Quote from: 0t3p0t on January 30, 2024, 03:16:10 PM

Quote from: DabsPoorVersion on December 22, 2023, 01:14:53 PM

I agree with the statement. In our country, many people oppose the government's decisions simply because they do not see any improvement in their daily lives. These individuals rely on the government to take action instead of taking the initiative themselves. This dependence on the government leads to laziness, as people are unwilling to work hard to earn a living and prefer to rely on government support for their daily needs.

+1 here as cash assistance is rampant in our country and was politized by some public servants. Those beneficiaries see this as an opportunity as a cash cow so they can rely on it. They are even vocal about some delay but the thing is, they become too dependent though not all but most of them are getting upset if the financial assistance is given late and the like. That is why these kind of people don't try to stand on their own feet because of this dependency.

This is because at the beginning there is something wrong, people below the poverty line will depend on government assistance because from the beginning they are used to it. the government should give them fishing rods instead of directly giving them fish, I'm sure I don't need to explain because surely everyone understands.

Something that is wrong will produce something that is wrong too. Maybe the government should consider more when they want to provide assistance and the like. Maybe direct aid is also good, but they should also look and try to consider, so that later it can solve the problem from the grassroots.

You are very correct in voicing the solution. But there are a few nuances....
On the one hand, it is indeed the most correct solution, on the other hand..... On the other hand, there's the human factor:
- the population is used to doing nothing and getting the minimum necessary content.
- the government and international organizations are used to systemic corruption and live at the expense of the fact that in some countries the picture of "huge social problem of the population, hunger,..." is deliberately maintained.
It sounds very disgusting - but it is international corruption at the level of local governments and world institutions and organizations that are causing it, solely for their own well-being....

There is a huge possibility of younger or new generations adopting cryptocurrency investments compared to them getting interests on farming and food related sectors. What do you think? Does it have a good or bad effects on our economy?

What's good about our world is that it is adaptive and has a system of balances. If everyone becomes a crypto-investor - as you realize - you can't feed your family with bitcoins If (model an extremely critical model) 99% of the population will be cryptoinvestors, then 1% will own their wallets and lives because they will produce a very limited amount of food and will be monopolists of a critical resource.
So I wouldn't build such a scary model.
Yes I am well aware of the degradation of classical rural labor, but they are being replaced by farms. That's progress too - there's no escaping it. But farms and agroholdings are what feeds humanity. So I assume that the risk you describe is unlikely.

PS but there is always an alternative - to invest in agriculture ! I, for example, invest cryptocurrencies in a great agro-project, if you are interested - write me, I'll introduce you to it

I would also recommend discussing the issue of information sources here. And let me clarify - not telegram channels and sites where airdrop schedules are available, but sources where new projects are announced, for preliminary study and adding to your “list of potentially interesting projects.” Provided that many projects conduct airdrops or bounty campaigns in one form or another.

Operation Choke Point 2.0 Is Underway, And Crypto Is In Its Crosshairs

Detailing the Biden Admin's coordinated, ongoing effort across virtually every US financial regulator to deny crypto firms access to banking services


"For crypto firms, obtaining access to the onshore banking system has always been a challenge. Even today, crypto startups struggle mightily to get banks, and only a handful of boutiques serve them.
This is why stablecoins like Tether found popularity early on: to facilitate fiat settlement where the rails of traditional banking were unavailable.

However, in recent weeks, the intensity of efforts to ringfence the entire crypto space and isolate it from the traditional banking system have ratcheted up significantly. Specifically, the Biden administration is now executing what appears to be a coordinated plan that spans multiple agencies to discourage banks from dealing with crypto firms.
It applies to both traditional banks who would serve crypto clients, and crypto-first firms aiming to get bank charters. It includes the administration itself, influential members of Congress, the Fed, the FDIC, the OCC, and the DoJ.

In sum, banks taking deposits from crypto clients, issuing stablecoins, engaging in crypto custody, or seeking to hold crypto as principal have faced nothing short of an onslaught from regulators in recent weeks.
Time and again, using the expression “safety and soundness,” they’ve made it clear that for a bank, touching public blockchains in any way is considered unacceptably risky


Beginning in 2013, Choke Point was a scheme which sought to marginalize specific industries operating legally — not through lawmaking, but by applying pressure via the banking sector.
The Obama DoJ had already cut its teeth with its successful effort to sideline the online poker space in 2011 and 2012 with threats issued to banks supporting poker companies. With Choke Point, the Department decided to scale up its efforts and target other industries, starting with uncontroversial targets like payday lenders.

Then, the DoJ coordinated with the FDIC and OCC to pressure member banks to “redline” — determine as too risky to do business with — certain legal but politically disfavored sectors, chief among them firearms manufacturers and adult entertainment. Banks and payment processors internalized this guidance, and even after the program was formally shuttered under Trump in 2017, its shadow lingered.
Today, banks simply ascribe a higher risk to activities that they suspect might draw the government’s ire, even if no specific guidance exists.

In 2017, Trump and Republican lawmakers like Rep. Luetkemeyer were able to put a stop to Choke Point for a time, but it didn’t last. One of the first moves from Biden’s OCC was to undo Brian Brook’s Fair Access rule that prohibited political discrimination in banking. Biden’s deputies picked up where Obama’s regulators had left off. And now, after the time it took to digest Biden’s Executive Orders, regulators are tightening the screw.


In some key respects, Crypto Choke Point 2.0 differs from the original. It appears that the administration has learned from the efforts of its predecessors.
In Choke Point 1.0, guidance was mainly informal and involved backdoor, off-the-record conversations. Its main tool was the threat of investigation from the DoJ and FDIC if financial institutions didn’t internalize the administration’s risk standards. Because this was patently unconstitutional, it gave Republicans the collateral to ultimately repeal the program.
In 2.0, everything is happening in plain sight, in the form of rulemaking, written guidance, and blogs. The current crypto crackdown is being sold as a “safety and soundness” issue for banks, and not merely a reputational risk issue.

Jake Chervinsky of the Blockchain Association calls it “regulation by blog post.” No need to ask Congress for new laws if federal regulators can simply make policy by publishing guidance which dissuades banks from doing business with crypto."



1) Do you think similar policies will expand to other countries - or continents - outside of the USA?

2) Do you think they will expand to your country?
Or are similar policies in your country already in place?

3) Do you think political authorities' anti-cryptos bias will go away in the next future? Or will get stronger?
What is necessary for them to go away?

Your vote in the poll is much appreciated 

With all due respect to you - but the article you link to is very much a "throw-in" for manipulation. Just look at the changes that are happening here and now, in the US market towards cryptocurrencies ?
What I agree with is that the US is always very careful in dealing with financial markets - because it is the backbone of the US, and they really will not allow anyone, with any tool, to enter this market, it is a matter of real financial and national security. Plus the state minimizes the risks that American citizens will be exposed to financial risks, because this is also a big problem for the state. And of course - the state limits the possibilities of tax evasion - it's silly to hide it

PS Look at the "perfect example" of irresponsible attitude to the financial market in the ex-USSR. I'll just write three letters - and you read what it led to, when the state does not care about its citizens at all. "MMM" and Mavrodi

ВНИМАНИЕ - НОВЫЙ КОНКУРС СТАТЕЙ !

Возможность заработать всем членам нашего комьюнити

Мы все с удовольствием вспоминаем конкурс статей прошлой весны. Именно сейчас, перед листингом, настало время повторить !

Условия конкурса:

 - Пишете статью об AgroGloryTime, AGTI - подробную, эмоциональную, искреннюю. Мусор (по собственной оценке) будем удалять без наград. Против критики ничего не имеем против, но статья должна объективно и доброжелательно рассказывать о нас, мы идем к листингу, нам нужно рассказать о себе максимуму людей!

Размещаете здесь:

https://t.me/AgroGloryTime_chat_ua

Если язык не русский или украинский - то к заработку применяем повышающий коэффициент 1.5, при условии последующего размещения статьи в соответствующей языковой среде.

Под каждой статьей будет опросник - комьюнити оценит статью от 0 до 5. Средняя оценка C вычисляется как (SUM(0…5)(Х*G(Х)))/(SUM(0…5)(G(X))  то есть (сумма количества голосов за каждую оценку, умноженное на эту оценку) делить на количество всех голосов.

Число токенов заработка - 50*C. То есть, при средней оценке 4.0 вы получите 200 AGTI.

ПРИ ЭТОМ ОБЯЗАТЕЛЬНО
Вы должны опубликовать эту статью хотя бы в одной соцсети.
И отвечать на все комментарии.
За каждый пост статьи, набравший более 100 просмотров - доначисляется 20% заработка!

Авторское право не предусмотрено и вы от него отказываетесь
В статьи желательно добавить ссылки на сайт и наши соцсети/ресурсы - [ Invalid YouTube link ], https://twitter.com/agroglorytime, группы в телеграмм (с учетом языка)
Я бы ещё рекомендовал "интегрировать" ссылки в текст, чтобы они выглядели там логично , например "Видеообзор строительства грибной фермы можно посмотреть _тут_ссылка_на_ютуб_

Quote from: DrBeer on February 07, 2024, 09:07:59 PM

And by itself I answer your question: if I got it right, honestly - I can't say. Yes, I have bank bars, though not 100 grams, but I have I bought in banks, several times "for the future", and frankly speaking I was not interested in this "difference"

You rich man you 

Premium is the difference between the value of the gold item (= spot price, official, international price) and the price paid to the seller.
Usually, the smaller the gold item, the higher (in percentage) the premium.
Since gold-backed SC companies buy standard investment size bars (400 ounces = 12,5 kg) users can buy their SC at spot. No premium.

But you must consider not only the buying but also the selling moment.
Here too gold-backed SC offer an advantage vs. gold dealers (and banks... local coin shops... etc): when you go to sell your gold item, the gold dealer won’t pay you at spot. Usually they pay you under spot.
Instead, when you convert your gold stablecoin into fiat, you get the spot price.

So if the premium you paid was, say, 10% (not unusual), deploying the same amount of money through a gold-backed SC you’d own now 10% more gold.
On a 1g bar, that’s... 1 decigram more 

It is more correct to say that I am not rich, but I managed to become richer after I converted unnecessary spending into investments, which I wish everyone !

And thank you for describing everything in such detail, I can say - not everyone understands this scheme.

Well and as a result, to the last phrase, there is a saying, I do not know how accurately I can convey the meaning, but it is very useful I will try to adapt "a cent - a dollar saves"

Quote from: DrBeer on February 08, 2024, 09:34:32 PM

Quote from: $crypto$ on February 08, 2024, 01:04:47 PM

Yes, without us realizing it, we (humans) are the cause of everything that happens on earth, including food shortages.

We are the ones who make everything a mess and we are also the ones who complain, strange isn't it? but this is real.
The fact is that now war is everywhere, greedy people who only care about themselves are also everywhere.

And also one more thing, sometimes farmers are underestimated, even though they are the farmers who supply food for us, and now I see farmers whose lives are not yet prosperous. Is this fair? of course not.
I don't want to judge, but it's better for us to introspect ourselves.

You make a very subtle point, something I've been saying for a long time - the problem with humanity...is PEOPLE !
The laws of nature, from the simplest to the laws of the universe, are balanced and built on clear laws and rules (I will make a note - which we do not all understand). And only man, thinking himself the "crown of creation" - violates the laws, destroys everything around him ... Therefore, the first question when the dialog about problems begins - what have I, we, or mankind done to prevent or correct this? In most answers, "guilty" will be called anything but ourselves or humanity in general....

What is even stranger is that we ourselves make the rules, but we also break them, so rules are made to be broken, not a joke anymore, but this has become a reality that happens everywhere.

I know there are many activists who speak out about the importance of protecting nature, but what percentage of people are aware of that? I think it's only a few people out of all the humans on this earth.

I am not speaking for others, but for myself, because I also realize that I am one of the people who contribute to the current problems.

You have pointed out a very important thing - you have to talk about yourself, your problems, goals, actions or inactions. Giving advice and telling others how to live is the easiest way to avoid personal responsibility.
And this also applies to problems of a more global scale - each of us can influence the situation around us, charge with ideas, demand from the government elected by him or her certain steps (this is a legal right). Similarly with food problems - there is a problem - so it's an opportunity for you not only to partially improve it, but also to gain business and income. Yes, it sounds a bit cynical, but it is better to create business, jobs, and earn money by solving a problem than by doing nothing.