Wall Street’s Money Game Puts Crypto Revolution At Risk

Wall Street's Money Game Puts Crypto Revolution At Risk

Many people who believe in the potential of cryptocurrencies hope that Wall Street, the famous financial hub, will eagerly invest in the growing crypto market and enjoy the same profitable returns that individual traders have experienced whenever the value of cryptocurrencies has surged. However, this belief overlooks two crucial facts: firstly, Wall Street is already heavily involved in the cryptocurrency market, and secondly, it has no intention of injecting its capital to boost this volatile market.

The world of institutional finance has had numerous opportunities to capitalize on the cryptocurrency space. However, as its influence expands, the cryptocurrency market is transforming, potentially into something entirely different. Whether this transformation is intentional or an unintended consequence of its shortcomings, Wall Street may gradually undermine the essence of cryptocurrency itself.

This article explores the intricate dynamics between Wall Street and the crypto world, shedding light on the potential implications of the Wall Street money game in the crypto industry. Let's unravel the mysteries and better understand this ever-evolving landscape.

Wall Street Is Not On Your Side

The recent exposure of Wall Street's Bitcoin conspiracy has shed light on some alarming developments in the market. It all began with the BlackRock Bitcoin ETF application. BlackRock, a powerful asset manager known for its extensive control over various industries, including media and pharmaceuticals, has been implicated in bribery and political manipulation over the years. It is essential to remember that Wall Street and these major players are not interested in your financial freedom. They are anti-revolutionary and do not have your best interests at heart.

The news of BlackRock's Bitcoin ETF application is significant due to its massive influence as a $9.1 Trillion asset manager. Even a tiny portion of their funds could potentially buy up all the Bitcoin available on exchanges. However, BlackRock is not the only organization venturing into the Bitcoin ETF business. Fidelity, a $4.24 Trillion asset manager, and other major players are also interested in entering the market. These ETFs are expected to be backed by real Bitcoin and traded on stock exchanges.

The paperization of Bitcoin raises concerns as it will move more Bitcoin into the hands of stockbrokers, reducing the amount of Bitcoin available on the blockchain and resulting in fewer fees for miners in the long run. Long-term investors currently hold a significant portion of Bitcoin. BlackRock, Fidelity, Wisdom Tree, and Invesco, have all filed for Bitcoin ETF applications. These developments cannot be ignored.

Furthermore, we have EdX, an institutional-grade cryptocurrency exchange backed by Fidelity, Charles Schwab, and Ken Griffin's Citadel Securities. The pieces start to come together when we see the bigger picture. A crackdown on the cryptocurrency industry led by Gary Gensler, the head of the SEC, raises eyebrows. Gensler's previous affiliation with Goldman Sachs, a major player on Wall Street, suggests a conflict of interest. It appears that Wall Street is orchestrating a deliberate attack on its major competitors, such as Coinbase and Binance, while simultaneously preparing to launch its own cryptocurrency exchange.

The entry of Wall Street into Bitcoin is not a coincidence. It is a meticulously planned move to manipulate the markets for their benefit. Institutions like JPMorgan and BlackRock are experts in market manipulation, and their involvement in Bitcoin will undoubtedly affect its price. 

However, we must understand that inviting Wall Street into the cryptocurrency space comes with risks. They have a history of dismissing Bitcoin as a scam, and suddenly they are interested in Bitcoin. The agenda is clear; they aim to gain control over it and take surveillance to the next level. We can expect them to push for code changes in Bitcoin to exercise control, which organizations like Greenpeace have already discussed.

While the influx of ETF applications may seem exciting for regular consumers wanting to invest in Bitcoin, it comes at the cost of relinquishing the uniqueness of Bitcoin itself. Owning Bitcoin through Wall Street-backed ETFs means giving up control over your assets. The hope that these institutions will hold and redeem your Bitcoin in the future is not the vision that attracted many people to Bitcoin in the first place. If you genuinely believe in the principles of Bitcoin, buying and holding your own Bitcoin is crucial, securely stored in your personal wallet. Wall Street cannot be trusted with your financial sovereignty.


Image source: Wall Street Mojo

How Wall Street Can Potentially Harm Cryptocurrency

To understand how Wall Street can negatively impact cryptocurrency, let's delve into a concept called hypothecation. In simpler terms, hypothecation occurs when a company or firm pledges its equity shares as collateral to a lender. Here's an example to illustrate this: Imagine Company A needs $5 million, and Broker B agrees to lend them the money. In return, Company A offers $5 million worth of their securities as collateral to Broker B. This type of arrangement is known as hypothecation.

Now, here's where the potential problem arises. Rehypothecation comes into play when Broker B, the lender, reuses the assets received from Company A as collateral for their business activities. This practice allows Broker B to utilize the assets as a security for their transactions. In the traditional financial world, rehypothecation is relatively straightforward due to a few reasons.

Firstly, shares in the traditional financial system are not physically settled; ownership certificates represent them. This characteristic makes transferring ownership as an 'IOU' simple without physically moving the shares. Secondly, accounting and tax regulations permit the same asset to be attributed to different parties as long as each party records a distinct amount of debt on their balance sheets. However, this flexibility granted to banks and brokers increases the risk associated with counterparties involved in such a system.

Cryptocurrency, like Bitcoin and Ethereum, operates on decentralized networks that rely on blockchain technology. These digital currencies are not governed by centralized authorities like banks or governments. The underlying technology ensures transparency and trust in transactions by recording them on a shared, immutable ledger.

However, when Wall Street, with its established practices and financial mechanisms, enters the realm of cryptocurrency, it introduces potential threats. The concept of hypothecation and rehypothecation, which are prevalent in traditional finance, can pose risks to the stability and integrity of cryptocurrency.

One significant concern is the possibility of multiple parties claiming ownership of the same digital asset. Unlike traditional shares represented by certificates, cryptocurrency ownership is recorded and verified through complex cryptographic algorithms. If a broker were to hypothecate or rehypothecate digital assets without proper mechanisms in place, it could result in conflicting claims and disputes over ownership.

Moreover, the transparency and decentralization that define cryptocurrency could be compromised. Rehypothecation often involves leveraging assets for additional borrowing, which can introduce systemic risk and potentially lead to market manipulation. This practice could undermine the principles of fairness and equal opportunity that many proponents of cryptocurrency value.

The risk of counterparty failure increases with rehypothecation. In the traditional financial system, where banks and brokers hypothecate, and rehypothecate assets, the complexity of transactions and the interdependency among market participants heighten the risk of a domino effect if one party defaults. Such failures can have far-reaching consequences, including financial instability and loss of investor confidence.

The Implication Of Rehypothecation For The Crypto Industry 

There's an important issue to consider when discussing cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin. Many of these digital currencies claim to have a system that ensures their security and reliability, such as a proof-of-work (PoW) or proof-of-stake (PoS) mechanism. However, these cryptocurrencies are often traded on centralized exchanges despite these claims.

Let's delve deeper into the problem. Imagine a scenario where a Bitcoin is rehypothecated multiple times as brokers and exchanges trade debt and collateral. In such a situation, who gets to claim ownership if there's a need for it? Who indeed possesses the cryptocurrency at the end of the day when multiple parties know the private key, or worse when no one does?

Cryptocurrency enthusiasts strongly believe in the idea that if you don't have control over your private key, you don't have control over your crypto assets. This means that if you don't directly manage and secure your private key, you can't truly claim ownership of your cryptocurrency.

Now, let's consider some potential problems that can arise. What if a broker goes bankrupt, and someone needs to be compensated? Or what if a hard fork happens, and someone needs to participate by voting with their stake in the cryptocurrency? In such cases, determining the rightful owner of the Bitcoin becomes exceptionally complicated due to the long chain of transactions involved. It becomes unclear who should be considered the valid owner, and this uncertainty creates a significant challenge.

Moreover, the current transient ownership model, where cryptocurrency ownership changes hands frequently, simply doesn't work well for assets recorded on a ledger. This flawed model can lead to multiple parties expecting compensation simultaneously, creating a chaotic situation. The risk of a complete breakdown in this scenario is alarming and could have devastating consequences.

One empirical example of the catastrophic consequence of rehypothecation in the crypto industry was the lucrative Grayscale Bitcoin Trust (GBTC) “premium arbitrage,” which led to the demise of 3AC, Genesis, and Grayscale. Rehypothecation generated credit from assets and allowed multiple transactions to be collateralized by the same asset. This unstable chain of transactions supported by the same collateral was poorly understood and resulted in the collapse.


Image source: Hackernoon

Addressing these concerns and finding solutions to ensure the proper ownership and control of cryptocurrencies is crucial. The complex and convoluted nature of ownership in the current system poses significant risks that could undermine the stability and reliability of cryptocurrencies as a whole. Therefore, exploring alternative models and frameworks that can provide a more robust and secure ownership structure for digital assets is essential. By doing so, we can build a stronger foundation for the future of cryptocurrencies and protect investors from potential disasters.

Why Investors Are Eager For A Bitcoin ETF

The idea of a Bitcoin ETF has captured the imagination of cryptocurrency enthusiasts for a couple of important reasons. First, ETFs are built on a solid foundation of tangible assets, and second, they are seamlessly integrated into the traditional financial market through brokers. If a Bitcoin ETF were to become a reality, it would make Bitcoin much more accessible to everyday investors who may not have the patience or technical know-how to buy Bitcoin on cryptocurrency exchanges or manage a blockchain wallet. In simple terms, a Bitcoin ETF could be the key to achieving widespread adoption of Bitcoin.

The hope for a Bitcoin ETF received a glimmer of optimism in October 2021 with the launch of the ProShares Bitcoin Strategy ETF (BITO) on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE). However, it's important to note that this particular ETF is not directly tied to Bitcoin itself. Instead, it tracks the Bitcoin futures contracts offered by the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME), which are essentially bets on the future price of Bitcoin.

On the other hand, ETF proposals directly linked to Bitcoin from various companies have either been outrightly rejected, as was the case with early Bitcoin investors Cameron Winklevoss and Tyler Winklevoss or are still awaiting approval from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

Although there are opportunities for profit in the cryptocurrency market, and the industry has experienced a surge in popularity in recent years, there remain numerous uncertainties surrounding the future relationship between cryptocurrency and Wall Street and its broader acceptance among the investing public.

Many investors believe that the influx of Wall Street money might lead to more regulation, oversight, and accountability in the crypto space, which could ultimately benefit users and investors.

In the end, the impact of Wall Street money on cryptocurrencies will depend on how regulators, policymakers, investors, and users find the right balance between risk and reward, trust and verification, centralization and decentralization, and innovation and stability.

 

 

About: Prince Ibenne. (Nigeria) Prince is passionate about helping people understand the crypto-verse through his easily digestible articles. He is an enthusiastic supporter of blockchain technology and cryptocurrency. Find me at my Markethive Profile Page | My Twitter Account | and my LinkedIn Profile.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tim Moseley

US Government Moves BTC Valued At 300M Prompting Liquidation Fears

US Government Moves BTC Valued At $300M, Prompting Liquidation Fears

By Brenda Ngari – July 12, 2023

The United States government has once again moved Bitcoin tied to Silk Road, the now-shuttered darknet marketplace.

Two wallets belonging to the U.S. Justice Department moved over $300 million worth of Bitcoin to two new addresses on Wednesday morning. The transfer was conducted in three different transactions, as shown by on-chain data from Blockchain.com.

$300 Million In BTC

Some of Silk Road’s bitcoins are on the move once again.

Fed-controlled wallets sent a total of 9,825 Bitcoin, equating to approximately $301 million. Wednesday’s transaction follows an even bigger transaction in March when roughly $1 billion worth of BTC was transferred, a move that prompted a drop across all top cryptocurrencies.

The U.S. authorities have control of BTC that’s been confiscated from bad actors and occasionally move it around. Previously, they’ve done so because they plan to sell it — but not all the time.

The latest transfer has stoked investor fears that intense sell pressures could drive down the price of Bitcoin. BTC dipped after the transaction was sent. The premier cryptocurrency was, at the time of publication trading hands for $30,327.04 per coin, a 0.8% 24-hour drop.

The Silk Road Bitcoin

Feds seized more than 50,000 bitcoins in November 2022 from hacker James Zhong, who pleaded guilty to wire fraud over the hack of these digital assets from the Ross Ulbricht-run Silk Road back in 2012.

Ross Ulbricht is the proprietor of the Silk Road online black market, which was used to mostly buy and sell illicit goods such as weapons, drugs, and stolen credit card information and primarily used bitcoin as a payment method before authorities closed it in 2014. Ulbricht was sentenced to life in federal prison back in 2015 in a high-profile case. He’s currently serving a double life sentence plus 40 years without the possibility of parole.

Court filings contained details of related BTC wallets, allowing online sleuths to track these wallet addresses. Feds have been selling the seized BTC bit by bit. After selling the crypto in March, the U.S. authorities said they intended to dump the remaining bitcoin in four more batches throughout 2023.

ecosystem for entrepreneurs
Markethive Advertisement

DISCLAIMER: None Of The Information You Read On ZyCrypto Should Be Regarded As Investment Advice. Cryptocurrencies Are Highly Volatile, Conduct Your Own Research Before Making Any Investment Decisions.

The original article written by Brenda Ngari and posted on ZyCrypto.com.

Article reposted on Markethive by Jeffrey Sloe

** Loans, secure funding for business projects in the USA and around the world. Learn more about USA & International Financing at Commercial Funding International. **

Tim Moseley

Is The Bank of America Targeting Coinbase Customers? CEO Brian Armstrong Sparks Debate

Is The Bank of America Targeting Coinbase Customers? CEO Brian Armstrong Sparks Debate

By SIMON NJENGA — 14 July 2023

Is Bank of America Targeting Coinbase Customers

  • Bank of America will allocate $100 million towards restitution for affected consumers and pay $150 million in civil penalties.
  • Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong responded to a tweet where someone mentioned that their Bank of America accounts had been closed because of transactions with Coinbase.

On Tuesday, Bank of America (BAC.N) reached a settlement wherein they agreed to pay fines and compensation totaling $250 million. The settlement arises from allegations that the bank engaged in a systematic practice of double-charging customers fees, failing to provide promised credit card benefits, and opening unauthorized accounts.

As part of the settlement, Bank of America will allocate $100 million towards restitution for affected consumers and pay $150 million in civil penalties. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) asserted that the bank violated various laws, which commenced in 2012.

According to a statement by the CFPB, Bank of America generated substantial profits by imposing multiple fees on customers who lacked sufficient funds in their accounts. This practice reportedly occurred from February 2018 to February 2022. Regulators argued that consumers were unaware that each declined transaction would result in a $35 fee, as such expectations were unreasonable and unclear.

Bank of America responded with a statement revealing that it voluntarily eliminated or reduced various fees in the previous year. The CFPB has taken action against what it refers to as “junk fees,” including overdraft and non-sufficient fund fees, claiming that lenders unjustly charge customers for banking services.

Bank of America Fails to Deliver Promised Rewards to Credit Card Holders

The CFPB revealed that Bank of America, headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina, neglected to fulfill its commitment to provide cash rewards and bonus points to tens of thousands of credit card holders.

As part of the settlement, Bank of America agreed to pay penalties amounting to $90 million to the CFPB and $60 million to the OCC. Furthermore, the bank committed to providing regulators with updates on its progress in ensuring compliance over one year.

In a separate matter, Bank of America’s financial advisory division, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, has reached a settlement requiring them to pay $12 million in penalties to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Financial Industry Regulatory Authority. This penalty stems from their failure to submit numerous suspicious activity reports to regulators between January 2009 and November 2019.

The issue was discovered by Merrill in 2019, as indicated by the SEC’s order. In response, the bank issued a statement acknowledging the matter and confirming that they reported it to the regulators. They further stated that they have since improved their process and training to ensure the appropriate filing of these reports in the future.

CEO Brian Armstrong Addresses Bank of America Account Closures

Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong responded to a tweet where someone mentioned that their Bank of America accounts had been closed because of transactions with Coinbase. Armstrong expressed his concern by replying to the tweet and asking if any other Bank of America customers were experiencing a similar issue. He concluded his response by stating that such actions were not acceptable. This comes at a time when there are rumours that he deleted some of his old tweets.

Article written by Simon Njenga, and posted on the Crypto News Flash website.

Article reposted on Markethive by Jeffrey Sloe

** Loans, secure funding for business projects in the USA and around the world. Learn more about USA & International Financing at Commercial Funding International. **

Tim Moseley

Gold silver boosted on notions Fed tightening cycle near an end

Gold, silver boosted on notions Fed tightening cycle near an end

Gold prices are modestly up and hit a three-week high, while silver prices sharply up and hit two-month high in midday U.S. trading Thursday. Another tame U.S. inflation report today has the marketplace thinking the Federal Reserve is likely nearer the end of its interest-rate-hiking cycle. That's bullish for commodity markets, including the metals. August gold was last up $3.30 at $1,965.00 and September silver was up $0.64 at $24.955.

The marketplace is basking in the glow of tame U.S. inflation reports that came out Wednesday and Thursday mornings. Today's producer price index for June also came in slightly lower than expected, following Wednesday tamer consumer price index for June.

Said analyst Nigel Green of the deVere Group: "The U.S. is now likely to pull off the perfect "soft landing,' with the world's largest economy avoiding a recession as the latest inflation data comes in cooler than expected. The U.S. CPI data raises hopes that the Federal Reserve is going to be able to bring down inflation without steering the U.S. economy into a recession. The battle on rising prices is being won, as the data suggests, meaning the pressure is off the Fed for future rate hikes. Cooling inflation and a strong and resilient labor market suggest that no recession will come in 2023.” That's a bullish scenario for commodity markets, suggesting better demand in the coming months.

Asian and European stock markets were mixed to firmer in overnight trading. U.S. stock indexes are firmer at midday.

In overnight news, China's exports in June fell a worse-than-expected 12.4%, year-on-year, following a drop of 7.5% reported in May. Imports in June dropped a worse-than-expected 6.8%, year-on-year. That dour news from the world's second-largest economy did not put a damper on raw commodity markets today, but it may in the near term.

  Silver prices are up 4%; Is this the start of the rally? TD Securities says it is still three months away

The key outside markets today see the U.S. dollar index solidly lower and hitting a 15-month low. That's bullish for the raw commodity sector, as most raw commodities on world trade markets are priced in U.S. dollars. The weaker USDX makes those commodities less expensive to purchase in non-U.S. currency. Meantime, Nymex crude oil prices are slightly up and trading around $76.00 a barrel. The benchmark 10-year U.S. Treasury note yield is presently fetching around 3.8%.

Technically, August gold futures prices hit a three-week high again today. Bulls and bears are on a level overall near-term technical playing field but the bulls have momentum. A nine-week-old downtrend on the daily bar chart has been negated and prices are now in a fledgling uptrend. Bulls' next upside price objective is to produce a close above solid resistance at $2,000.00. Bears' next near-term downside price objective is pushing futures prices below solid technical support at the June low of $1,900.60. First resistance is seen at $1,975.00 and then at $1,985.00. First support is seen at $1,950.00 and then at Wednesday's low of $1,937.50. Wyckoff's Market Rating: 5.0.

September silver futures prices hit a two-month high today. The silver bulls have the overall near-term technical advantage and have momentum. A three-week-old price uptrend is in place on the daily bar chart. Silver bulls' next upside price objective is closing prices above solid technical resistance at the April high of $26.645. The next downside price objective for the bears is closing prices below solid support at $23.00. First resistance is seen at $25.00 and then at $25.50. Next support is seen at $24.50 and then at today's low of $24.31. Wyckoff's Market Rating: 6.5.

September N.Y. copper closed up 900 points at 394.30 cents today. Prices closed near the session high and closed at a 2.5-month high close today. The copper bulls have gained the slight overall near-term technical advantage. Copper bulls' next upside price objective is pushing and closing prices above solid technical resistance at the April high of 418.25 cents. The next downside price objective for the bears is closing prices below solid technical support at 368.30 cents. First resistance is seen at the June high of 396.40 cents and then at 400.00 cents. First support is seen at today's low of 384.20 cents and then at this week's low of 374.25 cents. Wyckoff's Market Rating: 5.5.

By

Jim Wyckoff

For Kitco News

Time to Buy Gold and silver

Tim Moseley

Bitcoin’s Time to Shine: BRICS Nations Plan to Replace US Dollar with Gold-Backed Trading Currency Fueling Bitcoin’s Potential

Bitcoin’s Time to Shine: BRICS Nations Plan to Replace US Dollar with Gold-Backed Trading Currency, Fueling Bitcoin’s Potential

By GODFREY BENJAMIN — 11 July 2023

Bitcoin's Time to Shine

  • Members of the BRICS alliance are set to introduce a Gold-backed token as alternative to the US Dollar.
  • The move from these alliance can have a significant upside for Bitcoin.

Countries within the BRICS alliance (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) are planning the release of a gold-backed digital currency that could contest the dominance of the United States dollar in global settlements.

The launch is expected to be unveiled during the 15th BRICS Summit in Johannesburg, South Africa which is to be held in August. The initiative has received support from many other countries that are interested in joining the economic alliance.

Precisely, the Russian Embassy in Kenya has equally released a tweet to promote the new development. The initiative is also supported by Alexander Babakov, Deputy Chairman of the State Duma who recently highlighted the practical and promising nature of digital payments.

For a long time and across many nations, there has been a strong motivation to dethrone the U.S. dollar in global markets. The fear of weaponization through the imposition of sanctions has made many nations quite resentful towards the dollar.

This Dollar antagonism gave rise to a renewed pursuit by members of the BRICS alliance to find alternative options for cross-border payments which would mitigate the effect of such sanctions. Leslie Maasdrop, the Vice President of the New Development Bank pointed out that the BRICS alliance is made up of countries that each have emerging markets that have different economies with very unique features.

Ultimately, member nations of the BRICS are pushing efforts to boost their financial sovereignty and insulate themselves from the impact of Western sanctions.

Article written by Godfrey Benjamin, and posted on the Crypto News Flash.

Article reposted on Markethive by Jeffrey Sloe

Tim Moseley

Gold silver see strong rallies after tamer US inflation report

Gold, silver see strong rallies after tamer U.S. inflation report

Gold and silver prices are sharply up, nearer their daily highs and hit three-week peaks Wednesday, in the aftermath of a morning U.S. inflation report that came in a bit tamer than market expectations.August gold was last up $24.60 at $1,961.70 and September silver was up $1.014 at $24.295.

The U.S. data point of the week saw the consumer price index report for June come in up 3.0%, year-on-year, which is slightly lower than the expected rise of 3.1% and compares to the gain of 4.0% in the May report. The "core" CPI, which excludes food and energy, came in at up 4.8%, year-on-year, compared with expectations of up 5.0%. These numbers fall into the camp of the monetary policy doves, who want to see the Federal Reserve continue to stand pat on interest rate levels.

The U.S. dollar index sold off sharply, stock indexes rallied and U.S. Treasury yields dropped following the upbeat CPI data.

  How to trade spot Bitcoin ETF: Lessons learned from gold ETFs – Florian Grummes

The key outside markets today see the U.S. dollar index solidly lower and hitting a two-month low. Nymex crude oil prices are higher and trading around $75.50 a barrel. The benchmark 10-year U.S. Treasury note yield is presently fetching 3.859%–well down from overnight levels.

Technically, August gold futures prices hit a three-week high today. Bulls and bears are back on a level overall near-term technical playing field but the bulls have momentum. A nine-week-old downtrend on the daily bar chart has been negated. Bulls' next upside price objective is to produce a close above solid resistance at $2,000.00. Bears' next near-term downside price objective is pushing futures prices below solid technical support at the June low of $1,900.60. First resistance is seen at today's high of $1,963.60 and then at $1,975.00. First support is seen at $1,950.00 and then at today's low of $1,937.50. Wyckoff's Market Rating: 5.0.

September silver futures prices hit a three-week high today. The silver bulls have gained the slight overall near-term technical advantage. A nine-week-old price downtrend on the daily bar chart has been negated. Silver bulls' next upside price objective is closing prices above solid technical resistance at $25.00. The next downside price objective for the bears is closing prices below solid support at the June low of $22.34. First resistance is seen at $24.50 and then at the June high of $24.835. Next support is seen at $24.00 and then at $23.50. Wyckoff's Market Rating: 5.5.

September N.Y. copper closed up 860 points at 385.20 cents today. Prices closed nearer the session high and hit a two-week high on short covering. The copper bears still have the overall near-term technical advantage. Copper bulls' next upside price objective is pushing and closing prices above solid technical resistance at the June high of 396.40 cents. The next downside price objective for the bears is closing prices below solid technical support at 368.30 cents. First resistance is seen at today's high of 386.05 cents and then at 390.00 cents. First support is seen at 380.00 cents and then at this week's low of 374.25 cents. Wyckoff's Market Rating: 4.0.

By

Jim Wyckoff

For Kitco News

Time to Buy Gold and silver

Tim Moseley

Gold firmer key US inflation report on deck

Gold firmer; key U.S. inflation report on deck

Gold is higher and silver is slightly lower in midday U.S. trading Tuesday. Gold is supported by bullish daily outside market forces that see the U.S. dollar index a bit weaker, crude oil prices higher and U.S. Treasury yields down a bit. Trading action was more subdued today ahead of a major U.S. inflation report out Wednesday morning. August gold was last up $7.20 at $1,938.10 and September silver was down $0.02 at $23.325.

Trading so far this week has been quieter ahead of the U.S. data point of the week: Wednesday morning’s consumer price index report for June, which is expected to come in at up 5.0%, year-on-year, compared to a gain of 5.3% in the May report. Trading action in many financial markets, as well as the precious metals, may heat up in the wake of the CPI report, especially if it’s a miss from market expectations.

  Gold prices can still push to record highs at $2,100 an ounce by the end of the year – MKS' Shiels

The key outside markets today see the U.S. dollar index slightly lower. Nymex crude oil prices are up and trading around $74.75 a barrel. The benchmark 10-year U.S. Treasury note yield is presently fetching 3.988%.

Technically, August gold futures were up $6.50 at $1,937.30 in afternoon trading and near mid-range. Bears have the overall near-term technical advantage. Prices are in a nine-week-old downtrend on the daily bar chart. Bulls’ next upside price objective is to produce a close above solid resistance at $1,975.00. Bears' next near-term downside price objective is pushing futures prices below solid technical support at the February low of $1,846.80. First resistance is seen at today’s high of $1,944.50 and then at $1,950.00. First support is seen at today’s low of $1,929.80 and then at this week’s low of $1,918.00. Wyckoff's Market Rating: 4.0.

September silver futures were down $0.035 at $23.31 at midday and nearer the session low. Prices hit a three-week high early on today. The silver bears have the slight overall near-term technical advantage. However, a nine-week-old price downtrend on the daily bar chart has been negated. Silver bulls' next upside price objective is closing prices above solid technical resistance at the June high of $24.835. The next downside price objective for the bears is closing prices below solid support at the June low of $22.34. First resistance is seen at today’s high of $23.595 and then at $24.00. Next support is seen at $23.00 and then at last week’s low of $22.72. Wyckoff's Market Rating: 4.5.

September N.Y. copper closed down 230 points at 376.15 cents today. Prices closed nearer the session low. The copper bears have the overall near-term technical advantage. Copper bulls' next upside price objective is pushing and closing prices above solid technical resistance at the June high of 396.40 cents. The next downside price objective for the bears is closing prices below solid technical support at the May low of 356.50 cents. First resistance is seen at today’s high of 382.25 cents and then at 385.00 cents. First support is seen at last week’s low of 372.25 cents and then at 368.30 cents. Wyckoff's Market Rating: 3.0.

By

Jim Wyckoff

For Kitco News

Time to Buy Gold and silver

Tim Moseley

Gold prices can still push to record highs at 2100 an ounce by the end of the year – MKS’ Shiels

Gold prices can still push to record highs at $2,100 an ounce by the end of the year – MKS' Shiels

Gold prices have room to move lower and retest support below $1,900 an ounce in the early part of the second half of the year; however, that doesn't mean investors should give up on gold, according to one market analyst.

In her mid-year outlook, published last week, Nicky Shiels, metals strategist at MKS PAMP, said that she is maintaining her 2023 year-end price average of $1,930 an ounce, even as prices could remain in a downtrend in the near term.

In what could be a volatile market, MKS sees gold prices trading in a range between $1,850 and $2,100 an ounce through the second half of the year.

"Stay core long Gold but remain tactically nimble, which hinges on the interplay between a relatively restrictive Fed & stronger US data," Shiels said in her latest report.

Shiels warned investors that gold could continue to struggle during the rest of the summer as the Federal Reserve looks to raise interest rates later this month. However, she added that there is a chance gold can still see record all-time highs by the end of the year.

"We do expect a bumpy 2H'23 as monetary policy starts to bite; Gold prices are then expected to print a new all-time-high in 2H'23 and pierce $2100/oz," said Shiels. "Our conviction lies in higher floors versus runaway upside repricing unless the Fed loses the inflation fight (not our base case) or breaks something more substantial in the economy."

Although the threat of a recession, caused by the Federal Reserve's aggressive monetary policies, is still in the marketplace, Shiels said that the fear has diminished, and investors are now chasing momentum in other assets.

"U.S. financial instability risks have materially subsided – there is just no macro fear – and fighting the Fed is usually a losing trade after they have, to-date, simply extremely complicated risks. However, underweight investors will continue to incrementally reengage in quality assets and safe havens like precious metals."

Bank of America downgrades gold, silver prices for 2023 as Fed rate hikes keep investors away

Along with gold, Shiels also remains bullish on silver, leaving her average price target unchanged at $24 an ounce. At the same time, MKS sees silver prices trading in a range between $21.50 and $27 through the second half of the year.

Shiels noted that silver's significant supply-demand imbalance continues to support the precious metal's long-term bullish outlook.

"Strong support lurks below $22/oz stemming from a mix of industrial & retail participation, which is expected to remain resilient into 2H'23 despite growing recession risks," she said. "There continues to be asymmetric upside risks in Silver which hinges on investor resubscription, the return of Chinese buying & restocking and the convincing rollover in the US$ once the Fed pauses and expectations shift to a consecutive rate cuts."

By

Neils Christensen

For Kitco News

Time to Buy Gold and silver

Tim Moseley

Smart Cities Equal Total Control Of Civilization Don’t Take The Bait

Smart Cities Equal Total Control Of Civilization. Don’t Take The Bait. 

As mentioned in a previous article, power companies in Texas automatically raised the temperature of so-called smart thermostats in thousands of homes to help save energy during a heat wave in June 2021. Most people had no idea that their home temperature had been raised nor that the power company's ability to do this was outlined in the fine print of their contracts. 

If what the Texas citizens experienced sounds ominous, it’s just the tip of the iceberg of what the World Economic Forum (WEF) has planned with its smart cities. In this article, we’ll explore smart cities, including who invented them, where they're being rolled out, when they will be complete, and whether or not the WEF’s plans will succeed. 

What Is A Smart City?

The best definition comes from Wikipedia. It's lengthy but needs to be cited because it captures the full scope of smart cities.

 “A smart city is a technologically modern urban area that uses different types of electronic methods and sensors to collect specific data. The information gained from that data is used to manage assets, resources, and services efficiently; in return, that data is used to improve operations across the city. This includes data collected from citizens, devices, buildings, and assets that are processed and analyzed to monitor and manage traffic and transportation systems, power plants, utilities, water supply networks, waste, criminal investigations, information systems, schools, libraries, hospitals, and other community services. Smart cities are defined as smart both in the ways in which their governments harness technology as well as how they monitor, analyze, plan, and govern the city. In smart cities, the sharing of data is not limited to the city itself but also includes businesses, citizens, and other third parties.”

In short,  a smart city is where everything you do is tracked and managed by the government, including what you do at home. This is possible because almost every modern home appliance has internet connectivity, not just thermostats, but fridges, microwaves, TVs, cars, and even home entry systems are all connected these days. In other words, smart cities are the dictionary definition of a digital dystopia. 

Now it's important to note that smart cities and 15-minute cities are different. Although the two terms are used interchangeably, they're not the same, albeit related. Whereas smart cities involve tracking and managing everything you do, 15-minute cities explicitly limit where you can go. Moreover, the primary unelected and unaccountable entity pushing 15-minute cities is the C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group, whereas the primary unelected and unaccountable entity driving smart cities is the WEF. 

Who Brought Smart Cities To Light

The term smart cities had its roots in a marketing initiative called Smarter Cities by Tech Giant IBM in 2008. The enterprise has its roots in a 2008 speech by former IBM CEO Sam Palmisano titled “A Smarter Planet, The Next Leadership Agenda.” Sam's discourse on this topic can still be viewed on YouTube. 

Sam says a lot of the same stuff you hear today. There's turmoil in markets, supply chain issues, accelerating climate change, political tensions arising, an energy crisis, etc. Like today's elites, Sam saw these crises as a “unique opportunity to transform the world.” He talked about how digital and physical spaces are converging, how people demand change, and how this demand should be exploited to “change the game.” 

It sounds like the new normal and the great reset narratives we've heard from almost every government official worldwide since 2020. Today's difference is that the elites have the technology required to impose their will on the average person. The absence of such technology is why smart cities initially had difficulty getting off the ground. 

Amsterdam was the first to pursue a smart city initiative, and it quickly became a reference point for how smart cities should be set up worldwide. Interest in smart cities started to accelerate in the following years, with the European Union announcing a smart cities initiative in 2012 and Singapore following suit in 2014. 


Image source: Google Trends

The search trends for smart cities peaked when the United Kingdom and India announced their initiatives in 2015. 2015 was also the year when Google incorporated a company called Sidewalk Labs, whose purpose was to facilitate the development of smart cities worldwide. There was little coordination around the creation or governance of smart cities until that point.

It all changed on January 1st, 2016, when the United Nations announced its Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). For context, the SDGs are 17 goals that are supposed to be met by all UN members, basically the whole world, by 2030. This is why you see the date 2030 everywhere. 


Image Source: un.org

The development of smart cities is part of the 11th SDG, which is to “make cities inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable.” The Smart City Index was developed by the Singaporean University and a Swiss University in 2017 to measure how well smart cities meet these arbitrary goals. Not surprisingly, Singapore has replaced Amsterdam as the gold standard for smart cities.

Whereas Amsterdam's approach to smart cities was traffic management, Singapore's approach includes tracking whether people are littering or smoking in places they're not supposed to. Then in 2018, consulting firm McKinsey & Company published a lengthy report about smart cities. The firm found that “Cities can use Smart Technologies to improve some essential quality of life indicators by 10% – 30%. Numbers that translate into lives saved, fewer crime incidents, shorter commutes, a reduced health burden, and carbon emissions averted." 

The WEF’s G20 Global Smart Cities Alliance

Most institutions that were interested in smart cities after the SDGs were announced came from the public sector. This changed in 2019 when the World Economic Forum announced the G20 Global Smart Cities Alliance on Technology Governance. As per the WEF’s initiatives website

“The G20 Global Smart Cities Alliance unites municipal, regional, and national governments together with private-sector partners and urban residents to focus on a shared set of core guiding principles for the responsible use of smart city technologies.”

Moreover, 

“The Alliance partners with international organizations and city networks to source tried-and-tested policy approaches to these technologies. Our institutional partners represent more than 200,000 cities and local governments, companies, startups, research institutions, and civil society communities. The World Economic Forum serves as the Alliance's secretariat.”

In other words, the WEF will govern smart cities being developed. Did we vote for this? It’s important to note that this announcement came within two weeks after the WEF had announced a strategic partnership with the UN to ensure the SDGs were met. The WEF and its affiliates would provide the private sector coordination and funding as part of this partnership. 

The SDGs also include the development of digital IDs. Furthermore, the WEF and its affiliates used the pandemic to test digital IDs. Alongside this initiative, the WEF also began testing smart cities with the G20 Global Smart City Alliance. In November 2020, the alliance announced 36 so-called pioneer cities from 22 countries worldwide that would participate in a study to understand how the WEF can best govern smart cities. 

That same year, the WEF announced it would begin developing smart cities in Japan, Latin America, and India. If you're wondering why Japan is on the list, it’s because the G20 WEF Alliance was formed during Japan's G20 presidency. Japan's interest in smart cities comes from its own Society 5.0 initiative, which was announced in 2017. 

For many, the Society 5.0 initiative is a terrifying concept; as UNESCO describes it, “Japan’s new blueprint for a super-smart society, Society 5.0, is a more far-reaching concept than the Fourth Industrial Revolution, for it envisions completely transforming the Japanese way of life by blurring the frontier between cyberspace and the physical space.” Note that the Fourth Industrial Revolution is another initiative by the WEF.

The Pioneer City study concluded in July 2021, and the key findings were everything you'd expect. Almost no government accountability, almost no cybersecurity standards, and virtually no privacy. Very little accommodation for people who aren't plugged in and almost no transparency about data use. 

Despite these disastrous results, the WEF continues to work on the “governance” of over 80 smart cities being developed in Japan, Latin America, and India. In May 2022, the WEF announced, "The alliance is planning to launch more networks in Asia, the Middle East, and Africa.” 

One can even argue that the WEF used the pandemic to develop smart cities because the May update specifies that “The Global Smart Cities Alliance on Technology Governance is led by the Forum’s platform for Shaping the Future of Urban Transformation, established during the pandemic. 

Which Cities Will Convert?

Now, if you're wondering which cities will be converted into smart cities and controlled by the WEF, the short answer is all of them. This is simply because the UN's SDGs require all 193 member countries to introduce smart cities by 2030. As such, the only question is when cities will be under the WEF’s control. The goal is to turn every city into a smart city by 2030, but it looks like the WEF and its UN affiliates are rolling out smart cities, one region at a time. 

So right now, the WEF is working on Japan, Latin America, and India and will soon be working on Asia, the Middle East, and Africa. More to the point, except for Japan, the WEF is currently focused on building smart cities in developing countries. This is probably because populations in poorer countries are easier to control and because these populations are begging for some usable infrastructure. 

The most prominent smart cities initiative in a developing country appears to be the one from India mentioned earlier. The smart cities mission of 2015 sought to turn 100 cities across India into smart cities. An August 2021 update notes that Delhi and Nagaland have completed over 70% of their projects, making them the smartest cities to date. While another seven states – Rajasthan, Gujarat, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Goa, Tripura, and Andhra Pradesh – have finished 50-60%. However, many other states/UTs are not performing well. Meghalaya has not completed even a single project.

It makes one wonder when the WEF will shift its smart cities focus to developed countries in places like North America and Europe. It will probably happen once the WEF has experimented enough on developing countries to know how to roll out smart cities without causing a full-scale revolution. That said, some countries in developed regions are not so subtly working with the WEF already. 

The largest smart cities initiative in a developed country comes from the European Union (EU). In September 2021, the EU announced its 100 climate-neutral and smart cities by 2013 mission. In April 2022, the complete list of participating cities was revealed. It’s worth mentioning that the EU’s list doesn't only include major cities; it also includes smaller towns and regions of only 100,000 people. It raises the argument that many may have only signed on because the EU will give €360 million to participants. 

According to the McKinsey report, the smartest cities in Europe in 2018 were Stockholm, Amsterdam, and Copenhagen. The same report notes that New York City, San Francisco, and Chicago were the smartest cities in the United States in 2018. 


Screenshot source: McKinsey report

According to the Smart Cities Index, the smartest cities in 2021 were Singapore, Oslo, and Zurich. The only issue they had was housing. However, this is not the only issue associated with smart cities, and the evidence so far suggests the WEF’s mission will fail. 

A WEF Victory Hangs In The Balance

Believe it or not, the most significant pushback to the WEF smart cities has come from individuals and institutions aligned with the WEF on most other issues. This is because of the use of smart city data for criminal investigations, which you'll recall was highlighted in the Wikipedia definition above. 

These critics have pointed out that smart city data tends to result in the over-policing of specific groups, which goes against the equitable principles of the smart cities concept. This is a bigger deal than you think because the primary benefit of smart cities is crime reduction, at least according to McKinsey. The 2018 smart cities report states, “Incidents of assault, robbery, burglary, and auto theft could be lowered by 30% to 40%.” 

On top of these metrics are the invaluable benefits of giving residents freedom of movement and peace of mind. This is the largest chunk of the overall benefit. Otherwise, pro-WEF critics are also concerned about sharing personally identifiable data. Remember Google's smart city subsidiary, Sidewalk Labs? Their first project was a smart city in Toronto, Canada. The project was shut down in early 2020 after the privacy commissioner resigned in protest. It happened around the time that the average Indian citizen started to become skeptical of the country's smart cities mission. 

By 2020 all the 100 cities selected were supposed to be smart cities. However, only a handful have met the necessary criteria, and there continued to be headlines about delays and corruption. In 2021, some public sector institutions started to oppose smart cities, with Yale University publishing an article titled “Why the Luster on Once Vaunted Smart Cities Is Fading.” The article explains how cities built from scratch to be smart have failed and have been a waste of time and money.  

At the same time, other public sector institutions started to study why smart cities were failing so miserably. Lo and behold, most of these studies focused on the fact that smart cities are at odds with the ambitious social justice goals many smart city types support even more. 

It's not just the public sector either; institutions in the private sector are starting to realize that the cost of rolling out the surveillance infrastructure required is not worth the estimated gains, especially if personally identifiable data can't be sold. Without the private sector on board, smart cities will fail. 


Source: Youtube

One of the best articles yet about the failure of smart cities is titled “Why smart cities aren't the future.” It was published in December 2022 by journalist David Sax, who wrote a book about why smart cities suck, citing, “As many smart city solutions fail to live up to the hype, here’s why the future could rest in analog innovations, not technological ones.”

David refers to Burcu Baykurt, who teaches urban futures and communications at the University of Massachusetts and is the author of the forthcoming book titled  “The City as Data Machine,” which is currently under embargo till April 2024. 

She looks at the legacy of a smart city project Google and Cisco attempted in Kansas City, starting back in 2016, stating that the plan was to attempt a test bed downtown, using sensors, advanced cameras, public Wi-Fi networks, and digital kiosks to connect all sorts of city services and improve them for the mostly poorer Black and Latino residents of the area. The data would reveal gaps in parking, transportation, and policing, which would lead to quicker and better solutions by city staff.

In other words, it was supposed to be the textbook smart city, but here's what actually happened; Burku Baykurt concluded,

”To be honest, it doesn't change much. The hype mobilizes a lot of people. There seems to be change going on. Breathless proclamations are made. Articles are written. Politicians take photos with executives. But in the end, the data is just that: lots of data. And in the Kansas City case, the solutions proposed from that data were so impractical and disconnected from reality (driverless cars and drones rather than buses and more police patrols) that the project quietly died after a few years.”

David ends his article with a fantastic quote, which just so happens to touch on the primary issues that continue to plague the smartest of smart cities, 

“The future of cities lies not in making cities obsolete by upending them through digital utopianism but in doubling down on the analog things that have always made cities great: housing opportunities, economic and cultural diversity, vibrant public spaces, a mishmash of humanity.”

Why Smart Cities Will Fail

In sum, the WEF’s smart cities will fail because they can't appease their ideological allies and cannot coordinate the creation of smart cities from the top down. Never mind that the average person doesn't want to live in a dystopian smart city that the WEF governs. However, this doesn't mean that the folk at the WEF aren't going to try. 

This article about how to resist the great reset explains that the WEF is trying to take control of cities, states, and governments using its network of 10,000 young global leaders and shapers who are being maneuvered into positions of power. 

So be on the lookout for these individuals, as well as any institutions they are associated with. They'll be easy to spot because they will be the ones pushing for digital ID, CBDCs, online censorship, carbon credit scores, smart cities, and all the other UN SDGs the WEF is trying to implement. Also, note that ESG criteria are synonymous with SDG criteria. 

All this information can be overwhelming, so here’s a short video to lighten the mood and have a bit of a laugh. 

As the old saying goes, “Don't be scared, be prepared.” What prepared means varies from person to person, but an excellent first step is being informed. A good second step is telling others who are willing to listen. After that, the rest is up to you. 

 

 

Editor and Chief Markethive: Deb Williams. (Australia) I thrive on progress and champion freedom of speech. I embrace "Change" with a passion, and my purpose in life is to enlighten people to accept and move forward with enthusiasm. Find me at my Markethive Profile Page | My Twitter Account | and my LinkedIn Profile.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tim Moseley

Why Joining 75000 XRP Holders Against the SEC Does Not Affect Potential Recovery for XRP Holders

Why Joining 75,000 XRP Holders Against the SEC Does Not Affect Potential Recovery for XRP Holders

By Aaron Feuerstein – July 10, 2023

Prominent crypto lawyer John E. Deaton was recently asked about the possibility of more XRP holders joining the civil case against Ripple in Oakland, California, if the verdict in SEC vs Ripple goes against Ripple and the judge declares XRP a security. Just last week, a California Judge certified a class of American purchasers of XRP in a complaint accusing Ripple Labs of selling unregistered securities. This second legal concern Ripple is facing is the subject of the tweet that prompted the question.

Concerning the ongoing legal conflict between Ripple Labs and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Deaton discussed the possible options and their potential impact on Ripple, XRP investors, and the SEC.

Regarding any money flowing from Ripple to the SEC, the lawyer is sure it won’t happen for years and only if Ripple were to lose on appeal.

Deaton said: “If the Supreme Court takes it on appeal (which I believe they will if Congress hasn’t acted by then), I believe Ripple hands down wins with this Supreme Court. If the SEC wins Ripple will appeal and the status quo that exists today will continue over the next 2-5 years.”

He claims that if the SEC prevails and the civil case attorneys triumph because the Californian judge upholds Judge Torres’ decision, Ripple will also appeal that case and no money will change hands, possibly never. If Ripple loses all of its challenges in five years, the SEC, not the civil claimants, would be responsible for collecting the $1.3 billion.

It’s important to note that the SEC would receive this money rather than the civil claimants. In response, the SEC would create a repayment fund akin to the Veritaseum case, enabling holders of XRP to sell their tokens.

Deaton emphasizes an intriguing aspect of the situation that some may have missed. He argues that if the SEC were to lose, the damages that could be recovered in civil litigation would rise. Conversely, an SEC victory could make obtaining any financial losses more challenging for the civil lawsuit’s plaintiffs.

Deaton stresses that signing up for the 75K list, a list of XRP owners he represents in SEC vs Ripple, does not constitute a waiver of any rights or claims. Being on the list instead aids in identifying a sizable potential class of XRP holders. Holders of XRP on the list would probably be informed if there was ever a financial recovery in either the civil or SEC lawsuit.

He said: “Also if Ripple loses and Congress fixes this regulatory mess during the 5 years of appeals, it all goes away anyway. Bottom line, being on the list didn’t waive anything and, if anything, it identified your claims (if you have any) long ago.”

Critics who claim that joining the 75K list and claiming that XRP is not a security would be damaging if XRP holders received financial compensation are dismissed by the attorney. He clarifies that even if a judge and an appeals court found differently, being mistaken about XRP’s security status would not result in punishment.

Given the possible outcomes, Deaton expresses doubt about the civil lawsuit’s impact. He contends that, paradoxically, XRP investors would gain if the SEC finally wins since it would receive the largest settlement and the best resolution.

These observations from John E. Deaton offer helpful perspectives on the probable outcomes and repercussions for all parties involved as the Ripple-SEC legal dispute continues.

DISCLAIMER: None Of The Information You Read On ZyCrypto Should Be Regarded As Investment Advice. Cryptocurrencies Are Highly Volatile, Conduct Your Own Research Before Making Any Investment Decisions.

The original article written by Aaron Feuerstein and posted on ZyCrypto.com.

Article reposted on Markethive by Jeffrey Sloe

** Loans, secure funding for business projects in the USA and around the world. Learn more about USA & International Financing at Commercial Funding International. **

Tim Moseley

The Artist that came out of the Winter