US AG Unveils Crypto Enforcement Blueprint

US AG Unveils Crypto Enforcement Blueprint

Attorney General William P. Barr unveiled the publication of “Cryptocurrency: An Enforcement Framework,” which his Cyber-Digital Task Force created, according to a Thursday (Oct. 8) press release.

The blueprint offers a detailed outline of burgeoning threats and enforcement difficulties connected with the higher presence and utilization of digital currency, the pivotal relationships the Department of Justice (DOJ) has developed with others and the DOJ’s response tactics.

“Cryptocurrency is a technology that could fundamentally transform how human beings interact, and how we organize society,” Barr said in the release. “Ensuring that use of this technology is safe and does not imperil our public safety or our national security is vitally important to America and its allies.”

The framework is the second in-depth report released by the Attorney General’s Cyber-Digital Task Force, which was formed in 2018. A prior task force report canvassed a broad array of cyber threats.

In other news, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) are on the hunt for two suspects following what they said seems to be a botched bitcoin automated teller machine (ATM) theft, according to a Thursday (Oct. 8) press release.

“A preliminary assessment conducted by staff on site, suggests that despite the thousands of dollars in damage caused, nothing appears to be taken from inside the business as the suspects were unsuccessful in taking the Bitcoin ATM,” a police spokesperson said in the release.

The RCMP received word of a break and enter occurring in the early morning hours of Wednesday (Oct. 7), the release stated. Police were notified that a vehicle had damaged the outside of different businesses in a complex and that two individuals were trying to take an ATM.

The RCMP said in the release that it thinks the vehicle was used multiple times to impact the outside of the structure, and two suspects used the vehicle to get away from the area.

Source: www.pymnts.com


US AG Unveils Crypto Enforcement Blueprint

US AG Unveils Crypto Enforcement Blueprint

Attorney General William P. Barr unveiled the publication of “Cryptocurrency: An Enforcement Framework,” which his Cyber-Digital Task Force created, according to a Thursday (Oct. 8) press release.

The blueprint offers a detailed outline of burgeoning threats and enforcement difficulties connected with the higher presence and utilization of digital currency, the pivotal relationships the Department of Justice (DOJ) has developed with others and the DOJ’s response tactics.

“Cryptocurrency is a technology that could fundamentally transform how human beings interact, and how we organize society,” Barr said in the release. “Ensuring that use of this technology is safe and does not imperil our public safety or our national security is vitally important to America and its allies.”

The framework is the second in-depth report released by the Attorney General’s Cyber-Digital Task Force, which was formed in 2018. A prior task force report canvassed a broad array of cyber threats.

In other news, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) are on the hunt for two suspects following what they said seems to be a botched bitcoin automated teller machine (ATM) theft, according to a Thursday (Oct. 8) press release.

“A preliminary assessment conducted by staff on site, suggests that despite the thousands of dollars in damage caused, nothing appears to be taken from inside the business as the suspects were unsuccessful in taking the Bitcoin ATM,” a police spokesperson said in the release.

The RCMP received word of a break and enter occurring in the early morning hours of Wednesday (Oct. 7), the release stated. Police were notified that a vehicle had damaged the outside of different businesses in a complex and that two individuals were trying to take an ATM.

The RCMP said in the release that it thinks the vehicle was used multiple times to impact the outside of the structure, and two suspects used the vehicle to get away from the area.

Source: otcpm24.com

Author: News Bureau


Why the FCA Ban on crypto-derivatives is good news for crypto investors

Why the FCA Ban on crypto-derivatives is good news for crypto investors

Matthew Dixon, founder and chief government of Evai.io talks concerning the latest motion taken by the FCA to ban Crypto-derivatives

The FCA’s upcoming Crypto-derivatives ban is a welcome intervention and can most definitely assist shield retail traders from substantial losses.

Not solely are such derivatives poorly understood by most retail traders, however even skilled traders would additionally do nicely to avoid these derivatives that may be so simply abused attributable to pricing anomalies and manipulation.

Allow us to be clear, the FCA is NOT banning cryptocurrencies – It’s banning crypto-derivatives.

What Is a Spinoff?

Basically, derivatives are contracts that derive worth from the efficiency of an underlying asset. One instance is present in a contract for distinction, or CFD.

CFDs are a variant of by-product initially developed within the early 1990s in London as a sort of fairness swap that was traded on margin.

Nearly something may be traded as a CFD.

You should purchase an ‘Apple Inc’ share traded on the NASDAQ for $113.16 right this moment, and your funding would fluctuate straight relying on the worth variation of Apple shares.

Alternatively, you could possibly purchase an Apple CFD, for instance, at 20% of the overall Apple share value. So, for 20% of the share value (20% x 113.16 approx = $22.63), you may have publicity to the identical fluctuation within the Apple share value. Subsequently, if the worth of an Apple share appreciated by 20% as much as $135.79, this improve would equate to a $22.63 revenue for an Apple shareholder. However for an Apple CFD holder who solely invested in a single Apple CFD @ $22.63, the revenue of $22.63 would equate to a 100% achieve. Consequently, a $113.16 funding into Apple CFDs would double to $226.32 if Apple shares appreciated by 20%.

That is high-quality when the market goes up, however with the identical value transfer in the other way a CFD holder would undergo a 100% lack of funding for a mere 20% fall in Apple share value. Even worse, if the worth fell by greater than 20%, an investor couldn’t solely lose the entire funding however truly be left owing cash. So losses aren’t essentially restricted to the quantity initially invested.

Too Massive to Fail

Even large monetary establishments can fail when buying and selling derivatives. Derivatives exacerbated the 2008 world monetary disaster when collateralised debt obligations (CDOs) have been packaged as derivatives and traded between monetary establishments. When the underlying mortgages defaulted, the impact was multiplied many instances over for the last word by-product holders, and the entire world monetary system was delivered to the brink of collapse. That day of reckoning was no less than delayed by the introduction of adverse rates of interest and QE (cash printing) to maintain establishments afloat through bailouts and stimulate the economic system.

Clearly, derivatives are a harmful instrument – even in skilled arms. One other side of the disaster was maybe a failure of regulation on the time. Score companies have been wrongly ranking these CDOs as triple-A-rated securities after they clearly weren’t of that funding grade. The regulators did nothing to cope with this basic problem.

If we glance to determine the basis causes of the 2008 disaster, we are able to conclude that mortgages in themselves aren’t a foul factor when correct danger evaluation is carried out on debtors and satisfactory safety taken. Nonetheless, if there are discrepancies within the danger evaluation of debtors, then mortgages are extra probably to not be repaid. A mortgage lender could nicely have the ability to handle a sure stage of defaults by counting on reserves and insurances. However when debt is packaged inside a by-product, then the issue is multiplied, and losses can spiral uncontrolled.

When contemplating the ban on crypto-derivatives, we have to first contemplate the underlying securities – on this case cryptocurrencies and secondly the operation of derivatives inside this asset class.

Cryptocurrencies are a comparatively new asset class, presently comprising over 7,000 cryptos, according to Coinmarketcap, with a market capitalisation of round $350 billion, and focus in only a handful of the highest cryptos. Many Cryptocurrencies have professional, worthwhile, and viable enterprise makes use of – and many don’t. Therefore a dependable scores system is required in an effort to assist determine actual worth.

That is the place EVAI is available in.

Evai itself is a cryptocurrency whose use-case is assessing and ranking different cryptocurrencies utilizing an unbiased, dependable scores methodology developed as an extension of analysis undertaken by Professor Andros Gregoriou of the College of Brighton.

Beneficial and helpful cryptocurrencies may be recognized, nevertheless it must be remembered that it is a new rising asset class. As such, buying and selling points happen attributable to a scarcity of liquidity and therefore valuation anomalies. Such anomalies may be exploited and notably when the underlying cryptos are leveraged in order that the issues are multiplied (like within the 2008 monetary disaster).

To conclude, we agree wholeheartedly within the FCA statements as said under:

“The FCA considers these merchandise to be ill-suited for retail shoppers as a result of hurt they pose. These merchandise can’t be reliably valued by retail shoppers due to the:

  • inherent nature of the underlying belongings, which implies they don’t have any dependable foundation for valuation
  • prevalence of market abuse and monetary crime within the secondary market (e.g., cyber theft)
  • excessive volatility in cryptoasset value actions
  • insufficient understanding of cryptoassets by retail shoppers
  • lack of professional funding want for retail shoppers to put money into these merchandise”
  • Although, we might add – “don’t throw the infant out with the bathwater.”

    Some cryptocurrency belongings are professional and may kind a part of a balanced portfolio after thorough ranking evaluation, as evidenced by the expansion in institutional, skilled, and retail traders holding cryptocurrencies. We really feel certain that the FCA would agree with this, and we agree with the ban on crypto-derivatives and its potential to help crypto traders in the long term.

    Source: gentlecrypto.com


    Cryptocurrency Enforcement Framework Announced by the US Department of Justice

    Cryptocurrency Enforcement Framework Announced by the US Department of Justice

    The United States Department of Justice is focusing its attention on the crypto-verse and how to control that ecosystem. On October 8, 2020, the US Attorney General released a report talking about the dangers associated with the adoption of cryptocurrencies and the expectations of the DOJ in this regard.

    The “Cryptocurrency Enforcement Framework” is an 83-page document published by the Attorney General’s Cyber Digital Task Force. The 20+ person team believes cryptocurrencies are risky because they make it easier for criminals to transfer funds and evade authorities.

    The Cyber Digital Task Force thinks the report could serve as a reference for the Department of Justice and other agencies to adapt their procedures under the recommendations and warnings presented in it.

    The document has 3 parts:

    The first part catalogs the crimes that are associated with cryptocurrencies. According to the Cyber Digital Task Force, there are three main groups or categories in which the illicit use of cryptocurrency can be framed:

  • Financial transactions associated with the commission of crimes: For example, financing terrorism, buying supplies for terrorist groups, extortion, etc.
  • Money laundering and the shielding of legitimate activity from tax, reporting, or other legal requirements: For example, what our good old John McAfee is accused of.
  • Crimes directly implicating the cryptocurrency marketplace itself: For example, fraud, cryptojacking, phishing attacks, etc.
  • The second part talks about the current efforts being made by law enforcement to counter these threats. The DoJ, SEC, CFTC, FBI, CIA, OFAC, OCC, IRS, FinCEN, etc., are all working together to prevent the use of cryptocurrency… by criminals, of course.

    They explain that FinCEN’s efforts have been particularly crucial in the fight to provide greater transparency in the landscape.

    As an example, the taskforce mentioned an investigation that found Ripple to be acting as an unregistered Money Service Business because of its XRP sales program.:

    Parallel investigations by the Department of Justice and FinCEN found that Ripple Labs willfully violated several requirements of the BSA by acting as an MSB and selling XRP without registering with FinCEN and by failing to implement and maintain an adequate AML program. Ripple Labs entered into a settlement agreement that resolved possible criminal charges and required the entity to forfeit $450,000.

    The third part discusses what the DOJ has in mind for the near future. The team explains they will look for mechanisms to control the activities of some services that have recently boomed in the crypto ecosystem: Exchanges, casinos, kiosks, anonymization services like mixers or tumblers, exchanges with little or no KYC, etc.

    The document also has a positive side. The DoJ recognized that cryptocurrencies could play an important role in changing the global financial landscape.

    “Indeed, for cryptocurrency to realize its truly transformative potential, it is imperative that these risks be addressed.

    However, the task force vowed for more cooperation and clarity to establish a safer environment where cryptocurrencies are used for good things.

    This report comes just weeks after a scandal involving many global-scale banks being soft with criminal activity causing trillions of dollars in damages. Also, Messari has found that for every dollar in crypto used by criminals, $800 are moved via the traditional financial system, and Interpol said cash is still the king among criminals.

    So, it seems crypto is not as big in the criminal world as cash… But that is material for another report.

    SPECIAL OFFER (Sponsored) Binance Futures 50 USDT FREE Voucher: Use this link to register & get 10% off fees and 50 USDT when trading 500 USDT (limited offer).

    Source: sovereignamerican.us


    A Museum Tries To Fight Art Forgery By Showing The Fakes In Its Collection – And Misses The Bigger Picture

    A Museum Tries To Fight Art Forgery By Showing The Fakes In Its Collection – And Misses The Bigger Picture

    When the German chocolate tycoon Peter Ludwig decided to collect abstract paintings from the Soviet Union, he was bound to get duped. Educated in art history, and holding a PhD for his research on Picasso, Ludwig was no fool. But the majority of avant-garde art illicitly taken from behind the Iron Curtain was fake, and research about authenticity was fettered by Soviet animosity toward the artistic experimentation that flourished in the first years after the Russian Revolution before Socialist Realism was officially mandated by Josef Stalin.

    Ludwig built a major collection between the 1970s and the ‘90s, including genuine masterworks by some of the greatest Russian avant-garde artists. But ongoing analysis of his acquisitions – all donated to a museum in Cologne that bears his name – has also turned up many imitations, including paintings formerly attributed to El Lissitzky, Liubov Popova, and Olga Rosanova. Now the museum has audaciously put the fakes on view together with authentic works from Ludwig’s collection as well as examples from other important European museums. Together with a scholarly catalogue, “Russian Avant-Garde at the Museum Ludwig” strives to clear up the art-historical confusion wrought by geopolitical opportunism during the Cold War.

    Painting formerly attributed to to Liubov Popova. Painterly Architectonic, c. 1920. Oil on linen, … [+] 57.5 x 44 cm. Museum Ludwig Köln. Inv.-Nr. ML 1308. Photo: Rheinisches Bildarchiv, Köln.

    The exhibition provides a crash course in art authentication, showing how scientific analysis and historical research supplement connoisseurship in the detection of fakes. In the clearest cases, authenticators cull canvases made with materials unavailable when they were ostensibly painted. Provenance may also be considered, and might be considered damning in instances where supporting documents are fraudulent. Stylistic evaluation confers the least certainty, but arguably brings the deepest satisfaction, because the process of careful comparison can lead to a greater appreciation of the artist’s technique.

    This opportunity, offered most directly in the display of an authentic Painterly Architectonic by Liubov Popova beside one deemed a copy because of its slapdash brushwork, is seldom celebrated by museums, which vilify art forgery and treat fakes as toxins. The Ludwig is no exception in this regard. A catalogue essay by the deputy director Rita Kersting, takes a typically intolerant stance: “There is no one who does not bemoan the numerous forgeries flooding and muddying the market, befogging the history of art, and above all brutally distorting the oeuvre of the innovative and bold artists of the Russian avant-garde,” she writes with haughty insistance. Assuring us that the fakes on show will be safely locked up in storage after the exhibition closes, the Ludwig is really using this public viewing to demonstrate that the evil of fakery will be overcome with good scholarship. The exhibition is a nerdy morality play.

    Liubov Popova. Painterly Architectonic, 1918. Oil on linen, 45 x 53 cm. Thyssen-Bornemisza … [+] Collection. Accession no.1976.17. Photo: Museo Nacional Thyssen-Bornemisza.

    So it comes as no surprise that the museum ignores all the merits of art forgery, and the greatness of forgers as artists. As I argue at length in Forged: Why Fakes Are The Great Art Of Our Age, forgers make great art by exposing our blind spots, such as an over-reliance on institutional authority that frequently overrides critical thinking. The artwork achieves this greatness after the con is exposed and exposes us to our own foibles. Recognizing that we’ve been duped, and understanding how it happened, inspires much-needed individual and collective self-examination. In other words, the primary merit of forgers’ art is conceptual. And it’s inadvertent.

    (The secondary value of enhanced connoisseurship is also quite accidental, and undesirable to the forger, since it’s a product of differentiation. If connoisseurship and other techniques cannot detect fakery, on the other hand, the forger may achieve the rare feat of expanding the imitated artist’s oeuvre, a source of grief for a market built on scarcity and scholarship based on biographical clerical work, but a boon for aesthetic enjoyment.)

    Considered with greater open-mindedness than the Ludwig is willing to tolerate, what might the fakes in the Ludwig exhibition reveal? Setting aside self-righteousness, how might we appreciate them in their own right?

    The painters who faked Russian avant-garde art leveraged differences in how the work was perceived inside and outside the Soviet Union as much as they exploited breakages in communication. Within the USSR, the work represented “formalism”, evoking the bourgeois value of art for art’s sake. In the West, the work conversely stood for artistic freedom, recalling the oppressiveness of Soviet Communism. Both sides saw the art in polemical terms and used it as political currency. In a sense, the work came to stand for its own suppression more than the original concerns of the avant-garde artists.

    The focus wasn’t so much on the paintings as on their whereabouts. Soviets showed loyalty to the state by keeping them out of sight. Europeans and Americans criticized Communist totalitarianism by flaunting the paintings that got out. People on both sides of the Iron Curtain were marks. Paintings hidden in the basements of Soviet museums were stolen and replaced with copies. The originals were sold in the West with additional fakes mixed in for added profit.

    The forgers exploited blights of both systems, and showed how those blights were weaknesses. On the Soviet side, they took advantage of systemic paranoia. On the Western side, they preyed on Capitalist arrogance. And in their act of political arbitrage, they demonstrated the vulnerability in enmity – the obliviousness of enemies to shared threats – a problem that ought to resonate in the present-day mix of political animosity and existential risk.

    Russian avant-garde artists are often claimed to have been ahead of their time. The same can be said of their forgers.

    Source: www.forbes.com

    Author: Jonathon Keats


    Leonard Boord sells Key Biscayne Condo For $6M

    Leonard Boord sells Key Biscayne Condo For $6M

    Leonard Boord & Phillip M. Jaffe & Ocean Tower Two in Key Biscayne (Credit: Google Maps)

    Leonard Boord & Phillip M. Jaffe & Ocean Tower Two in Key Biscayne (Credit: Google Maps)

    The co-founder and chairman of the cryptocurrency asset company Intotheblock sold his condo at Ocean Tower Two in Key Biscayne for $5.8 million.

    Records show Leonard Boord sold the 5,207-square-foot oceanfront condo at 791 Crandon Boulevard to ASAP 908 LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company managed by Phillip M. Jaffe, principal and CEO of Provident Real Estate Ventures.

    Jaffe co-founded the Plymouth, Minnesota-based firm in 2013. It acquires and operates commercial real estate, according to its website.

    The Key Biscayne condo hit the market in February at $6 million. Carlos Coto of One Sotheby’s International Realty had the listing. Douglas Kinsley with Fortune International Realty Key Biscayne represented Jaffe.

    Boord bought unit 908 at Ocean Tower Two for $5.6 million in 2014, records show.

    The four-bedroom, five-and-a-half bath unit has a library, staff quarters and four garage spaces, according to the listing.

    Along with serving as chairman of Miami-based Intotheblock, Boord currently holds many other positions. He is the founder and partner at Miami-based investment firm Slon Capital, the vice chair of the board of directors of the Miami-Dade Expressway Authority and was appointed by Governor Ron DeSantis to the FIU Board of Trustees in January, according to his Linkedin.

    This sale was the most expensive condo trade in Miami-Dade during the final week of October. Other Key Biscayne sales this year include the former Burger King CEO selling his waterfront home for $8.2 million, and the wife of the late founder of a Boston investment management firm selling her waterfront home for $8.6 million.

    Source: therealdeal.com

    Author: Gregory Prosser


    US AG Unveils Crypto Enforcement Blueprint


    Rating: 0
    xc false
    Slider: 0

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *