Monthly Archives: March 2024

General

The Financial System Is Contrived To Its Core The Truth Is Out And You Need To Know

Leave a comment

The Financial System Is Contrived To Its Core. The Truth Is Out, And You Need To Know

Many individuals struggle to keep pace with the increasing cost of living, primarily influenced by a financial system not operating fairly. Or, to put it bluntly, the economic system is rigged. Corporations, governments, and those in positions of authority face immense amounts of debt in the trillions that cannot realistically be repaid. Their choices are either to default and face severe consequences or to reduce the value of this debt through inflation and manage it through regulations. Unfortunately, they have opted for the latter, to the detriment of the collective society.

This article exposes the financial system's flaws, highlighting three key factors contributing to its dysfunctional state. First, a disconnect between money and currency leads to a distorted view of their true value. Second, the time value of money is manipulated, creating an unfair advantage for specific individuals and institutions. Lastly, the ease of access to credit in a credit-driven economy has created an unsustainable cycle of borrowing and debt. These factors combined have rigged the financial system, creating an unequal playing field for all participants.

The article also sheds light on the reasons behind your struggle to keep up with the increasing cost of living and offers practical tips on adapting and staying ahead of the game despite these challenges.

1: The Disconnect Between Money and Currency

In today's world, currency and money possess distinct characteristics, though often used interchangeably. In essence, money represents a store of value, maintaining its worth over time. On the other hand, Currency does not retain its value, depreciating with time. One prime example of money is gold, acknowledged as a valuable store of wealth for centuries.

The value of gold has remained consistent over time, making it an excellent store of value. When pricing assets like houses and cars in gold terms, their prices have remained relatively stable in recent decades. However, when pricing them in currency terms, their prices have increased dramatically in recent years.


Source: Boomerang Capital Partners

In the past, money and currency were synonymous, with currencies representing money. For instance, the US dollar was once backed by gold, and other global currencies were tied to its value. This system ensured that receiving payment in a currency meant receiving something that maintained its worth over time.

However, in 1971, a significant shift occurred when President Richard Nixon decided to “temporarily suspend” the conversion of US dollars to gold. This move allowed governments and central banks to increase the money supply without being constrained by the need to back it with gold reserves. As a result, the supply of US dollars has grown exponentially since the 1970s, as illustrated in the chart below.


Source: Reddit

According to fundamental economic principles, the greater the quantity of a commodity, the lower its worth. Hence, the rising prices of items such as houses and cars are not due to increased value. Instead, a decrease in the value of currencies is driving this trend. The rise in the amount of currency in circulation is known as inflation, and we are often led to think of it as beneficial for both individuals and the economy. This is because inflation encourages spending.

Individuals tend to increase their spending when the value of their currency is depreciating, which, in theory, can stimulate economic expansion and prosperity. However, in practice, inflation harms the ability to preserve currency value, incentivizing overconsumption. Moreover, official inflation measurements have been underestimating the actual inflation rate for years.

The primary issue with the disconnect between currency and money is that individuals continue to receive their income in currency rather than actual money. To make matters worse, people are being misled into believing that the currency they receive has the same value as it did in the past, with the notion that it's equivalent to gold.

The persistent inflation is why it's challenging to maintain a decent standard of living and achieve financial stability. Your earnings are declining in value while you're attempting to purchase goods that are actually valuable, such as real estate or vehicles. This paradox between money and currency may leave you questioning why currencies have any value at all in today's world.

The answer is basically because the government says so. That's why currency is now more often referred to as fiat currency. The Latin word “fiat” translates to “let it be done”. The English dictionary definition of fiat is “an arbitrary order or decree.” However, this is only one aspect contributing to the perception that the financial system is rigged.

2: The Manipulation Of The Time Value Of Money. (TVM)

The second factor involves the manipulation of the time value of money (TVM). In this context, the time value represents the cost of borrowing money over a specific timeframe. Typically, the interest rate increases as the borrowing period extends. This is because the lender foregoes potential opportunities that could have been pursued with the loaned money during that time.

For instance, imagine you need to borrow money for a decade. Lenders might be willing to lend it to you if you agree to pay them a 50% premium at the end of the ten years. This is because ten years is a significant amount of time, and they could have earned a comparable return by investing their money elsewhere.

However, suppose you're looking to borrow money for a short period, precisely one year. In that case, lenders might be more willing to approve your request if you agree to pay an additional 5% interest at the end of the term. This is because one year is considered a relatively short time frame. While they could have potentially earned more interest by investing the money elsewhere, it's often more straightforward and less risky for them to just grant the loan.


Source: Investopedia 

Combining all these loans and their individual interest rates on a graph would result in what is known as the yield curve, a line that inclines upward and to the right. Essentially, the yield curve indicates that the longer the duration of the loan, the greater the interest rate that must be paid. This is where the situation can become somewhat intricate;

If you're looking to borrow a substantial amount of money for an extended period, you may encounter lenders who require a higher interest rate due to the increased risk involved. For instance, if you want to borrow $1 billion for ten years, lenders might demand an additional 100% interest on top of the initial amount, effectively doubling the total amount you'd need to repay. This is because providing such a significant loan over an extended period involves opportunity costs and entails considerable risks, with the primary concern being the possibility of defaulting on the repayment.

Lenders typically charge a higher interest rate to offset the risk of lending. The yield curve may be steeper and begin at a higher percentage based on the loan amount under normal circumstances. However, in today's market, borrowing for a short period can be more expensive, and some larger loans may have lower interest rates than smaller loans with similar repayment terms.

It may seem surprising, but the primary reason for this is largely attributed to central banks. Typically, loan interest rates are influenced by the balance between the availability of lending and the desire for borrowing. When there is a high demand for loans and a limited supply, interest rates tend to be high, and conversely. However, central banks can manipulate interest rates manually, disrupting the natural market dynamic.

The caveat is that they can manually set the interest rates on shorter debt durations. Before the 2008 financial crisis, this was the only action they took. In response to the 2008 crisis, central banks took the unprecedented step of manipulating longer-term interest rates for the first time in modern history. They did this by buying long-term government debt, which lowered interest rates for similar debt durations.

Until the 2008 financial crisis, central banks only controlled short-term interest rates. They could manually set the interest rates on shorter debt durations. However, in response to the crisis, central banks took the unprecedented step of manipulating longer-term interest rates by purchasing long-term government debt, which lowered interest rates for similar durations of debt. This was a significant departure from their traditional role and marked a new era of monetary policy.

To put it differently, central banks manipulated the time value of money across all time frames, making borrowing cheaper to stimulate economic growth. However, this approach has led to inflation instead of a quicker recovery. By keeping interest rates artificially low, more currency is created out of thin air, not only by governments and central banks but also by individuals and organizations.

As we now know, the value of currency depreciates as its supply increases. Unfortunately, this devaluation has occurred four more times since 2008, thanks to the manipulation of money's time value across all time frames. This has led to higher inflation and continued to make borrowing artificially cheap—but only for those with access to credit.

3: Access To Credit (in a Credit Driven Economy)

In a credit-driven economy, the third factor contributing to the rigged financial system is the disparity in access to credit. The intention behind manipulating the time value of money was to facilitate borrowing for all, thereby promoting economic growth. However, this manipulation had an unintended consequence: instead of making credit more accessible to everyone, it only became easier for select individuals and institutions to borrow, leading to inflation.

These individuals and institutions utilize their funds for various purposes, including acquiring valuable assets such as stocks and real estate. This demand leads to a significant increase in the prices of these assets while the value of the currency used to purchase them depreciates. As a result, the average person can only keep up by borrowing more currency to buy the remaining valuable assets, thereby increasing their prices even further.

Initially, the various green indicators may appear to signify economic expansion due to their upward trends. Yet, upon further examination, it becomes evident that inflated asset prices have mainly fueled this growth due to low-cost borrowing practices implemented since 2008 rather than genuine economic expansion. Consequently, there has been limited actual economic growth during this period.

For instance, the actual economic output in G20 nations has shown minimal growth since 2008, indicating a reliance on credit. Succeeding in this credit-driven economy largely hinges on your capacity to take on increasing amounts of debt, yet this is becoming more challenging.


Source: X

There are various factors at play, which can be categorized into two main groups: formally established financial regulations and informal norms. The Dodd-Frank Act stands out as a significant example of official financial regulation enacted in response to the 2008 financial crisis. 

Although lengthy at over 2,000 pages, the Dodd-Frank Act has essentially created challenges for small banks in providing small loans to small businesses and individuals. As a result, small businesses and individuals now face increased difficulty demonstrating their creditworthiness to secure larger loans, while small banks find it harder to function effectively.

Small banks play a significant role as the primary lenders to small businesses. If small banks are unable to provide small loans to these businesses, there will be a decrease in both small banks and small businesses. This could lead to a situation where large banks and shadow banks become the primary sources of funding for small businesses.

Shadow banks, such as Blackrock, have established their own set of rules and regulations that individuals and institutions must adhere to. One example of this is the ESG investment ideology, which has become a powerful tool for manipulating the value of money. Compliance with Blackrock's ESG standards can result in more favorable loan terms, including lower interest rates, while non-compliance may lead to less favorable loan terms.  

The rising prominence of Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) criteria in financial decision-making is poised to surpass the influence of traditional financial regulations. This shift is expected to gain momentum as ESG considerations become more widespread and affect individual decision-making. Notably, ESG criteria do not originate from the private sector but were introduced by unaccountable and unelected international organizations.

A concerning aspect of the situation is that credit accessibility is now being influenced not only by commercial banks and shadow banks but also by central banks purchasing corporate debt in response to the pandemic flash crash in 2020. Similar to purchasing government debt, buying corporate debt results in decreased interest rates on that debt. The selective nature of central banks' purchases, favoring certain corporations over others, created an unfair advantage for those chosen corporations as they could access credit at even lower rates.

The prevailing sentiment among macro analysts is that the extent of your credit access is directly linked to your financial standing. In other words, individuals or organizations with substantial wealth or size are more likely to enjoy better terms regarding credit, thus perpetuating their advantageous position and facilitating further growth.

Suppose you're struggling financially or running a small organization. In that case, you may find it increasingly difficult to obtain credit in the future unless you conform to the standards set by powerful financial institutions like BlackRock. Even if you manage to secure credit, it will likely come with less favorable terms than those enjoyed by larger entities, further widening the gap between you and them in an economy that relies heavily on credit.


Image by Markethive.com

Maintaining Financial Stability in a Biased Economic System

Our main question is: How can we stay abreast of this rigged financial system? In this unfair financial climate, it's essential to comprehend the mechanisms at play. Let's be clear: this system has little to do with the traditional concept of capitalism. Instead, we're dealing with a system where currency and money have been decoupled by government intervention, in which currency is losing its value. Central banks manipulate the time value of money, and unaccountable and unelected international organizations control credit access, all while insulating from accountability and democratic oversight. 

The situation becomes increasingly complex when considering the significant influence of corporations on government decision-making through lobbying efforts, that the commercial banks technically own the central banks, and governments overseeing various unaccountable and unelected international organizations. As previously stated, the financial system is rigged as these entities collectively hold hundreds of trillions of dollars in debts they cannot repay.

The establishment needs currency to decouple from money so that it loses its value. It also needs the time value of money to be low and regulate access to credit, as uncontrolled borrowing could lead to a chain reaction of defaults, jeopardizing its entire system. This is why there is a strong interest in Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs), as they offer the potential to centralize control over the currency.

In light of these details, it's essential to recognize that heavily indebted entities are attempting to manipulate the financial system to avoid defaulting on their debts. They're trying to achieve this by controlling the currency supply and sparking inflation. To illustrate, imagine them filling a swimming pool while simultaneously regulating its size. They’re not trying to drown us or are targeting us per se. These entities are primarily focused on safeguarding their own interests.

Attempting to stay afloat by treading water will eventually lead to drowning. This places the responsibility on us to discover a method to exert less effort and remain buoyant, figuratively speaking. Unfortunately, staying afloat is no easy feat. A simple solution would be to receive payment in money rather than currency, but that's not a realistic expectation. You won't likely find someone willing to pay you in money for long, as it would be too costly for them.

This leaves the other two factors: Unless you work at a central bank, you won't be able to fix the time value of money and bring interest rates back to reality, and if you tried, you could be fired or worse. That's because all those entities can't afford higher interest rates due to their debts, at least on paper. In practice, they can afford these higher interest rates so long as they have access to credit. 

Accessing credit can be challenging and restrictive in terms of compliance unless you're a large institution or a wealthy individual. Even if you manage to secure credit, relying on borrowed money to purchase assets may not be a sustainable or effective strategy for achieving financial success.

Analysts suggest that we might be moving towards a time of increased interest rates. In such a scenario, this floating device would become ineffective. This is particularly relevant for individuals who have borrowed money to purchase a property for rental purposes, leverage that property to secure additional loans for more rental properties, and so forth. You are likely acquainted with someone who has engaged in such financial strategies. This method has been a primary means of economic progress since 2008.

If interest rates remain high over an extended period, it may lead to a chain reaction of forced selling, as the cost of servicing debt becomes unsustainable. This downward spiral could cause asset values to plummet, triggering even more sell-offs. In such a scenario, only two factors can help maintain financial stability, and they are closely interconnected.

One strategy is to increase the amount of currency you receive, while another is to invest that currency in assets (money) that maintain value, such as Gold, Bitcoin, or otherwise. The main challenge with the first approach is to increase your income without accumulating excessive debt, preferably none at all. With the growing emphasis on ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) considerations, securing financing for a small business may become increasingly difficult without meeting strict compliance requirements.

The biggest challenge with the second issue is that governments may impose restrictions on people's ability to access money as they become more aware of the declining nature of the currency. This could lead to difficulties exchanging money for currency when needed. 

As individuals become more aware of the manipulation within the financial system, collective adaptation and progress will be facilitated. This awareness leads to the emergence of economies that value money as a legitimate form of currency once more.  It seems inevitable that this shift will occur over time. The likelihood of this transformation happening is high, and there may be truth to the idea of reverting to a gold standard or building a new monetary system backed by Bitcoin, the crypto industry’s gold standard, fitting for this digital age, resulting in a parabolic shift in adoption and value for cryptocurrency, so be sure to be positioned accordingly. 

This article is provided for informational purposes only. It is not offered or intended to be used as legal, tax, investment, financial, or other advice.

 


 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

General

The Dynamic Crypto Industry Building A Bitcoin-Backed Monetary System Consider Banks Without Bankers

Leave a comment

The Dynamic Crypto Industry Building A Bitcoin-Backed Monetary System. Consider Banks Without Bankers 

One of the main advantages of cryptocurrency is the independence it offers by enabling individuals to become their own bank. With cryptocurrency, you have complete control and ownership of your assets, whereas traditional banks have technical ownership over the assets you store with them. While the concept of being your own bank is impressive, critics argue that specialized crypto banks may be necessary for crypto to compete effectively with the established financial system.

This article summarizes a report outlining a method for establishing financial institutions without the need for traditional bankers. This method utilizes Bitcoin to achieve this goal, and the approach aligns with the broader aim of revolutionizing the financial sector by harnessing the power of cryptocurrency to replace the existing flawed monetary system. 

Banks Without Bankers Prioritizing User Agency

Today's summary is of a report called "Banks without Bankers," released by AxiomBTC, a venture capital firm focused on Bitcoin. The report starts with a powerful quote from Hal Finney, a pioneering Bitcoin developer who received the first Bitcoin transaction.  In the quote, Hal Finney envisions a future where BTC is crucial in reshaping the banking system. 


Source: Axiom.BTC

In the report authored by Eric Yakes, he explores two potential outcomes for the future of Bitcoin. On one end of the spectrum, all BTC could be held in custody by third parties like banks, with individuals trading receipts instead. This is similar to the historical concept of fiat money, representing a gold claim held by a bank. On the other end of the spectrum, Bitcoin could become a widely-used medium of exchange, with individuals directly transacting with each other and BTC effectively replacing money and its associated functions.

The idea presented is impractical due to several factors. Bitcoin faces limitations in scaling at its core level and is missing the necessary smart contract capabilities for sophisticated financial operations. Similarly, the scenario where all BTC is held in custody is not feasible because some BTC holders prefer to maintain control over their cryptocurrency assets through self-custody and peer-to-peer transactions. Therefore, it can be reasoned that the future of Bitcoin lies in a balance between custody services and individual self-custody practices.

Eric points out in the report that advancing technologies in the Bitcoin sector will allow for striking this balance carefully, emphasizing prioritizing greater peer-to-peer interactions. This approach is logical, as Bitcoin was initially designed to distance itself from traditional financial institutions like banks. In other words, the primary goal of Bitcoin was to remove the reliance on third parties to safeguard assets, hence the inherent trustless quality of cryptocurrency.

Eric contends that not all trust is misplaced, as it's crucial to place confidence in the right individuals and ensure their motivations align. He reinforces this notion by highlighting evolutionary biology findings emphasizing communities' importance in survival and reproduction. He then draws parallels between these findings and the contemporary financial system, where community-oriented banks are less likely to fail.

Eric believes that community banks are restricted by their geographical reach, meaning those nearby can only access their benefits. This limitation stems from the physical constraints of the world. In contrast, the digital realm knows no boundaries or distances. Eric suggests that with the appropriate technology, Bitcoin could enable the establishment of a digital community bank that transcends geographical limitations.

A critical technological component is multi-signature (mult-sig) wallets, which enable multiple individuals to manage a single Bitcoin wallet. In essence, multi-sig wallets enable the creation of conditions that allow this shared wallet to spend BTC. This technology allows the establishment of a ‘federation,’ which Eric defines as a system where “multiple participants hold keys that are useless in isolation, but can be combined to produce a signature that is required to make a transaction.” 


Source: https://fedimint.org/

Fedimint: A Decentralized Solution

The first part of the report introduces a federated network called Fedimint. It’s designed to address issues related to trust in third parties and the complexities of self-custody. The concept is to rely on your community for trust rather than depending on external entities or solely yourself for technical matters of self-custody. A combination of four underlying technologies powers Fedimint;

  1. Federations can be considered a collection of reliable, trusted nodes that work together to operate a network. These nodes are responsible for maintaining the integrity of the system. 
  2. Multi-sig wallets, as previously mentioned above.
  3. A privacy-preserving digital currency called eCash which is backed by BTC.
  4. The Lightning Network: (LN) A layer two protocol on the Bitcoin Network.

At the protocol level, Fedimint consists of four participants; 

  1. Users who can mint, redeem, and transfer eCash. 
  2. Guardians that function as nodes on the network and facilitate the minting, redemption, and transfer of eCash.
  3. Gateways that can be simply understood as nodes that make eCash transferable on the Lightning Network. 
  4. Modules, which are the applications on Fedimint. 

Each Fedimint system has three built-in modules: BTC, eCash, and a connector for integrating with the Lightning Network. Users can expand the functionality of their Fediment system by adding extra modules like eCash payments and advanced eCash exchanges. Fedimint networks have the potential to function as virtual community banks, operate independently, and manage financial transactions without traditional bankers. The community-driven infrastructure allows seamless interaction with other Bitcoin-based Fedimint networks.


Source: Bitcoin magazine

Eric explores an alternative method in which Bitcoin could replace traditional banks, this time through utilizing a different protocol known as Cashu. Like Fedimint, Cashu utilizes a privacy-preserving eCash supported by Bitcoin, crypto’s store of value. However, Cashu is notably more centralized, operating on a single server. The trade-off is that the centralized aspect allows for efficient monitoring of the eCash circulation without jeopardizing user privacy, which contrasts with the challenge faced by Fedimints, where tracking the supply of eCash is hindered by its inherent privacy features.

Money and e-Cash

In the second part of the report, Eric asserts that a single form of money will eventually become the universal standard for transactions. He argues, “In theory, market participants converge upon a monetary standard. In a perfect world, there would only be one form of money. Yet, throughout history, this has never been the case.” Eric provides three explanations for the historical absence of a singular form of money.

The first is opacity or the general lack of information about other currencies available to the average person. Another reason is governments' desire to control their own currencies, a concept called sovereign coercion. The third factor to consider is the trade-offs associated with money. For instance, in today's world, real estate is often viewed as a more reliable store of value compared to the US dollar, as explained by Eric. 

For reference, the concept of money refers to a medium that holds value, while currency is a means of exchange used to purchase goods and services. This video clarifies the distinction between the two, highlighting how they were once equivalent when backed by gold. However, once currency was no longer tied to gold, it lost its value as a form of money. Despite this shift, we continue to operate under the belief that we are working for money through indoctrination, both explicitly and implicitly. 

Eric explains we are not out of the woods regarding BTC being the complete solution to this problem. He notes that although BTC addresses numerous obstacles that have previously hindered the widespread adoption of a single currency, it faces its own obstacles regarding scalability (speed) and privacy. The Lightning Network is a potential remedy for Bitcoin's scalability issue, while eCash is a solution for enhancing Bitcoin's privacy.

The report recognizes that while each of these solutions has its own obstacles, they may still effectively address the issue. However, eCash's success in creating viable money markets depends on its ability to gain widespread acceptance and adoption. Without delving into complex details, this process would entail individuals or organizations with substantial financial resources engaging in arbitrage activities between various eCash systems, stabilizing their value relative to the underlying BTC. This positive feedback loop would boost eCash adoption, fostering more precise pricing, increased market-making, and further adoption. The cycle would repeat, driving up the use and reliance on eCash while maintaining a consistent global value.


Source: Axiom.BTC

The Potential Risks Of An eCash System

The report's third section highlights the potential risks involved with the eCash system, which is built on Bitcoin (BTC) and utilizes the Lightning Network and Fedimint technology. Eric explains that eCash is designed to be minted and redeemed for BTC on the Bitcoin blockchain or BTC on the Lightning Network using a Fedimint Network. This system should ensure that all types of eCash issued by different Fedimint networks are interchangeable and hold equal value. In other words, eCash minted for BTC using one Fedimint network's lightning Network BTC can be redeemed for Layer One BTC at another Fedimint network.

While Fedimints offers the benefit of privacy for eCash transactions, there is a potential drawback. Specifically, Fedimints can generate more eCash than the amount of BTC that backs it, which could result in an imbalance in the system. For instance, one Fedimint network might produce ten times more eCash than others, causing users to claim a disproportionate amount of BTC from other Fedimints. This issue arises because eCash is entirely private, making it difficult to keep track of the total amount in circulation. This issue is mitigated by using Cashu, which maintains a record of circulating eCash and ensures that BTC always backs it.

Now, there's already a precedent for how to solve this problem. It's called free banking, which is banking before central banks existed. In the free banking era, banks could issue currency at their own discretion. In theory, this currency was backed by gold; in practice, it wasn't always. Unfortunately, this led to a situation where customers were not always aware of the actual value of the currency they were using, as they were at the mercy of the banks' honesty. This information imbalance between banks and their customers can be compared to the privacy aspects of eCash issued by Fedimints, where the issuing authority can access more information than the users.


Source: AreaBitcoin

The caveat is that free banks did not have a widespread relationship with all individuals. Only a select few were privy to the financial workings of the free banks, and these were often the first to withdraw their funds before the system collapsed. The report highlights three such groups: competitors, brokers, and clearing houses. Eric suggests similar participants could provide comparable assurances in a decentralized eCash system. This could include entities such as Fedimints, Lightning Network gateways, eCash brokers, and even speculators who wager against unreliable Fedimints. The most crucial participant that could be introduced to an eCash system would be one capable of furnishing proof of reserves.

Those who have been involved in the crypto space since the downfall of FTX will be familiar with the emphasis placed on proof-of-reserves by exchanges aiming to enhance credibility. However, it's important to note that proof-of-reserves alone does not provide insight into a crypto exchange's obligations or debts. This means that an exchange could show evidence of holding $1 billion in BTC for its users who have deposited the same amount while simultaneously being $2 billion in debt, a detail unknown to users.

However, in an eCash system, the concept of liabilities doesn't apply in the traditional sense, as all eCash in circulation is supported by BTC held in a multi-signature wallet. The existence of this BTC collateral ensures the legitimacy of eCash minted by a Fediment, making it unnecessary to worry about liabilities.

Proof Of Liabilities

The fourth section of the report focuses on proof of liabilities. In this context, it alludes to the Cashu-created method for preserving the privacy of eCash users while monitoring the digital currency in circulation. Cashu's proof of liabilities protocol relies on three deliberate steps, which are crucial for its effectiveness.

  1. To publicly commit to regularly rotating its eCash private keys over a predetermined period (“epoch”). This allows all eCash in circulation to recycle from old epochs to the current epoch.
  2. Produce a publicly auditable list of all issued eCash tokens in the form of mint proofs.
  3. Produce a publicly auditable list of all redeemed eCash tokens in the form of burn proofs.

A system with these properties can ensure that Fedimint users can verify whether a mint has issued unbacked eCash during a previous epoch. This system sets an expiration date on user eCash, which prompts users to update their eCash to the latest epoch. The expiration of eCash compels users (through automated processes in their wallet software) to take actions that will lead to the mint disclosing past eCash issuance and redemptions.

The intriguing aspect is that the periodic alteration of eCash private keys is designed to mimic a bank run on the Fedimint. If the Fedimint is unable to modify the private keys used for eCash minting, it suggests that the eCash they've issued is not supported by the BTC reserves they claim.

In the fifth section of the report, Eric examines the possibility of a Bitcoin eCash system being impervious to political influence, provided that there is a sufficient number of decentralized financial networks, known as Fedimint networks. The report speculates that up to 10 million digital community banks could be in the future. Additionally, the report highlights that Fedimint networks are also resistant to politics because they are currently exempt from financial regulations but admit that this could change. If you’ve followed the crypto regulation saga, you would know that the authorities’ goal is ending all custodial crypto. 

The sixth section of the report analyzes why Bitcoin and the Lightning Network are deemed inadequate. The report then shifts its focus back to comparing free banking with the eCash system in the seventh section. The risks associated with each system are highlighted in a diagram presented below.


Source: Axiom.BTC

The report then discusses the potential for Fedimints to start practicing fractional reserve banking. For those unfamiliar with the concept, fractional reserve banking refers to retaining only a portion of the funds backing a currency in circulation. Most financial institutions worldwide maintain a reserve requirement of less than 30%, meaning they must hold 30 cents for every dollar they have issued.

Significantly, the Federal Reserve eliminated all reserve requirements for American banks at the onset of the pandemic and has seemingly yet to reinstate them. Eric highlights that this has raised concerns that Fedimint networks may begin operating like fractional reserve banks, meaning they would issue more eCash than BTC in reserve. However, competition among Fedimints is believed to help mitigate this risk, with those maintaining full reserves coming out on top.

Emerging Technologies

In the latter section of the report, the discussion revolves around new technologies that can bring the eCash concept to life. Eric highlights a novel protocol named Ark, currently in its conceptual phase and can be viewed as a mixing service and an onboarding mechanism that minimizes on-chain activity. Like the Lightning Network (LN) has LSPs, Ark will have Ark Service Providers (ASPs). This is a solution to the onboarding problem and a trustless custodial solution.

Interestingly, Ark's main limitation is that it can only support up to 10.5 million BTC due to technical reasons outlined in the report. Despite this, Eric believes this inherent restriction could be advantageous in the long run. The main point to remember is that Ark has the potential to overcome the technical challenges faced by the eCash system. As noted by Eric, “The Arc protocol could provide the necessary infrastructure for a trustless free banking system of service providers to emerge, removing agency from fundamental economic functions.” 

Next, Eric synthesizes the information in the concluding section of the report, presenting a comprehensive overview as follows:

“Imagine a system where users dollar-cost-average into Bitcoin via Ark, use federated technology for custody, use eCash as the private cash balance for everyday transactions, and on the backend, all service providers are clearing balances between one another via the Lightning Network. Fedimints and ASPs could act as banking infrastructure, and the LN could act as the clearing houses amongst them as a hub and spoke model.”

In essence, it is a monetary framework of decentralized, community-owned, and operated digital Bitcoin banks.

What It Means For BTC

The potential impact on Bitcoin (BTC) is significant, assuming the implementation of the eCash system as described. Such a system would generate substantial demand for BTC, thereby boosting its value. In essence, the eCash aspect of this alternative financial system would serve as a powerful catalyst for BTC's growth.

The more significant concern is how this trend might impact both the financial system and your personal financial autonomy. It's important to remember that economic freedom doesn't equate to having a large sum of money. Instead, it means having the flexibility and control to make choices about your money whenever you see fit. Unfortunately, this level of autonomy is becoming increasingly scarce in traditional financial circles.

As previously stated, having a large sum of money in your bank account may hold little value if you cannot use it. When encountering someone with significant wealth, inquire about the challenges of managing such funds. The process of transferring large sums of money is complex and increasingly so. This difficulty may be attributed to the fractional reserve banking system's ongoing trend towards extreme fractionalization. Put simply, banks are putting up hurdles that make it harder to move your money around because the cash you have there doesn't even really exist. 

The banking crisis from last year highlighted how convenient it is to transfer money in today's world. In the past, customers would have to physically line up at the bank to withdraw their money in the event of a problem, which is the classical definition of a bank run. Nowadays, all you need to do is click a button, which is a big problem for banks. 

In any case, the growing sentiment globally is towards a financial framework that enables individuals to possess their assets and maintain their financial autonomy. The system examined in this report may or may not be the ultimate answer, but it's undoubtedly a move in the right direction toward a future where such a system will be imperative.


Image: Markethive Wallet

On The Right Side Of History

Markethive is also on the right side of history regarding financial sovereignty and keeping the entrepreneurial spirit alive. It is a domain where the individual can thrive in an expanding community of critical thinkers who uphold liberty and free expression, prioritize financial autonomy, and foster an environment where ingenuity and independence can flourish. These aspiring and seasoned entrepreneurs alike reject the constraints established financial systems impose and embrace the potential of decentralized technology. 

In response to the autocracy of governments and mega-corporations on a global level, Markethive has developed its own comprehensive financial accounting hub that can be likened to a bank. This system provides users with a secure platform for financial transactions, including merchant accounts, free from the risk of account closure or seizure by authorities seeking to restrict freedom of expression for any reason.

Markethive’s evolution will include multiple sovereign servers to avoid being censured or shut down and a dynamic and innovative crypto exchange that leverages the platform's unique strengths, including innovative inbound marketing strategies, blogcasting capabilities, dynamic social engagement, and community-driven support. These endeavors are a natural progression for Markethive, allowing it to expand its reach and provide users with a seamless trading experience that integrates the platform's proven features.

With divine guidance, we will resist the oppressive totalitarian regimes that seek to subjugate humanity. Despite the power wielded by the elite, tech titans, government, and mega-corporations, a higher authority exists that eludes their control. The discerning individual cannot help but perceive the larger forces at play.

This article is provided for informational purposes only. It is not offered or intended to be used as legal, tax, investment, financial, or other advice.

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

General

Trad-Fi Wants To Dominate Crypto Is It succeeding? What Does It Mean For Crypto?

Leave a comment

Trad-Fi Wants To Dominate Crypto. Is It succeeding? What Does It Mean For Crypto?

Charles Hoskinson, the founder of Cardano, is a prominent figure in the cryptocurrency industry and is known for his unwavering belief in its potential to revolutionize the financial system, much like Markethive. Throughout the years, I have documented the evolution of Cardano creator Charles Hoskinson's efforts in developing the Cardano protocol and his humanitarian quest. 

In a recent video, Hoskinson expressed his concern that the traditional financial system is slowly but surely taking over the crypto industry, a notion that has sparked a heated debate among experts. While cryptocurrency's original intention was to supplant traditional financial systems, some fear that if it continues on its current path, it may ultimately become even more dystopian than any central bank digital currency.

In a live video broadcast on February 13, 2024, Charles passionately shared his thoughts on the intersection of legacy finance and the crypto world, titled "Legacy is Eating Crypto." This article summarizes Charles' insights, supplemented by perspectives from Coin Bureau's crypto experts. We will also explore ways in which the crypto industry can safeguard itself from being overtaken by traditional financial institutions, commonly referred to as "Trad-Fi."

Stablecoins

Charles started by mentioning that he has been discussing the significance of decentralized algorithmic stablecoins in various recent interviews and how they differ from centralized asset-backed stablecoins, which he believes could threaten the cryptocurrency industry. 

A stablecoin that relies on algorithms to maintain its value relative to a traditional currency is known as an algorithmic stablecoin. The most well-known example of such a stablecoin is Terra's UST, which suffered a collapse around May of 2022. However, Charles had a different type of algorithmic stablecoin in mind; he was referring to a stablecoin that is backed by another cryptocurrency, such as MakerDAO’s DAI, which can be minted by locking up another crypto as collateral, such as ETH. 

The issue is that DAI may not be genuinely decentralized anymore, as it is now primarily backed by centralized assets. This makes it similar to other centralized stablecoins, such as Circle’s USDC and USDT, which Charles categorizes as asset-backed. Like USDC and USDT, DAI's value is supported by real-world assets, specifically US government debt and US dollars, which are susceptible to seizure.

For context, Charles shared some key facts. Firstly, he mentioned that centralized stablecoins constitute approximately 10% of the total market capitalization of cryptocurrencies. While this may not seem significant initially, it becomes notable when considering the second statistic: about 70% of all cryptocurrency transaction volume involves a centralized stablecoin. Charles emphasized that centralized stablecoins such as USDC and USDT are minted and redeemed by centralized companies that are typically subject to strict regulations. He explained that while these regulations are not inherently harmful, they imply that these entities are under government oversight, unlike cryptocurrencies.

Moreover, these entities are restricted in their ability to drive innovation in stablecoins, as they must operate within the boundaries of regulatory compliance. Additionally, they cannot issue stablecoins in a fractionalized manner, meaning that an equivalent value of US dollars or bonds must fully back each stablecoin in circulation. This poses a significant challenge, as it enables centralized stablecoin issuers to potentially influence the outcome of a hard fork by deciding which chain becomes the dominant one.


Source: Investopedia

In other words, they would have to select which chain to transfer all their stablecoins to, as doubling the supply isn't an option. Interestingly, Vitalik Buterin, the creator of Ethereum, acknowledged this reality in 2022. He opined that Circle, the issuer of USDC, could dictate which chain emerges victorious in the event of an Ethereum fork.  It is worth mentioning that Cardano is not exposed to this threat since it does not currently support any centralized stablecoins. 

Bitcoin ETFs

Charles then pointed out the possibility of centralized stablecoin issuers implementing KYC at the blockchain level. He also highlighted criticisms regarding the absence of centralized stablecoins on the Cardano blockchain. Charles emphasized that those advocating for centralized stablecoins on Cardano without considering the associated risks are solely focused on increasing the value of the ADA token.  He also drew parallels to the situation with spot Bitcoin ETFs, highlighting that these ETFs now hold over 200,000 BTC valued at over $10 billion, and argued that asset managers operating these ETFs wield a similar level of influence over Bitcoin as Circle does over select smart contract cryptocurrencies.

This stance is both intriguing and controversial. On the one hand, it suggests that the forecast about Circle's rise to prominence in cryptocurrency is materializing. On the other hand, there is room for debate as asserting control over Bitcoin involves more than just influencing its price.  While Charles posits that the growth of spot Bitcoin ETFs could allow them to control Bitcoin in the event of a fork, this argument is not without its critics. Some argue that controlling Bitcoin requires more than just price manipulation. However, Charles suggested that with the ongoing absorption of BTC by spot Bitcoin ETFs, there is a possibility for these entities to amass enough control to potentially dominate Bitcoin in case of a fork.

For reference, in its ETF filing, BlackRock clearly mentioned that it would decide which Bitcoin fork to back in the event of one. Consider a situation where Bitcoin splits into proof-of-stake and proof-of-work networks. The likelihood is high that BlackRock and other asset managers would choose to support the proof-of-stake fork because their significant BTC holdings would essentially give them control over the new Bitcoin blockchain through their spot ETFs.

The irony is that ESG-obsessed asset managers are more concerned about the government's control over Bitcoin rather than its environmental impact. While proof of stake is praised for its eco-friendliness, the control aspect truly holds significance. Moreover, asset managers like BlackRock could offload their proof-of-work BTC holdings after a fork, causing the price to plummet and making it unprofitable for miners to continue validating transactions. This could ultimately lead to the demise of the proof-of-work chain.


Source: Coinmarketcap

Charles emphasized that the dominance in the crypto industry lies not only with stablecoin issuers and asset managers but also with centralized exchanges where the top three control the majority of trading volume. According to Charles, there are just ten entities that have the potential to control the crypto market.  However, considering Blackrock's partnership with Coinbase and its management of USDC's reserves, it's likely that the number of entities with such control is even smaller. Furthermore, Blackrock's influence extends to the US government, as evidenced by a recent lawsuit settlement with Binance granting it extensive oversight over the exchange.

In any event, Charles proceeded to make an intriguing statement, highlighting that if you ignore the advice of these organizations, they will not add your cryptocurrency to their list, and they will not introduce a stablecoin on your blockchain. This brings up the question of whether this is the reason Cardano lacks a centralized stablecoin – due to their unwillingness to adhere to such requirements.

Cardano

Charles noted that Cardano has successfully avoided being controlled by centralized stablecoin issuers and their associates, which has led to it being overlooked and undervalued. He pointed out an explicit prejudice against Cardano within certain industry circles. Charles reiterated that many in the Cardano community are growing impatient with ADA's price action and are “trying to invite the vampires in so that ADA's price will pump.” 

Charles expressed that it's not his place to make a decision, but he felt others needed to understand the implications of their choices. He emphasized that if vampires are allowed to enter, they will eventually hold power over everything related to Cardano. However, he also suggested that ADA could be delisted if it doesn't meet the standards of trad-fi-backed crypto elites. Charles stressed that every decision in crypto comes with a trade-off; nothing is free. He posed the question of whether the purpose of crypto is to perpetuate existing inequalities or to stop them.

He questioned whether the goal of cryptocurrency was to conform to the institutions responsible for economic disparity or to break free from their control. To emphasize his point, he noted that increasing centralization in crypto mirrors the corrupt financial system it seeks to challenge, encompassing centralized infrastructure, centralized exchanges, and centralized stablecoins. Eventually, there will be wallet-wide KYC and CBDC integrations. 

During a podcast with Bankless, Circle CEO Jeremy Allaire indirectly acknowledged that Circle's USDC ultimately aims to evolve into a central bank digital currency (CBDC). As you may already know, CBDCs will give governments and central banks complete authority over individual saving and spending habits. In fact, some argue that stablecoin issuers already wield such power.

The end result of this shift towards centralization will be identical to the permission systems and de-platforming present in the financial sector today. One needs to look no further than the COVID-19 protests in Canada for proof of this. Protesters and their supporters found their bank accounts frozen. Charles emphasized that cryptocurrency will become inconsequential if it integrates with trad-fi and that they will do everything in their power to ensure that it does, whether by influencing regulations or using other means.

Finally, Charles explained that Satoshi Nakamoto's motivation for creating Bitcoin was a response to the extraordinary measures taken during the 2008 financial crisis and the concerning precedents they established. Satoshi believed that cryptocurrency could offer a unique alternative, but first, it's essential to recognize how it's still mirroring the same patterns as traditional finance. Unfortunately, Charles did not elaborate on how cryptocurrency could diverge from these patterns, whether through algorithmic stablecoins or other means, to avoid falling under the control of traditional financial systems.

Why BTC Could Be Unscathed

Thankfully, the task is relatively simple, although implementing it will be challenging and involve tradeoffs, as Charles pointed out. Your viewpoint will ultimately determine the approach. To elaborate, let's revisit the premise of Charles's video, which suggests that ‘legacy’ or trad-fi is ‘eating’ or integrating cryptocurrency rather than vice versa. Some believe that incorporating crypto, to some extent, is crucial for promoting awareness, acceptance, and progress in the field.

The current state of crypto privacy regulations is a prime illustration of this issue. Globally, regulations surrounding cryptocurrency are heavily leaned against privacy, with the supposed reasoning being that it creates an environment conducive to illicit financial activities. However, the true motivation behind this stance is that powerful financial institutions desire total visibility into all transactions, allowing them to maintain control over the economy and suppress any potential competition.

The main point is that these influential financial organizations' primary desire for privacy comes from them. This is evident in Blackrock's and other companies offering Bitcoin ETFs' decision to keep the wallets containing the BTC supporting their ETFs undisclosed. In contrast, Bitwise chose to reveal this information preemptively rather than waiting for blockchain analysts to uncover it. 

Consider the possibility that stablecoin payments will become widespread globally, thanks to the lobbying efforts of stablecoin issuers like Circle. It won't take long for individuals to realize that their stablecoin transactions and balances are transparent to everyone, which may raise concerns among trad-fi elites. Moreover, with central banks permitted to hold cryptocurrencies on their balance sheets starting from January 2025, there will likely be growing pressure on regulators to enhance privacy in the crypto space.

The rise in crypto privacy use will lead to the creation of additional privacy solutions. Cryptocurrency operates on universal principles, applying the same rules to all blockchain users. As long as this remains true, influential individuals and organizations will likely advocate for crypto values as they align with their self-interests.

If you are still in the process of being convinced, consider that various central banks globally are in the stages of creating their individual digital currencies. Given their ease of seizure or freezing, will these central banks rely on each other's digital currencies? The answer is no. Consequently, there'll be a significant need for a reliable, mutually accepted digital currency, especially as the world becomes increasingly geopolitically divided.

Coinbureau believes that Bitcoin's BTC is well-suited to serve this purpose and is currently used for trading by certain countries. Moreover, there are reports of countries engaging in Bitcoin mining activities. This could lead to a situation where nations using BTC for trade may compete in mining to maintain the neutrality of the Bitcoin blockchain. Fidelity, a different asset manager, has made a similar prediction.

This relates to Charles' assertions regarding asset managers' influence over Bitcoin through controlling its value. Recognizing that BTC's main advantage is its status as a trustworthy and impartial digital currency beyond anyone's control, it becomes clear that attempting to control Bitcoin would have negative consequences. To clarify, if Blackrock and other asset managers were to gain control of Bitcoin, its fundamental appeal would cease to exist.

The potential outcome of this situation is substantial funds being redirected to alternative assets, such as gold and other cryptocurrencies, which are beyond the control of asset managers. Notably, these outflows could potentially include investments in the proof-of-work BTC fork. It's important to remember that Blackrock's significant wealth and influence are largely predicated on the dominance of the US and its currency.

As explained in this article, the emergence of a new commodity cycle could potentially elevate the influence of the BRICS nations. Consider a scenario where one of these countries introduces a Bitcoin exchange-traded fund (ETF) that tracks the price of the proof-of-work version of Bitcoin derived from Blackrock's proof-of-stake fork. If this were to happen, it could attract tens of billions of dollars in investments.


Image: Markethive.com

How Crypto Strikes Back

This scenario is conjecture right now, and it is essential to take a broader view. This analysis considers long-term aspects and does not encompass the entire cryptocurrency market. In the shorter term, there is a possibility of integration between the rest of the crypto market and trad-fi in a manner that may present challenges. Small Blockers actually predicted this during the block size wars. 

Notably, trad-fi investors attempted to take control of Bitcoin by increasing its block size. However, they were unsuccessful in their efforts and shifted their focus to other cryptocurrencies, such as Ethereum. Since then, events have unfolded as predicted by proponents of Small Blockers. Essentially, if crypto aims to rival trad-fi in aspects like speed and cost, it will ultimately result in greater centralization, as it becomes a race to the bottom.

In the past ten years, we have witnessed a trend where each new generation of cryptocurrencies has become increasingly centralized. This has made them vulnerable to regulatory capture. As with Blackrock potentially controlling Bitcoin, centralized cryptos becoming subject to trad-fi regulations will essentially make them the same as existing traditional financial solutions, leading to decreased user adoption, with no one using them. Recognizing this risk, investors in these cryptocurrency projects are now shifting their focus toward achieving maximum decentralization.

Decentralization goes beyond just the quantity of nodes and validators. It encompasses the level of developer involvement in the blockchain, the dispersal of the coin or token, particularly in proof-of-stake blockchains, and even the infrastructure utilized by miners and validators, as detailed in this article.

The decentralized nature of cryptocurrency comes with inherent trade-offs, such as slower transaction speeds and higher costs. This brings us back to the root problem: that most crypto companies are attempting to compete with traditional finance in terms of cost and speed.  However, this has created a problematic trend towards centralization, which risks undermining the fundamental principles of decentralization that define cryptocurrency. If left unchecked, this race to the bottom could result in the most widely adopted cryptocurrency being managed by a single entity, such as the Federal Reserve. This outcome would be at odds with the vision of crypto enthusiasts, who seek to maintain the decentralized nature of cryptocurrency. So, what steps can be taken to address this issue?

As opined by Coinbureau, the solution is to let the crypto industry learn the importance of decentralization the hard way. As with most things in modern society, the only way you'll get change is with some kind of shock. In this case, it could be Circle deciding which Solana fork we could see in the future. It could be Tether freezing everyone's USDT holdings until they complete KYC. It could be Coinbase banning crypto transfers to and from personal wallets like many regulators want to do. It could be Blackrock’s spot Ethereum ETF taking control of Ethereum with all the ETH it will inevitably hold.

The average investor and user will likely realize the significance of decentralization in the crypto space only when confronted with situations that highlight its importance. As previously mentioned, this realization will also dawn on influential individuals and organizations. Subsequently, new cryptocurrencies that prioritize decentralization will emerge, hopefully without the need for a catalyzing event.

The cryptocurrency sector is anticipating potential threats and adapting accordingly. Early indicators of this trend include the emergence of decentralized privacy protocols and venture capitalists' financial support for algorithmic stablecoins. Initially, this may come as a surprise. Still, upon closer examination, it aligns with the motivations of major players like BlackRock, Coinbase, and Circle, who are ultimately driven by the desire to generate profits, just like many others in the cryptocurrency space. By investing in innovation, they will likely yield financial gains, which explains their support for pro-crypto regulations.

It's interesting to note that the institutions that have been perceived as obstacles to the growth of cryptocurrency are actually the ones that stand to benefit the most from its innovation. Governments, megabanks, and central banks are feeling the pressure of competition from crypto, and they are the ones hindering the progress of cryptocurrencies and working against it to maintain their power and control. It may seem far-fetched, but major players like Blackrock & Co. could be aligned with the interests of cryptocurrency enthusiasts in this battle despite their questionable reputation and difficulty in trusting them. Consider the potential profitability of displacing governments, megabanks, and central banks – it's food for thought.

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

General

Censorship Industrial Complex On Steroids With AI An Insane Attempt To Threaten Free Speech Goes Next Level

Leave a comment

Censorship Industrial Complex On Steroids With AI. An Insane Attempt To Threaten Free Speech Goes Next Level

The erosion of confidence in governments globally has led to a surge in efforts to suppress dissenting voices and limit the dissemination of information deemed unfavorable by those in power. In other words, truths they don’t like. The recent Congressional Hearing on the Weaponization of the Federal Government has exposed the alarming extent to which some governments are willing to go to silence opposition and maintain their grip on power. 

It has shed light on a disturbing trend: the integration of artificial intelligence (AI) that will enable the government to suppress what it considers as mis or disinformation with unprecedented efficiency and effectiveness. Using AI for censorship has created a dangerous alliance between government agencies and powerful corporations, further undermining the principles of democracy and the ability to seek the truth and speak the truth. 
 


Source: Truthstream Media X

In early February 2024, a subcommittee hearing was held to discuss the recent attempts by governments and agencies to censor online content, posing a threat to the fundamental right to free speech. This summary highlights the key points and issues addressed during the hearing and ways to resist these efforts and safeguard your constitutional freedom of expression.

To begin, a brief overview is needed. A political committee at Capitol Hill focuses explicitly on examining how the government's powers are being utilized as weapons. This committee was formed in January 2023 and has stirred up much debate. This is mainly because most of the subcommittee's discussions have centered on critiquing the current administration's utilization of governmental authority. While these discussions may seem biased, the substance of the dialogue holds value.

According to the Judiciary Committee's website, the hearing focuses on the federal government's role in funding the development of high-powered censorship and propaganda tools that governments and big tech can use to monitor and censor speech at scale. 


Source: Judiciary Committee 

From all accounts, the hearing was convened in response to a recent exposé by The Daily Caller, which revealed that the National Science Foundation (NSF), a separate government agency in the US, had allocated $40 million towards developing online censorship tools. The report's author, Katelynn Richardson, suggests that this investment is part of a more considerable effort by the U.S. government to create a "censorship industrial complex" through the funding of AI research initiatives.

Just so you know, governments globally are following suit and implementing similar measures to curb online freedom. This article provides an overview of the various internet censorship laws enacted worldwide.

Katelynn was among the four individuals who provided testimony. The other three witnesses were Greg Lukianoff, CEO and President of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), Lee Fang, an investigative journalist known for his work on the Twitter files, which exposed collaboration between big tech and governments to silence dissenting voices, and Norman Eisen, a former U.S. Ambassador to the Czech Republic. 

It's worth noting that although the motivations behind this hearing were likely partisan, the information that came to light is crucial for everyone to be aware of, regardless of their political affiliations or geographical location.

The utilization of these powerful instruments is not limited to any particular administration or government. Consequently, it's essential to recognize that the same tools employed against individuals you disapprove of today could be directed toward you in the future. The notion that you may hold a non-partisan stance does not necessarily ensure your immunity, as historical patterns suggest a tendency towards the escalation of such measures. Some might argue that we're currently witnessing the manifestation of this phenomenon.


Source: Judiciary.House.gov

The Hearing – Opening Statements

The hearing commenced with opening statements from politicians from both Republican and Democrat parties. Chairman Jim Jordan was the first to address the assembly, and he began by enumerating instances where the U.S. government had collaborated with major technology companies to suppress legitimate speech. His list was extensive and included several notable examples. Additionally, he drew attention to a recent investigative report that revealed the U.S. government had pressured Amazon to restrict specific book titles on its platform during the pandemic.

Jim expressed concern that censorship tactics are advancing with generative AI technology, which has gained widespread attention. He referenced quotes from studies on censorship funded by the U.S. government, highlighting the potential for these tools to circumvent legal responsibility by operating through automated programs rather than individuals subject to legal repercussions.

However, the most incriminating statement highlighted the fact that certain studies are deliberately aiming to reach rural and indigenous communities, veterans, older adults, and military families through their internet censorship mechanisms, as they believe these groups are the most susceptible to mis and disinformation. It insinuates these minorities are too stupid to know the truth. Or perhaps these demographics often place their faith in entities beyond the government's control, posing a challenge for those in power.

Jim then disclosed that another proposal document stated that reactive content moderation (usually performed by humans) is too slow and ineffective. The focus is, therefore, on certain tools that implement proactive censorship, meaning that any online content you post will be censored before you complete typing it. Notably, these are the types of concepts that have been extensively debated at the World Economic Forum's yearly gatherings.

Ranking member Stacey Plaskett was the next speaker, and she rejected Jim's remarks as a conspiracy theory. She expressed her frustration that she has to sit through repeated discussions on the subject, six times to be exact, emphasizing that the real weaponization of the government occurred during the prior administration.


Source: Video of hearing

Witnesses Opening Statements

The witnesses had their chance to share their opening statements, free from the influence of partisan agendas. First, Katelynn Richardson began by expressing her concern about the U.S. government's potential involvement in creating a censorship-industrial complex. She then disclosed that numerous censorship studies she uncovered last year are still in progress.

Katelynn pointed out that a censorship-industrial complex is rising as a new sector receiving substantial government funding, not unlike the expanding crypto compliance industry aimed at satisfying the Financial Action Task Force (FATF). She noted that she has questioned these entities about their studies. Katelynn also mentioned that she had challenged these institutions about their research. In response, they initiated a marketing campaign to justify their censorship efforts as a means of safeguarding democracy. This excuse has become a common justification for government overreach in recent times.

Lee Fang, the second witness to testify, discussed the potential for AI to facilitate unparalleled levels of censorship. He drew from his personal experience working on the Twitter files to illustrate how large pharmaceutical companies and their affiliated organizations have partnered with big tech to suppress online content.

Lee recently shared that although these programs were paused after the pandemic, they were reinstated around the middle of last year. He pointed out that various tools created by governments to combat terrorism are now being utilized against their own people. He cautioned that these tactics could be exploited by whoever was in power to silence political adversaries and emphasized the need for a nonpartisan approach to the committee's work.

Greg Lukianoff was the third witness to give testimony. He described how FIRE works to protect free speech rights from government interference nationwide, advocating for both right-wing and left-wing causes. He warned that the battles they have fought so far will seem insignificant compared to the challenges that lie ahead with the emergence of AI. Additionally, Lukianoff highlighted the issue of AI alignment, which, in theory, involves teaching AI to follow instructions but, in practice, often translates to teaching AI to comply with government dictates.

Greg emphasized that artificial intelligence (AI) is merely a tool that can enhance freedom of speech, much like the internet. He drew an analogy between the internet, AI, and the printing press, which brought about the downfall of religious control over governments. However, Greg noted that this is only possible if AI can develop freely in a decentralized environment without excessive regulation. Over-regulation risks undesirable consequences such as censorship and may hinder the United States' technological competitiveness.

Norman Eisen took his turn to speak, displaying a strong bias typical of such hearings by passionately advocating for government collaboration with major tech and AI companies. He dismissed accusations of fearmongering from his fellow panelists and asserted that it is permissible for the government to engage in such partnerships. Furthermore, he stressed that the government has the right to express its reservations to tech giants and to fund various AI initiatives. Eisen also revealed his initiative to provide a scholarship for individuals interested in delving into the intersection of AI and democracy.

The Q&A Session Begins.

Thomas Massie [R] was the first to pose a question during the session. He directed his inquiry to Lee, who disclosed a shocking revelation regarding the government's utilization of AI censorship initiatives. A program is in place that employs the creation of AI-powered social media bots designed to engage in arguments with individuals whom the government deems to be propagating false or misleading information. 

In other words, if you have ever voiced an opinion on social media that contradicts the government's stance and subsequently received a barrage of responses from suspicious-looking accounts, these were likely AI bots funded by the government. 

Regrettably, the left-leaning politicians chose to overlook the AI censorship problem caused by the current government, dismissing it as a futile concern. Instead, they emphasized the perceived bleak and harmful consequences for the United States if Donald Trump were to win the presidential election. This biased stance was unproductive and not deserving of attention here; however, you can find the complete hearing by following this link, which is worth viewing. Following my initial frustration, I found myself chuckling.

Kelly Armstrong [R] presented a comprehensive list of the U.S. government for research on censorship and inquired with Katelynn about a specific grant aimed at training students for job roles related to disinformation. This initiative represents what Katelynn referred to as the censorship-industrial complex.  She affirmed that this program was indeed a summer internship opportunity for students who had received government funding. Kelly then questioned her about the curriculum focusing on recognizing misinformation.

Katelynn said there were many things, but the primary emphasis was on election-related information. The fact that more than 4.2 billion individuals worldwide are expected to participate in elections this year is quite alarming. It appears that governments are determined to maintain the status quo by supporting established candidates. The question then arises: Why have they yet to introduce a transparent blockchain voting system? The likely answer is simple enough to figure out.

After an unrelated partisan commentary and one question directed at Norman Eisen about Trump from anti-crypto politician Stephen Lynch [D], Jim questioned Lee Fang about his opening statement, specifically regarding a 2012 hearing on government funding for censorship programs. Jim confirmed that this was indeed the case and that the opposing political party was pushing for online censorship at the time. However, Greg Lukianoff pointed out that the tables have now turned and that one should not celebrate using these tools, even if they are being used against individuals they dislike, as they could potentially be used against them in the future.

The queries continued, with John Garamendi [D] taking his turn. Similar to his political peers, his inquiry was tainted with partisanship. Nevertheless, he disclosed a noteworthy detail: conservative groups have devised a strategic plan called Project 2025 to reform the U.S. government. This information is significant because it suggests that the growing opposition globally may not be as spontaneous as it appears and seems to be controlled.

In plain terms, the various individuals and organizations claiming to challenge the current state of affairs are, in fact, integral to the same dominant system they purport to oppose. A prime illustration of this phenomenon is that numerous purported opposition leaders who have risen to power in various nations are affiliated with the World Economic Forum (WEF). This article reveals how the WEF maintains programs designed to assist their preferred candidates in attaining elected office globally.

It is improbable that Project 2025 has any connection to the World Economic Forum (WEF), considering the initiative is reportedly led by the Heritage Foundation, whose president gained widespread attention for criticizing the WEF at the Davos gathering.

Following some biased inquiries from Darrell Issa [D] and Stacey Plaskett [D], Greg Steube [R] queried Lee about NewsGuard, an organization that assesses the accuracy of news sources. Lee indicated that he had devoted considerable effort to researching NewsGuard and described it as part of the expanding misinformation industry.

Lee discovered that NewsGuard has secured military agreements and is exerting an impact on how traditional media covers topics related to foreign policy. This development is not surprising given the history of the CIA's Operation Mockingbird. This program was used to manipulate US media outlets for propaganda during the Cold War. Although Operation Mockingbird officially ended in the 1970s, many believe that its practices continue to be employed in some form today.

Following a series of partisan questions from Representatives Sylvia Garcia [D] and Dan Goldman [D], who claimed there’s no evidence of government coercion regarding social media censorship and reiterated the committee was a useless waste of time and “the true weaponization, the threat of weaponization of the federal government is Donald Trump and the Republicans, and we should move on from this charade.” 

The chairman, Jim Jordan, interjected to point out that Dan Goldman had previously acknowledged in a related hearing that the U.S. government had been requesting big tech companies to remove certain content but that these companies had only complied with such requests 35% of the time.

Kat Cammack [R] reinforced Jim's message by stating she has tangible evidence of the censorship previously orchestrated by the present government and agencies. She also emphasized that the purpose of the hearing was not to engage in political posturing but to confront the growing threat of digital authoritarianism emanating from the US government. She stressed that this issue affects everyday citizens and warned that those who assume they are immune will be caught off guard. 

Despite this, the hearing continued to be impured by partisan bickering, with Stacy Plaskett [D] leading the charge and Harriet Hageman [R] attempting to set the record straight. Harriet also highlights that the upscaling of AI technology can provide censorship operations, and the scope of it is astonishing. Quoting an example of one company’s pitch to the NSF boasting that it was using AI to monitor 750,000 blogs and media articles daily as well as mining data from the major social media platforms. 

Pro-crypto politician Warren Davidson [R] finally had his turn to speak. He brought up a topic that other speakers avoided discussing: the potential creation of a digital identification system by the US government. Warren then turned to Greg for data supporting the claim that censorship is increasing. Greg shared a surprising statistic – 2020 and 2021 recorded the highest number of college professors terminated in the United States since the 1930s.

Greg highlighted that professors across the political spectrum have been affected. He continued to assert that removing academics who resisted conforming to the prevailing norms amid the pandemic has paved the way for a potentially dystopian future in artificial intelligence. Greg pointed out that the remaining scholars, who are now working on AI censorship technology funded by the government, have all complied with the imposed expectations.

Following some politically charged remarks by Jim, Russell Fry [R] made a striking observation. He pointed out that to secure government funding for research related to censorship, one must actively seek it out. This implies that individuals who receive such grants are, in effect, proactively seeking to expand their censorship capabilities from the get-go.

Russell sought Greg's insight on addressing the issue, and Greg's response was illuminating and unexpected. Contrary to popular belief, Greg argued that relying on regulations would not be effective, as it would inevitably lead to further centralization and increase the risk of future control mechanisms. Instead, the key to resolving this problem lies in decentralization, specifically developing and implementing decentralized AI systems that preclude any single entity from wielding such control.


Image by Markethive.com

Combating Online Censorship

The pressing concern now is how to counteract the growing online censorship trend. The first step is to acknowledge the importance of presenting truthful information in a composed and well-reasoned manner, supported by logical arguments and factual evidence. By doing so, we can effectively communicate our message and create a more informed public discourse.

Frequently, individuals try to communicate the truth using exaggerated language, offensive remarks, and other content that may be considered offensive, which can lead to censorship regardless of the message's intent. While some argue that individuals should be free to express themselves in such ways, the reality is that such language may not be tolerated in all cultures and societies. In some countries, like the US, there is a greater emphasis on freedom of speech, but in other parts of the world, there are stricter guidelines around what can and cannot be said.

The second approach is to choose which issues to address carefully. As many people do on specific platforms, there is no point in screaming about an issue into the void. Similarly, arguing with government-backed AI bots supported by the government is usually unproductive. If it is unlikely that anyone's perspective will shift, it is better to refrain from the discussion. Instead, consider sharing your concerns with someone open to listening and empathizing. It is more effective to communicate truths with individuals you are familiar with, as this may lead to the information being disseminated effectively.

This relates to the third point, recognizing that the type of AI-based censorship many governments implement can only occur on specific social media platforms.  Engaging with like-minded individuals in person or online makes you less likely to experience its effects. However, it is essential to avoid isolating yourself within an echo chamber.

It's crucial to recognize that avoiding the issue of censorship won't make it disappear. It can eventually impact you if left unaddressed, even if you try to ignore it. Unfortunately, it might not always be possible to fight back. Fortunately, though, you don't always need to. 

This pertains to the fourth solution, which involves utilizing alternative platforms that are not vulnerable to online censorship being imposed. Although centralized platforms that uphold free speech still exist, they are under increasing scrutiny by authorities and will likely have to adhere to regulations. As a result, decentralized platforms have emerged as the sole alternative, providing an unrestricted space for online interactions.

This article about the narratives of the next crypto bull market illustrates that decentralized social media is becoming a prominent force as the authorities and bureaucrats will do anything and everything to dumb us down and use taxpayer dollars to do it. So, we are essentially funding our own censorship, and it’s not just in the pursuit of revealing truths online but also in asking questions that require answers that don’t follow their narrative. People may have to adopt decentralized media out of necessity. 

This pertains to the final point: voting for leaders committed to protecting free speech as it is a fundamental right that supersedes all else. Despite some people's dismissive views, the significance of free speech cannot be overstated, which is why it is enshrined in the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Without free speech, it becomes difficult to seek the truth, and when you don't know the truth, it becomes challenging to live per reality, which is based on the truth. When it becomes difficult to live in reality, society starts to collapse, and when society starts to collapse, everyone loses, eventually, including those in positions of power. 

In a nutshell, combating censorship involves sharing truthful information in a manner that resonates with people, exploring alternative channels when online avenues are restricted, and supporting political candidates who champion free speech to prevent such limitations from arising. For many individuals, 2024 presents a critical opportunity to exercise their democratic voice before this dystopian nightmare takes hold.

Thank God for Markethive! 

 

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