohio Rev. Code §1345.01 et seq. Meta committed said violations after such decisions were made available for public inspection pursuant to Ohio Rev. Code §1345.05(A)(3). 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 4:23-cv-05448 retrieved on October 25, 2023, from is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. Washingtonpost.com

Stories, News & Mentions about VOLANTIO

Volantio’s Stories on HackerNoon