Connect with us

Five times crypto got weird in 2020

Crypto is no stranger to weirdos, so here’s a few times the space got strange in 2020.
Every industry, group, clique and conclave has its own share of weirdos — cryptocurrency and blockchain are no exception. Considering that…

Published

3 years ago

on

Crypto is no stranger to weirdos, so here’s a few times the space got strange in 2020.

Every industry, group, clique and conclave has its own share of weirdos — cryptocurrency and blockchain are no exception. 

Considering that cryptocurrency is the so-called “native” currency of the internet — the repository of the sum of human knowledge and the eccentricities there contained — the crypto sector is home to perhaps even weirder moments and personalities than more established and traditional industries.

Outside of crypto’s inherently odd character, 2020 itself has shaped up to be a bizarre, if not downright terrible year. Existing socioeconomic problems in countries around the globe were exacerbated by the appearance of the novel coronavirus and governments’ subsequent reactions to it. 

Bolivia and Kyrgyzstan underwent political upheaval, while the United States presidential election sowed more doubt about the country’s future than certainty in the peaceful transition of power. 

Kanye West’s fashion brand received $5 million in coronavirus relief for small businesses. Hackers gatecrashed Zoom meetings. Tiger King became a brief obsession. A bunch of tone-deaf celebrities sang “Imagine” and it was absolutely horrible. The list of the weird and the bad goes on.

Crypto’s 2020 was no exception, with its own fair share of eccentric billionaires, foul-ups, power grabs and political posturing. So, as we say “sayonara” to 2020, let’s take a look at a few of the weirdest moments in crypto this year.

The crypto presidents 

This year has been a big one for cryptocurrency adoption. Major financial firms have gone in on Bitcoin (BTC), with sizeable allocations and investments by banks and mutual funds.

As crypto becomes an increasingly mainstream financial instrument, it has attracted the admiration and ire of those in the halls of power. Proponents reached toward regulatory approval while suspicious politicians across the global sought to clamp down on crypto.

It should come as no surprise, then, that some in the crypto community tried to influence the regulatory discourse on cryptocurrencies. A select few, however, sought to do so as President of the United States of America.

American computer scientist and well-known eccentric John McAfee announced his own presidential run as the “crypto candidate” in 2018. However, things got even more interesting as he took to running his campaign from abroad as he supposedly fled capture by U.S. authorities pursuing him on tax charges. Operations were reportedly helped along by an eye-patched campaign manager.

McAfee frequently stated that he was only running for president to raise awareness about cryptocurrency, and never expected to win.

In May 2020, McAfee threw in the towel on his presidential bid, instead running for vice presidency, as the Libertarian Party in which he sought his nomination allows a vice president candidate to run separately.

Brock Pierce, a former child actor and crypto venture capitalist jumped into the presidential race relatively late, in the summer of 2020. 

A co-founder of Block.one, the organization that created EOS, Pierce was featured on British comedian John Oliver’s Last Week Tonight, where Oliver drew attention to the former’s eccentric spiritual take on EOS and his unicorn-themed wedding at the legendary U.S. art festival, Burning Man. 

Pierce’s strategy and overall campaign image was far more tempered than that of McAfee. In addition to running on a platform prioritizing the development of digital currencies, he also had clear policies on a variety of other relevant issues, including criminal justice reform, universal earned income and healthcare. 

As we well know, neither man won. Pierce has largely gone radio silent after the campaign’s conclusion, and McAfee is reportedly residing in a Spanish jail, so there will be no unicorn-themed parties in the Rose Garden, and no one will be smoking bath salts in the Roosevelt Room. 

The drama at Bitmain

The details of corporate leadership are often unknown to the layman, as the major decisions and conversations all take place behind closed doors. One imagines Machiavellian takeovers and sycophants vying to get a rung up on the ladder, like in Billions or The Wolf of Wall Street.

The case of Bitmain, one of the largest producers of Bitcoin mining hardware, would appear to follow this stereotype.

In a story that is so dramatic it could have been written for TV, the once-friends and co-founders of the Bitcoin mining giant were locked in a bitter power struggle over the company, affecting its basic operations.

In October of last year, Bitmain co-founder Micree Zhan was ousted from the company in an attempt to “save the ship” by the firm’s other co-founder, Jihan Wu. 

The conflict reportedly started due to Zhan’s supposedly disproportionate control over the company. He allegedly owned twice as many stocks in the firm as Wu, but the shares were downgraded as the drama began to unfold.

In May 2020, Bitmain issued statements confirming rumors that Zhan had been ousted from the company. Zhan subsequently sued Bitmain, and Wu ordered all employees to either sever contact with him or face punishment.

Armed guards reportedly appeared at the firm’s Beijing offices at Zhan’s behest in order to establish himself as a legal representative of the company. While Wu condemned the takeover, Zhan appears to have achieved some success, as he forbade employees to complete shipments of mining rigs.

Bitmain maintained that Zhan had no right to represent the company legally, but in June, he offered to buy out the company for $4 billion in shares. He appears to have been successful in changing the firm’s payments details to entities he controls, but hardware shipments still suffered and 10,000 mining rigs controlled by the firm went “missing” in Mongolia. 

The Bitmain leadership struggle has yet to conclude, so we may look forward to more weird twists and turns in 2021.

The great Twitter hack of 2020... 

July 15, 2020 is a day that will live on in infamy for social media giant Twitter, as the accounts of famous politicians, businesspeople and media figures were hacked and used for a Bitcoin giveaway scam.

The pages of Elon Musk, Kanye West, President-Elect Joe Biden, former President Barack Obama, Warren Buffett and Bill Gates were all compromised and sent out posts with one of the oldest crypto scams in the book.

In the crypto giveaway scam, a supposedly magnanimous individual claims to be sharing their wealth via Bitcoin. One only needs to send a small amount to their listed address so that they can ascertain what your address is, and send you a sum worth far more than your initial transfer.

Most people with a passing familiarity with crypto are aware of this kind of scam, but some that are new to the space, or don’t know about crypto at all, apparently don’t think it all weird that Barack Obama wants to give them Bitcoin, and thus fall victim to the scheme.

Elon Musk’s hacked crypto account

Elon Musk’s hacked crypto account. Source: Cointelegraph

In addition to the aforementioned famous faces, hackers also compromised the accounts of prominent players in the crypto space, including major exchanges Binance, Coinbase and Gemini, as well as protocols like Tron.  

While Twitter responded immediately by locking the affected blue-check accounts, the damage had already been done. Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey expressed his own lamentations on the platform.

https://twitter.com/jack/status/1283571658339397632

Rumors and speculation that the hack was an inside job were quelled when Twitter released a report on the incident, revealing that employees with broad administrative privileges had been victims of a spear-phishing attack.

While doppelganger accounts of famous individuals are often created to execute scams, the Twitter hack this year set a new precedent for the lengths scammers are willing to go to on social media platforms.

The $1 million bounty that never was

Never one to shy away from a good publicity stunt, Tron founder and BitTorrent CEO Justin Sun offered a $1 million dollar bounty to whoever could track down the parties responsible for the Twitter hack. 

However, when reporters attempted to work with Tron in tracking down the scammers, the company miraculously failed to follow through on its high-profile promise.

After an individual approached a Cointelegraph reporter with highly credible information regarding the potential hackers, Cointelegraph attempted to put the individual in touch with Tron in order to pass on this info.

Tron, however, seemed utterly disinterested in talking to the source, instead insisting that the source get Cointelegraph’s stamp of approval before making its own examination. In its correspondence with both Cointelegraph and the source, it seemed like the company was trying to get out of paying the bounty. One group chat went as follows:

“Source: Whenever [you] are free, we could hop in a Zoom or Discord call and explain everything to you guys.

Tron representative: No we can chat right here go ahead.

Source: It’s a lot, much easier over a voice call.

Tron representative: Not happening.”

Instead, Tron set up an email account for tips, while major papers reported deep dives into the hack four days after Cointelegraph and the source had initially approached Tron. Tron later claimed that an FBI investigation into the incident was sufficient cause to terminate the bounty.

Tron’s behavior did seem rather odd, given its proposed goals, in addition to being rather convenient, as it didn’t need to pay out the generous sum. 

The Dickening

Price predictions abound in the crypto space. Experts and analysts have predicted a Bitcoin bull run leading the coin to $100,000 during this cycle, and perhaps as high as $1 million by 2035. One Citibank analyst recently predicted a Bitcoin price of over $300,000 in 2021.

However, there is one particular price prediction that earns a spot on the weird-list this year. John McAfee, whom we already know as affirmed eccentric within the crypto space, made a bet three years ago that could be rather painful if he actually delivers.

In 2017, McAfee bet that Bitcoin would hit $500,000 by 2020, and if not, he would eat his own genitalia on television. As the 2017 bull run gained steam, however, he upped his bet.

https://twitter.com/officialmcafee/status/935900326007328768

The event, which has become known as The Dickening and earned its own countdown clock, is now less than two weeks away.

So, all Bitcoin price needs to do for McAfee to avoid a rude luncheon is to increase by almost 5,000% in the next several days. Perhaps it’s a good thing his bet isn’t locked into a smart contract. 

The year to come

As 2020 comes to a close, one thing is clear: The cryptocurrency space is growing and adoption will continue to increase throughout 2021 and the years to come. As the industry thrives, the weirdos contained therein will likely continue to shock and entertain both insiders and observers.

Read More

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

Government

Supreme Court Rules Public Officials May Block Their Constituents On Social Media

Supreme Court Rules Public Officials May Block Their Constituents On Social Media

Authored by Matthew Vadum via The Epoch Times (emphasis…

Published

3 hours ago

on

March 17, 2024

By

Supreme Court Rules Public Officials May Block Their Constituents On Social Media

Authored by Matthew Vadum via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Public officials may block people on social media in certain situations, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously on March 15.

People leave the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington on Feb. 21, 2024. (Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)

At the same time, the court held that public officials who post about topics pertaining to their work on their personal social media accounts are acting on behalf of the government. But such officials can be found liable for violating the First Amendment only when they have been properly authorized by the government to communicate on its behalf.

The case is important because nowadays public officials routinely reach out to voters through social media on the same pages where they discuss personal matters unrelated to government business.

“When a government official posts about job-related topics on social media, it can be difficult to tell whether the speech is official or private,” Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote for the nation’s highest court.

The case is separate from but brings to mind a lawsuit that several individuals previously filed against former President Donald Trump after he blocked them from accessing his social media account on Twitter, which was later renamed X. The Supreme Court dismissed that case, Biden v. Knight First Amendment Institute, in April 2021 as moot because President Trump had already left office.

At the time of the ruling, the then-Twitter had banned President Trump. When Elon Musk took over the company he reversed that policy.

The new decision in Lindke v. Freed was written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett.

Respondent James Freed, the city manager of Port Huron, Michigan, used a public Facebook account to communicate with his constituents. Petitioner Kevin Lindke, a resident of Port Huron, criticized the municipality’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic, including accusations of hypocrisy by local officials.

Mr. Freed blocked Mr. Lindke and others and removed their comments, according to Mr. Lindke’s petition.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit ruled for Mr. Freed, finding that he was acting only in a personal capacity and that his activities did not constitute governmental action.

Mr. Freed’s attorney, Victoria Ferres, said during oral arguments before the Supreme Court on Oct. 31, 2023, that her client didn’t give up his rights when using social media.

“This country’s 21 million government employees should have the right to talk publicly about their jobs on personal social media accounts like their private-sector counterparts.”

The position advocated by the other side would unfairly punish government officials, and “will result in uncertainty and self-censorship for this country’s government employees despite this Court repeatedly finding that government employees do not lose their rights merely by virtue of public employment,” she said.

In Lindke v. Freed, the Supreme Court found that a public official who prevents a person from comments on the official’s social media pages engages in governmental action under Section 1983 only if the official had “actual authority” to speak on the government’s behalf on a specific matter and if the official claimed to exercise that authority when speaking in the relevant social media posts.

Section 1983 refers to Title 42, U.S. Code, Section 1983, which allows people to sue government actors for deprivation of civil rights.

Justice Barrett wrote that according to the so-called state action doctrine, the test for “actual authority” must be “rooted in written law or longstanding custom to speak for the State.”

“That authority must extend to speech of the sort that caused the alleged rights deprivation. If the plaintiff cannot make this threshold showing of authority, he cannot establish state action.”

“For social-media activity to constitute state action, an official must not only have state authority—he must also purport to use it,” the justice continued.

“State officials have a choice about the capacity in which they choose to speak.”

Citing previous precedent, Justice Barrett wrote that generally a public employee claiming to speak on behalf of the government acts with state authority when he speaks “in his official capacity or” when he uses his speech to carry out “his responsibilities pursuant to state law.”

“If the public employee does not use his speech in furtherance of his official responsibilities, he is speaking in his own voice.”

The Supreme Court remanded the case to the 6th Circuit with instructions to vacate its judgment and ordered it to conduct “further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

Also on March 15, the Supreme Court ruled on O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier, a related case. The court’s sparse, unanimous opinion was unsigned.

Petitioners Michelle O’Connor-Ratcliff and T.J. Zane were two elected members of the Poway Unified School District Board of Trustees in California who used their personal Facebook and Twitter accounts to communicate with the public.

Respondents Christopher Garnier and Kimberly Garnier, parents of local students, “spammed Petitioners’ posts and tweets with repetitive comments and replies” so the school board members blocked the respondents from the accounts, according to the petition filed by Ms. O’Connor-Ratcliff and Mr. Zane.

But the Garniers said they were acting in good faith.

“The Garniers left comments exposing financial mismanagement by the former superintendent as well as incidents of racism,” the couple said in a brief.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit found in favor of the Garniers, holding that elected officials using social media accounts were participating in a public forum.

The Supreme Court ruled in a three-page opinion that because the 9th Circuit deviated from the standard the high court articulated in Lindke v. Freed, the 9th Circuit’s decision must be vacated.

The case was remanded to the 9th Circuit “for further proceedings consistent with our opinion” in the Lindke case, the Supreme Court stated.

Tyler Durden Sun, 03/17/2024 - 22:10

Read More

Continue Reading

International

Home buyers must now navigate higher mortgage rates and prices

Rates under 4% came and went during the Covid pandemic, but home prices soared. Here’s what buyers and sellers face as the housing season ramps up.

Published

4 hours ago

on

March 17, 2024

By

Springtime is spreading across the country. You can see it as daffodil, camellia, tulip and other blossoms start to emerge. 

You can also see it in the increasing number of for sale signs popping up in front of homes, along with the painting, gardening and general sprucing up as buyers get ready to sell. 

Which leads to two questions: 

  • How is the real estate market this spring? 
  • Where are mortgage rates? 

What buyers and sellers face

The housing market is bedeviled with supply shortages, high prices and slow sales.

Mortgage rates are still high and may limit what a buyer can offer and a seller can expect.  

Related: Analyst warns that a TikTok ban could lead to major trouble for Apple, Big Tech

And there's a factor not expected that may affect the sales process. Fixed commission rates on home sales are going away in July.

Reports this week and in a week will make the situation clearer for buyers and sellers. 

The reports are:

  • Housing starts from the U.S. Commerce Department due Tuesday. The consensus estimate is for a seasonally adjusted rate of about 1.4 million homes. These would include apartments, both rentals and condominiums. 
  • Existing home sales, due Thursday from the National Association of Realtors. The consensus estimate is for a seasonally adjusted sales rate of about 4 million homes. In 2023, some 4.1 million homes were sold, the worst sales rate since 1995. 
  • New-home sales and prices, due Monday from the Commerce Department. Analysts are expecting a sales rate of 661,000 homes (including condos), up 1.5% from a year ago.

Here is what buyers and sellers need to know about the situation. 

Mortgage rates will stay above 5% 

That's what most analysts believe. Right now, the rate on a 30-year mortgage is between 6.7% and 7%. 

Rates peaked at 8% in October after the Federal Reserve signaled it was done raising interest rates.

The Freddie Mac Primary Mortgage Market Survey of March 14 was at 6.74%. 

Freddie Mac buys mortgages from lenders and sells securities to investors. The effect is to replenish lenders' cash levels to make more loans. 

A hotter-than-expected Producer Price Index released that day has pushed quotes to 7% or higher, according to data from Mortgage News Daily, which tracks mortgage markets.

Home buyers must navigate higher mortgage rates and prices this spring.

TheStreet

On a median-priced home (price: $380,000) and a 20% down payment, that means a principal and interest rate payment of $2,022. The payment  does not include taxes and insurance.

Last fall when the 30-year rate hit 8%, the payment would have been $2,230. 

In 2021, the average rate was 2.96%, which translated into a payment of $1,275. 

Short of a depression, that's a rate that won't happen in most of our lifetimes. 

Most economists believe current rates will fall to around 6.3% by the end of the year, maybe lower, depending on how many times the Federal Reserve cuts rates this year. 

If 6%, the payment on our median-priced home is $1,823.

But under 5%, absent a nasty recession, fuhgettaboutit.

Supply will be tight, keeping prices up

Two factors are affecting the supply of homes for sale in just about every market.

First: Homeowners who had been able to land a mortgage at 2.96% are very reluctant to sell because they would then have to find a home they could afford with, probably, a higher-cost mortgage.

More economic news:

Second, the combination of high prices and high mortgage rates are freezing out thousands of potential buyers, especially those looking for homes in lower price ranges.

Indeed, The Wall Street Journal noted that online brokerage Redfin said only about 20% of homes for sale in February were affordable for the typical household.

And here mortgage rates can play one last nasty trick. If rates fall, that means a buyer can afford to pay more. Sellers and their real-estate agents know this too, and may ask for a higher price. 

Covid's last laugh: An inflation surge

Mortgage rates jumped to 8% or higher because since 2022 the Federal Reserve has been fighting to knock inflation down to 2% a year. Raising interest rates was the ammunition to battle rising prices.

In June 2022, the consumer price index was 9.1% higher than a year earlier. 

The causes of the worst inflation since the 1970s were: 

  • Covid-19 pandemic, which caused the global economy to shut down in 2020. When Covid ebbed and people got back to living their lives, getting global supply chains back to normal operation proved difficult. 
  • Oil prices jumped to record levels because of the recovery from the pandemic recovery and Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

What the changes in commissions means

The long-standing practice of paying real-estate agents will be retired this summer, after the National Association of Realtors settled a long and bitter legal fight.

No longer will the seller necessarily pay 6% of the sale price to split between buyer and seller agents.

Both sellers and buyers will have to negotiate separately the services agents have charged for 100 years or more. These include pre-screening properties, writing sales contracts, and the like. The change will continue a trend of adding costs and complications to the process of buying or selling a home.

Already, interest rates are a complication. In addition, homeowners insurance has become very pricey, especially in communities vulnerable to hurricanes, tornadoes, and forest fires. Florida homeowners have seen premiums jump more than 102% in the last three years. A policy now costs three times more than the national average.

Related: Veteran fund manager picks favorite stocks for 2024

 

Read More

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

Default: San Francisco Four Seasons Hotel Investors $3 Million Late On Loan As Foreclosure Looms

Default: San Francisco Four Seasons Hotel Investors $3 Million Late On Loan As Foreclosure Looms

Westbrook Partners, which acquired the San…

Published

7 hours ago

on

March 17, 2024

By

Default: San Francisco Four Seasons Hotel Investors $3 Million Late On Loan As Foreclosure Looms

Westbrook Partners, which acquired the San Francisco Four Seasons luxury hotel building, has been served a notice of default, as the developer has failed to make its monthly loan payment since December, and is currently behind by more than $3 million, the San Francisco Business Times reports.

Westbrook, which acquired the property at 345 California Center in 2019, has 90 days to bring their account current with its lender or face foreclosure.

Related

As SF Gate notes, downtown San Francisco hotel investors have had a terrible few years - with interest rates higher than their pre-pandemic levels, and local tourism continuing to suffer thanks to the city's legendary mismanagement that has resulted in overlapping drug, crime, and homelessness crises (which SF Gate characterizes as "a negative media narrative).

Last summer, the owner of San Francisco’s Hilton Union Square and Parc 55 hotels abandoned its loan in the first major default. Industry insiders speculate that loan defaults like this may become more common given the difficult period for investors.

At a visitor impact summit in August, a senior director of hospitality analytics for the CoStar Group reported that there are 22 active commercial mortgage-backed securities loans for hotels in San Francisco maturing in the next two years. Of these hotel loans, 17 are on CoStar’s “watchlist,” as they are at a higher risk of default, the analyst said. -SF Gate

The 155-room Four Seasons San Francisco at Embarcadero currenly occupies the top 11 floors of the iconic skyscrper. After slow renovations, the hotel officially reopened in the summer of 2021.

"Regarding the landscape of the hotel community in San Francisco, the short term is a challenging situation due to high interest rates, fewer guests compared to pre-pandemic and the relatively high costs attached with doing business here," Alex Bastian, President and CEO of the Hotel Council of San Francisco, told SFGATE.

Heightened Risks

In January, the owner of the Hilton Financial District at 750 Kearny St. - Portsmouth Square's affiliate Justice Operating Company - defaulted on the property, which had a $97 million loan on the 544-room hotel taken out in 2013. The company says it proposed a loan modification agreement which was under review by the servicer, LNR Partners.

Meanwhile last year Park Hotels & Resorts gave up ownership of two properties, Parc 55 and Hilton Union Square - which were transferred to a receiver that assumed management.

In the third quarter of 2023, the most recent data available, the Hilton Financial District reported $11.1 million in revenue, down from $12.3 million from the third quarter of 2022. The hotel had a net operating loss of $1.56 million in the most recent third quarter.

Occupancy fell to 88% with an average daily rate of $218 in the third quarter compared with 94% and $230 in the same period of 2022. -SF Chronicle

According to the Chronicle, San Francisco's 2024 convention calendar is lighter than it was last year - in part due to key events leaving the city for cheaper, less crime-ridden places like Las Vegas. 

Tyler Durden Sun, 03/17/2024 - 18:05

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending