Connect with us

Peter Vessenes in the Focus of Cointelegraph China

Peter Vessenes in the Focus of Cointelegraph China

Published

on

Peter Vessenes talks crypto regulation, exciting blockchain technology and what can take crypto to the next level on Cointelegraph China’s Focus talk show.

Welcome back to Cointelegraph China’s Focus talk show. This time around, Peter Vessenes is under the spotlight. He is the founder of CoinLab, the first venture-backed Bitcoin company. He also co-founded the Bitcoin Foundation, serving as its first executive director and chairman.

Vessenes has provided digital-currency consulting services for entities including the United States Treasury Department, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI. He serves as the chief cryptographer for the Deluge Network and Metronome, a project that aims to create a “politics-free digital currency.”

Cointelegraph: You were the first one to have talked with the U.S. Treasury Department about Bitcoin. What is the story behind it, and what exactly did they discuss with you that first time?

Peter Vessenes: In the early days, governments were trying to get their heads around Bitcoin, and things were so decentralized it wasn't really clear who even to talk to. The Bitcoin Foundation filled that role for a while in a critical time in the industry's development. We were invited out originally to meet with FinCEN, which is the Anti-Money Laundering enforcement section of the Treasury Department, headed by Jennifer Shasky Calvery at that time.

They were most worried about and interested in the enforcement side of Bitcoin: knowing what was happening, who was doing what and so on. Ms. Calvery said something I'll never forget: "We think the toothpaste is out of the tube." She proceeded to explain her rough idea was to acknowledge they couldn't stop Bitcoin from being a thing, and they would try and work with already regulated entities at the on- and off-ramps for enforcement.

This, it turned out, was a really good strategy. It let some early Bitcoin businesses and funds get a commanding lead: Coinbase, Kraken and Pantera all had the regulatory space to work on business models without major fear. 

I would say the SEC has done much worse by American business in the most recent round of innovation, regulating with a much heavier hand, and we see the results with exchanges like Binance worth billions of dollars, but staying out of the U.S.

CT: Many traditional companies are now working on cryptocurrency, but on the other hand, the Securities and Exchange Commission continues to place obstacles before the Libra stablecoin, and it hasn’t warmly welcomed crypto exchange-traded fund applicants, either. What is the exact problem you think the crypto companies need to solve? And what is the SEC or the government looking for?

PV: Government agencies that I've worked with are mostly concerned with serious enforcement worries, really objectionable activities, by which I mean things I wish I had never heard were happening and certainly will not repeat. I found this comforting. In 2012, it wasn't clear if there would be sort of “petty” enforcement in the U.S. outside of the SEC. In the U.S., we haven't seen much of that, although perhaps IRS subpoenas of Coinbase records come close. 

In general, most agencies I've worked with were filled with good people working on good things, and they almost all — big secret — own crypto themselves.

As far as companies solving problems: financial inclusion, open access, destruction of rent-seeking behavior by long-standing financial industry participants — those are all pretty good goals. I'll give you a hint, though, and say that JPMorgan won't be destroying rent-seeking behavior, no matter how innovative its crypto group is.

SEC behavior is complex, and it's good to remember that the U.S. has multiple regulatory agencies overseeing complex financial products; the Commodity Futures Trading Commission is another. So, you have a mix of internal regulator incentives, including expanding their own remit vis-a-vis other agencies, American imperialism, etc., and then you also have some what I'd call "good" motivations, like protecting citizens from scams, Ponzi schemes and so on.

I think we'll continue to see real innovation happening in fits and starts in areas that are as lightly regulated as possible. It's just so very expensive, risky and time-consuming to try to innovate in America on the financial side. I really can't emphasize enough the benefits of a lighter regulatory regime for innovation. It's very important.

CT: The Bitcoin Foundation was one of the most prominent organizations in the ecosystem. 

So, how do you see its failings with respect to its governance, transparency and finances? 

PV: Leaving the Bitcoin Foundation was bittersweet. In the beginning, I wanted it to be a place that built the good brand reputation for Bitcoin globally and provided a venue for both industry and individuals to do some collective work together.

It was sweet because it was clear that my idea had been right: There was real demand to organize and work together. Bitter because I failed to bring the best quality leadership to the top of the organization. Two board members went to prison. A third had been accused of crimes, but not tried. I worked hard to try to clear out influencers that I thought shouldn't be there. But in the end, I couldn't keep the leadership at a level I felt good about and decided to leave.

There won't be another thing like the foundation in our industry, but I'm still glad I launched it with Gavin Andresen and would do it again, although I would change how we chose board leadership and make it more international from the very beginning. 

CT: Regarding Mt. Gox, as previously reported, roughly 24,000 creditors are thought to have been affected by the 2011 hack and subsequent collapse in early 2014. It was said you own a stake of Mt Gox and you have submitted a $16 billion claim in the Mt. Gox civil rehabilitation, which is considered an obstacle for other creditors. Can you explain the issue here?

PV: Unfortunately, since we are still in litigation seven years later, I can't talk a lot. I will say that we have been diligently and aggressively pushing for a real trial this whole time so that we can get a fair ruling. It looks like we will be getting that trial in Tokyo this year, pending coronavirus slowdowns. So, that's great.

“Right now, all creditors — including us — are waiting on the trustee to make a payment plan that can be reviewed. Believe me, we would love to see one as much as any other creditor.”

We have had a fair amount of interest from investors and other creditors trying to buy into the lawsuit as a way to hedge out their own risks in the bankruptcy and ideally achieve good returns. So, we may look into providing access to the suit to a broader group of investors in the future, all still TBD.

CT: As a cryptographic expert, how do you summarize the technology development of blockchain in these 10 years? After proof-of-work, different consensus mechanisms have appeared, like proof-of-stake, delegated proof-of-stake, practical Byzantine fault tolerance,, etc. What do you think of them? And are there any projects that excite you with their technology?

PV: The last project that really got me excited technically was Ethereum. Not to say we haven't seen interesting innovation since then, but it was a massive leap over Bitcoin. We just closed a blockchain fund — Capital 6 Eagle — with my partner in China, and I can tell you what I'm investing in:

  1. Fundamental infrastructure that makes decentralized ledger technology faster and cheaper. We need two or three orders of magnitude faster tech. So, this will change things as it shows up.
  2. Stablecoin projects and asset tokenization technologies.
  3. Identity projects.
  4. Secure data on chains
  5. Wallet and other access infrastructure.
  6. Decentralized exchange technology.

A crazy paper last year that really got me thinking was the MAST paper out of Blockstream. They provided a way to have provable computation using only software. It's very, very slow, but the idea is profound and interesting for verifiability.

CT: You started to pay attention to smart contracts in 2014, and you set up New Alchemy in 2016. What is the main plan for you this year?

PV: I'm launching a new project that has been a secret so far, but this can be the announcement: It's a Bitcoin paper-currency project. Unlike some of the other hardware-wallet projects, we are working on having a chip embedded directly into a paper bill. We will have a series of announcements, but we are working with a major global currency producer and have an agreement with one of the best currency designers in the world to make these bills. It's just so very hard to deal with crypto, and I want to give access to regular people to have, hold and trade it.

Finally, we're working on launching a Shenzhen incubator, probably in the third quarter. So, that should be really exciting. I love the energy and pace of business in China and want to provide mentorship, capital and advice to another generation of Chinese entrepreneurs. So, that's really exciting.

CT: You are also interested in security token offerings. You said in 2018 that there would be a large circulation of STOs in the future, but they haven’t made much progress. What do you think about it now?

PV: On STOs: I was obviously wrong about timing, which is the same thing as being wrong. The difficulties in the last few years have been the intersection of the technology, the regulatory pace and the crash all together. Plus, early STOs offered in the U.S. were just bad offerings, poorly priced and definitely worse for the buyer than comparable publicly traded products or crypto products — or both.

But I do sort of stand by my prediction, too. Over the years, I believe more and more in the idea of permissionless innovation. STOs necessarily bridge regulated and unregulated worlds, and this is a really hard space because of that interaction. But, I still do believe that we will see tokenized offerings with regulatory oversight.

CT: One time you mentioned that you feel a “nostalgia” about the early times when Bitcoin was purely decentralized and only was mined by personal computers. Do you think that the modern ecosystem is the right way for the industry to develop?

PV: If I could wave a wand, I would definitely do away with industrial mining. It's a very hard problem to do away with, though. I think mining is not in a stable position right now, though. There will be more innovation on business models. For instance, during the BCH–BTC war, I thought it very interesting that companies like Coinbase used their user platforms to advocate for what they wanted. Why hadn't they invested in mining so that they could actually control voting on the outcome?

The answer to that question is at least partly regulatory, by the way, both for Coinbase and their investors, but it's also social; a matter of how different people think of mining. Miners have generally historically not used their influence for more than making money, or at least usually in very soft ways, and this is probably not quite what Satoshi wanted.

CT: In early 2018, you said that innovations in the industry should be measured by the question: “What percent of the total innovation that’s going to be done has been done?” And your answer was less than 5%. Do you think we are at the same stage now? 

PV: I still think we have a lot of innovation left to do, and in fact, I wouldn't say anything super material has shown up in the last two years. We're seeing infrastructure build out right now, which is good. But we need another Vitalik and Gav, or we need one of them to pull a Linus Torvalds and do Git on top of Linux.

CT: What would you say to Satoshi Nakamoto if you were to meet?

PV: What makes you think I haven't?

To Satoshi, I'd say thank you, we got the leader we needed, luckily not the leader we deserved.

Read More

Continue Reading

Government

Veterans Affairs Kept COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate In Place Without Evidence

Veterans Affairs Kept COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate In Place Without Evidence

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The…

Published

on

Veterans Affairs Kept COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate In Place Without Evidence

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) reviewed no data when deciding in 2023 to keep its COVID-19 vaccine mandate in place.

Doses of a COVID-19 vaccine in Washington in a file image. (Jacquelyn Martin/Pool/AFP via Getty Images)

VA Secretary Denis McDonough said on May 1, 2023, that the end of many other federal mandates “will not impact current policies at the Department of Veterans Affairs.”

He said the mandate was remaining for VA health care personnel “to ensure the safety of veterans and our colleagues.”

Mr. McDonough did not cite any studies or other data. A VA spokesperson declined to provide any data that was reviewed when deciding not to rescind the mandate. The Epoch Times submitted a Freedom of Information Act for “all documents outlining which data was relied upon when establishing the mandate when deciding to keep the mandate in place.”

The agency searched for such data and did not find any.

The VA does not even attempt to justify its policies with science, because it can’t,” Leslie Manookian, president and founder of the Health Freedom Defense Fund, told The Epoch Times.

“The VA just trusts that the process and cost of challenging its unfounded policies is so onerous, most people are dissuaded from even trying,” she added.

The VA’s mandate remains in place to this day.

The VA’s website claims that vaccines “help protect you from getting severe illness” and “offer good protection against most COVID-19 variants,” pointing in part to observational data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) that estimate the vaccines provide poor protection against symptomatic infection and transient shielding against hospitalization.

There have also been increasing concerns among outside scientists about confirmed side effects like heart inflammation—the VA hid a safety signal it detected for the inflammation—and possible side effects such as tinnitus, which shift the benefit-risk calculus.

President Joe Biden imposed a slate of COVID-19 vaccine mandates in 2021. The VA was the first federal agency to implement a mandate.

President Biden rescinded the mandates in May 2023, citing a drop in COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations. His administration maintains the choice to require vaccines was the right one and saved lives.

“Our administration’s vaccination requirements helped ensure the safety of workers in critical workforces including those in the healthcare and education sectors, protecting themselves and the populations they serve, and strengthening their ability to provide services without disruptions to operations,” the White House said.

Some experts said requiring vaccination meant many younger people were forced to get a vaccine despite the risks potentially outweighing the benefits, leaving fewer doses for older adults.

By mandating the vaccines to younger people and those with natural immunity from having had COVID, older people in the U.S. and other countries did not have access to them, and many people might have died because of that,” Martin Kulldorff, a professor of medicine on leave from Harvard Medical School, told The Epoch Times previously.

The VA was one of just a handful of agencies to keep its mandate in place following the removal of many federal mandates.

“At this time, the vaccine requirement will remain in effect for VA health care personnel, including VA psychologists, pharmacists, social workers, nursing assistants, physical therapists, respiratory therapists, peer specialists, medical support assistants, engineers, housekeepers, and other clinical, administrative, and infrastructure support employees,” Mr. McDonough wrote to VA employees at the time.

This also includes VA volunteers and contractors. Effectively, this means that any Veterans Health Administration (VHA) employee, volunteer, or contractor who works in VHA facilities, visits VHA facilities, or provides direct care to those we serve will still be subject to the vaccine requirement at this time,” he said. “We continue to monitor and discuss this requirement, and we will provide more information about the vaccination requirements for VA health care employees soon. As always, we will process requests for vaccination exceptions in accordance with applicable laws, regulations, and policies.”

The version of the shots cleared in the fall of 2022, and available through the fall of 2023, did not have any clinical trial data supporting them.

A new version was approved in the fall of 2023 because there were indications that the shots not only offered temporary protection but also that the level of protection was lower than what was observed during earlier stages of the pandemic.

Ms. Manookian, whose group has challenged several of the federal mandates, said that the mandate “illustrates the dangers of the administrative state and how these federal agencies have become a law unto themselves.”

Tyler Durden Sat, 03/09/2024 - 22:10

Read More

Continue Reading

Government

Are Voters Recoiling Against Disorder?

Are Voters Recoiling Against Disorder?

Authored by Michael Barone via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The headlines coming out of the Super…

Published

on

Are Voters Recoiling Against Disorder?

Authored by Michael Barone via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The headlines coming out of the Super Tuesday primaries have got it right. Barring cataclysmic changes, Donald Trump and Joe Biden will be the Republican and Democratic nominees for president in 2024.

(Left) President Joe Biden delivers remarks on canceling student debt at Culver City Julian Dixon Library in Culver City, Calif., on Feb. 21, 2024. (Right) Republican presidential candidate and former U.S. President Donald Trump stands on stage during a campaign event at Big League Dreams Las Vegas in Las Vegas, Nev., on Jan. 27, 2024. (Mario Tama/Getty Images; David Becker/Getty Images)

With Nikki Haley’s withdrawal, there will be no more significantly contested primaries or caucuses—the earliest both parties’ races have been over since something like the current primary-dominated system was put in place in 1972.

The primary results have spotlighted some of both nominees’ weaknesses.

Donald Trump lost high-income, high-educated constituencies, including the entire metro area—aka the Swamp. Many but by no means all Haley votes there were cast by Biden Democrats. Mr. Trump can’t afford to lose too many of the others in target states like Pennsylvania and Michigan.

Majorities and large minorities of voters in overwhelmingly Latino counties in Texas’s Rio Grande Valley and some in Houston voted against Joe Biden, and even more against Senate nominee Rep. Colin Allred (D-Texas).

Returns from Hispanic precincts in New Hampshire and Massachusetts show the same thing. Mr. Biden can’t afford to lose too many Latino votes in target states like Arizona and Georgia.

When Mr. Trump rode down that escalator in 2015, commentators assumed he’d repel Latinos. Instead, Latino voters nationally, and especially the closest eyewitnesses of Biden’s open-border policy, have been trending heavily Republican.

High-income liberal Democrats may sport lawn signs proclaiming, “In this house, we believe ... no human is illegal.” The logical consequence of that belief is an open border. But modest-income folks in border counties know that flows of illegal immigrants result in disorder, disease, and crime.

There is plenty of impatience with increased disorder in election returns below the presidential level. Consider Los Angeles County, America’s largest county, with nearly 10 million people, more people than 40 of the 50 states. It voted 71 percent for Mr. Biden in 2020.

Current returns show county District Attorney George Gascon winning only 21 percent of the vote in the nonpartisan primary. He’ll apparently face Republican Nathan Hochman, a critic of his liberal policies, in November.

Gascon, elected after the May 2020 death of counterfeit-passing suspect George Floyd in Minneapolis, is one of many county prosecutors supported by billionaire George Soros. His policies include not charging juveniles as adults, not seeking higher penalties for gang membership or use of firearms, and bringing fewer misdemeanor cases.

The predictable result has been increased car thefts, burglaries, and personal robberies. Some 120 assistant district attorneys have left the office, and there’s a backlog of 10,000 unprosecuted cases.

More than a dozen other Soros-backed and similarly liberal prosecutors have faced strong opposition or have left office.

St. Louis prosecutor Kim Gardner resigned last May amid lawsuits seeking her removal, Milwaukee’s John Chisholm retired in January, and Baltimore’s Marilyn Mosby was defeated in July 2022 and convicted of perjury in September 2023. Last November, Loudoun County, Virginia, voters (62 percent Biden) ousted liberal Buta Biberaj, who declined to prosecute a transgender student for assault, and in June 2022 voters in San Francisco (85 percent Biden) recalled famed radical Chesa Boudin.

Similarly, this Tuesday, voters in San Francisco passed ballot measures strengthening police powers and requiring treatment of drug-addicted welfare recipients.

In retrospect, it appears the Floyd video, appearing after three months of COVID-19 confinement, sparked a frenzied, even crazed reaction, especially among the highly educated and articulate. One fatal incident was seen as proof that America’s “systemic racism” was worse than ever and that police forces should be defunded and perhaps abolished.

2020 was “the year America went crazy,” I wrote in January 2021, a year in which police funding was actually cut by Democrats in New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, and Denver. A year in which young New York Times (NYT) staffers claimed they were endangered by the publication of Sen. Tom Cotton’s (R-Ark.) opinion article advocating calling in military forces if necessary to stop rioting, as had been done in Detroit in 1967 and Los Angeles in 1992. A craven NYT publisher even fired the editorial page editor for running the article.

Evidence of visible and tangible discontent with increasing violence and its consequences—barren and locked shelves in Manhattan chain drugstores, skyrocketing carjackings in Washington, D.C.—is as unmistakable in polls and election results as it is in daily life in large metropolitan areas. Maybe 2024 will turn out to be the year even liberal America stopped acting crazy.

Chaos and disorder work against incumbents, as they did in 1968 when Democrats saw their party’s popular vote fall from 61 percent to 43 percent.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times or ZeroHedge.

Tyler Durden Sat, 03/09/2024 - 23:20

Read More

Continue Reading

Spread & Containment

The Coming Of The Police State In America

The Coming Of The Police State In America

Authored by Jeffrey Tucker via The Epoch Times,

The National Guard and the State Police are now…

Published

on

The Coming Of The Police State In America

Authored by Jeffrey Tucker via The Epoch Times,

The National Guard and the State Police are now patrolling the New York City subway system in an attempt to do something about the explosion of crime. As part of this, there are bag checks and new surveillance of all passengers. No legislation, no debate, just an edict from the mayor.

Many citizens who rely on this system for transportation might welcome this. It’s a city of strict gun control, and no one knows for sure if they have the right to defend themselves. Merchants have been harassed and even arrested for trying to stop looting and pillaging in their own shops.

The message has been sent: Only the police can do this job. Whether they do it or not is another matter.

Things on the subway system have gotten crazy. If you know it well, you can manage to travel safely, but visitors to the city who take the wrong train at the wrong time are taking grave risks.

In actual fact, it’s guaranteed that this will only end in confiscating knives and other things that people carry in order to protect themselves while leaving the actual criminals even more free to prey on citizens.

The law-abiding will suffer and the criminals will grow more numerous. It will not end well.

When you step back from the details, what we have is the dawning of a genuine police state in the United States. It only starts in New York City. Where is the Guard going to be deployed next? Anywhere is possible.

If the crime is bad enough, citizens will welcome it. It must have been this way in most times and places that when the police state arrives, the people cheer.

We will all have our own stories of how this came to be. Some might begin with the passage of the Patriot Act and the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security in 2001. Some will focus on gun control and the taking away of citizens’ rights to defend themselves.

My own version of events is closer in time. It began four years ago this month with lockdowns. That’s what shattered the capacity of civil society to function in the United States. Everything that has happened since follows like one domino tumbling after another.

It goes like this:

1) lockdown,

2) loss of moral compass and spreading of loneliness and nihilism,

3) rioting resulting from citizen frustration, 4) police absent because of ideological hectoring,

5) a rise in uncontrolled immigration/refugees,

6) an epidemic of ill health from substance abuse and otherwise,

7) businesses flee the city

8) cities fall into decay, and that results in

9) more surveillance and police state.

The 10th stage is the sacking of liberty and civilization itself.

It doesn’t fall out this way at every point in history, but this seems like a solid outline of what happened in this case. Four years is a very short period of time to see all of this unfold. But it is a fact that New York City was more-or-less civilized only four years ago. No one could have predicted that it would come to this so quickly.

But once the lockdowns happened, all bets were off. Here we had a policy that most directly trampled on all freedoms that we had taken for granted. Schools, businesses, and churches were slammed shut, with various levels of enforcement. The entire workforce was divided between essential and nonessential, and there was widespread confusion about who precisely was in charge of designating and enforcing this.

It felt like martial law at the time, as if all normal civilian law had been displaced by something else. That something had to do with public health, but there was clearly more going on, because suddenly our social media posts were censored and we were being asked to do things that made no sense, such as mask up for a virus that evaded mask protection and walk in only one direction in grocery aisles.

Vast amounts of the white-collar workforce stayed home—and their kids, too—until it became too much to bear. The city became a ghost town. Most U.S. cities were the same.

As the months of disaster rolled on, the captives were let out of their houses for the summer in order to protest racism but no other reason. As a way of excusing this, the same public health authorities said that racism was a virus as bad as COVID-19, so therefore it was permitted.

The protests had turned to riots in many cities, and the police were being defunded and discouraged to do anything about the problem. Citizens watched in horror as downtowns burned and drug-crazed freaks took over whole sections of cities. It was like every standard of decency had been zapped out of an entire swath of the population.

Meanwhile, large checks were arriving in people’s bank accounts, defying every normal economic expectation. How could people not be working and get their bank accounts more flush with cash than ever? There was a new law that didn’t even require that people pay rent. How weird was that? Even student loans didn’t need to be paid.

By the fall, recess from lockdown was over and everyone was told to go home again. But this time they had a job to do: They were supposed to vote. Not at the polling places, because going there would only spread germs, or so the media said. When the voting results finally came in, it was the absentee ballots that swung the election in favor of the opposition party that actually wanted more lockdowns and eventually pushed vaccine mandates on the whole population.

The new party in control took note of the large population movements out of cities and states that they controlled. This would have a large effect on voting patterns in the future. But they had a plan. They would open the borders to millions of people in the guise of caring for refugees. These new warm bodies would become voters in time and certainly count on the census when it came time to reapportion political power.

Meanwhile, the native population had begun to swim in ill health from substance abuse, widespread depression, and demoralization, plus vaccine injury. This increased dependency on the very institutions that had caused the problem in the first place: the medical/scientific establishment.

The rise of crime drove the small businesses out of the city. They had barely survived the lockdowns, but they certainly could not survive the crime epidemic. This undermined the tax base of the city and allowed the criminals to take further control.

The same cities became sanctuaries for the waves of migrants sacking the country, and partisan mayors actually used tax dollars to house these invaders in high-end hotels in the name of having compassion for the stranger. Citizens were pushed out to make way for rampaging migrant hordes, as incredible as this seems.

But with that, of course, crime rose ever further, inciting citizen anger and providing a pretext to bring in the police state in the form of the National Guard, now tasked with cracking down on crime in the transportation system.

What’s the next step? It’s probably already here: mass surveillance and censorship, plus ever-expanding police power. This will be accompanied by further population movements, as those with the means to do so flee the city and even the country and leave it for everyone else to suffer.

As I tell the story, all of this seems inevitable. It is not. It could have been stopped at any point. A wise and prudent political leadership could have admitted the error from the beginning and called on the country to rediscover freedom, decency, and the difference between right and wrong. But ego and pride stopped that from happening, and we are left with the consequences.

The government grows ever bigger and civil society ever less capable of managing itself in large urban centers. Disaster is unfolding in real time, mitigated only by a rising stock market and a financial system that has yet to fall apart completely.

Are we at the middle stages of total collapse, or at the point where the population and people in leadership positions wise up and decide to put an end to the downward slide? It’s hard to know. But this much we do know: There is a growing pocket of resistance out there that is fed up and refuses to sit by and watch this great country be sacked and taken over by everything it was set up to prevent.

Tyler Durden Sat, 03/09/2024 - 16:20

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending