SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Maurice Winn who wrote (170382)4/11/2021 5:17:55 AM
From: TobagoJack  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 217572
 
Am continuing to spend time self-educating on what might turn out to be a ponzi game

Message 33242021

The lectures are a lot of fun

Makes one wish to be back in college

Three quarters of the class has no checkbook

Interim conclusion: GetBitGold, humanely if possible, but GetBitGold




To: Maurice Winn who wrote (170382)4/11/2021 5:42:45 AM
From: TobagoJack  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 217572
 
In the meantime, from perusal hour, seems that people find all sorts of topics to conflict over

I had sometime ago debated w/ someone w/r to whether Lucy Liu was cute (I voted nay)

BTC is beautiful, today, more than a year ago today, and shall be more beautiful a year hence

edition.cnn.com

The 'fox eye' beauty trend continues to spread online. But critics insist it's racist

Written by Alicia Lee, CNN



"Ching chong eyes!" That's what elementary school kids used to call Sophie Wang. It was an insidious racist slur casually thrown around as they mocked her Asian ethnicity while pulling on the corner of their eyes. Upward for Japanese. To the side for Chinese. Downward for Korean.

Wang is now 17 and many years removed from the days when her Asian American identity was reduced to "a single facial feature." And yet, scrolling through social media posts in recent months has brought those memories flooding back thanks to a new beauty trend: "fox eyes."



On Instagram, TikTok and YouTube, people from all over the world have been posting videos and photos modeling the look -- using makeup and other tactics to emulate the lifted, so-called "almond-shaped" eyes of celebrities such as Kendall Jenner, Bella Hadid and Megan Fox.

Fox-eye makeup tutorials show how to use a combination of eye shadow, eyeliner and fake eyelashes, to get a winged aesthetic. Tips include shaving off the tail end of eyebrows and redrawing them to appear straighter and angled upwards. Others have also suggested pulling hair back into a high ponytail or using tape to further lift the eyes. Accentuating eyes to appear slanted, or elongated in shape, creates a more sultry effect, according to some makeup artists creating the look.
But to Wang and other Asian Americans, the "migraine pose" that sometimes accompanies these images -- using one or two hands to pull the eyes up by the temples to exaggerate the result -- is far too similar to the action used to demean them in the past.

Emma Chamberlain, an influencer with 9.8 million followers on Instagram, was recently criticized for posting a picture that showed her striking this pose while sticking out her tongue.

Her fans rushed to defend her, commenting that those that felt offended were "overreacting." Chamberlain later deleted the picture and apologized, saying it wasn't her "intention" to pose in an "insensitive way" and that she was "so sorry to those who were hurt by it."
But the damage had already been done.

"They mock my eyes then say ching chong call me a dog eater and then call me a ch*nk. Like why would you think I'd be fine with Emma's post?" one person tweeted. "Obviously if she gets to do slant eyes whilst getting praised but it's my natural eye shape and I'm getting discriminated (of course) I'm mad."
"It's a new trend that brings out old stereotypes and old taunts," Wang said in a phone interview. "Because it makes people like me feel uncomfortable and (to) some degree annoyed, it's time to talk about it."

'Beauty is freedom': The North Korean millennials wearing makeup to rebel against the state


What people don't understand, Wang wrote in an op-ed for student-run newspaper Stanford Daily in July, is that the gesture has "racially-charged historical weight," referring to past satirical depictions of Asians in Western media -- caricatures poking fun at facial features to portray them as "barbaric," "subhuman" and inferior.
"Yet in the 21st century, these Asian features have suddenly transformed into beauty trends for non-Asian people," she wrote, adding that the trend is an act of cultural appropriation.

Appropriating Asian eyes

Kelly H. Chong, a sociology professor at the University of Kansas, defines cultural appropriation as the adoption, often unacknowledged or inappropriate, of the ideas, practices, customs and cultural identity markers of one group by members of another group whom have greater privilege or power.

"The cultural influencers from the dominant group legitimize it as a cool, style 'trend,' and in the process exoticizes and eroticizes it," Chong added in an e-mail interview. Even the term "almond eyes," she says, which is being used to describe the shape of fox eyes, has long been used to describe the shape of Asian eyes.


"My eyes are not a trend," by Chungi Yoo, an illustrator based in Frankfurt, Germany. Credit: Courtesy @chungiyoo

She points to Hollywood's uncomfortable past in the appropriating the shape of Asian eyes. In the early 1930s, makeup artist Cecil Holland used techniques -- some, similar to creating fox eyes today -- to transform White actors into villainous Asian characters, like Fu Manchu. And Mickey Rooney, the White actor playing the part of Holly Golightly's thickly-accented Japanese neighbor in "Breakfast at Tiffany's" cemented "the buck-toothed, slit-eyed Asian man look" in the popular imagination.

TikTok user @LeahMelle, whose video denouncing the fox-eye look went viral, said she couldn't believe that such a trend could be so popular nowadays.
"This wasn't some dated movie where you could blame the distorted norms of the time period. This was happening now. And it was still viewed as acceptable," she wrote in an email.


Myrna Loy, a White actress, portrayed the depraved daughter of Fu Manchu in "The Mask of Fu Manchu" (1932). Credit: Bettmann/Bettmann/Getty Images

Like most beauty trends, the craze for fox eyes will eventually subside, and has begun to already since it first came about earlier this year. But that's exactly the problem, according to Stephanie Hu, founder of Dear Asian Youth, a California-based organization that encourages Asian activism.

In an Instagram post, entitled "The problem with the #FoxEye trend," the organization wrote, "While it may not have originated from a place of ill-intent, it appropriates our eyes and is ignorant of past racism."
"It really feels like this is a temporary trend," Hu said, adding that she believes Asians' eye shapes aren't just something to be casually adopted and then "given back" when the trend is over.

"Our eyes are something that we have to live with every day," Hu said in a phone interview.

Pressure to assimilate

Many Asians have long felt the pressure to alter the shape of their eyes, and to make them appear larger.

Blepharoplasty is used to create double eyelids, or a supratarsal eyelid crease. It's one of the most common cosmetic procedures in East Asian countries, as well as among Asian Americans. But when it was first popularized, in the early 1950s, it was used as a tool for Korean women to assimilate in the US.


Korean plastic surgeon Kim Byung-gun (not pictured) demonstrates the effect of "double eyelid surgery," which adds a crease to the eyelids to make the patient's eyes appear larger. Credit: Nir Elias/Reuters

According to The Korea Herald, American military plastic surgeon Dr. David Ralph Millard first performed the surgery during the Korean War. His first patients were Korean war brides who had married American soldiers. Because the brides were considered "both cultural and racial threats to the US," the paper wrote, many of them would get the surgery in an effort to assimilate and appear "less threatening."
"Surgically altering the 'slanted' eyes became a mark of a 'good' and trustworthy Asian, one whose modification of the face provided a comforting illustration of the pliable Asian, and served as evidence of the US as the model and Asia as the mimic," wrote Taeyon Kim, then a PhD student at Bowling Green State University, in her 2005 dissertation, which is quoted in the article.

"While it is primarily beauty that motivates (today's women's) desire to alter their eyes, this beauty is built on a legacy of history of Western science and race that privileged the white body as the normal, beautiful body," Kim wrote.

China cosmetic surgery apps: Swipe to buy a new face


That pressure to assimilate has carried to recent decades. In 2013, TV personality and news anchor Julie Chen, revealed on "The Talk" that she had blepharoplasty done as a 25-year-old, to get ahead in her career. A former boss had told her that "Asian eyes" made her look "disinterested" and "bored."
After surgery, Chen said, "I did look better, at least by societal standards," in a 2016 op-ed for Glamour.

When social trends go viral

What is deemed attractive these days is significantly influenced by social media, where beauty trends can quickly go viral, and arguably just as quickly become destructive to a person's confidence and self worth.

On Tiktok, the hashtag #foxeye has already accumulated 72.8 million views, while on Instagram, the hashtag #foxeyes has more than 70,000 posts.

Asian American makeup artist Marc Reagan said when he first spotted the fox eye trend, he didn't think it was problematic. He simply saw it as a set of makeup techniques to enhance the eyes and to exaggerate an almond shape.

But it "morphed into something different," he said, noting that it became offensive when people started adding the gesture of pulling up at the temples.

The desexualization of the Asian American male


"I absolutely think that everyone needs to pause before they take (that) action," Reagan said in a phone interview. "Everyone needs to pause, take a step back: 'Is this something that could be interpreted the wrong way?' 'Am I taking it down the path where it turns from being a simple makeup trend into appropriation?'"

Reagan added he isn't surprised that some people are feeling hurt by the trend, especially in light of the pandemic, when East Asians have been increasingly targeted with racist attacks or slurs. Some people, including the US president have referred to Covid-19 as the "China virus" or "kung flu."
"You can't be surprised that someone's going to be offended by you exaggerating a feature on your face that mimics something that they've been made fun of or discriminated against for. So we are (living) in a really sensitive time and those types of things need to be taken (into consideration) every single day."

Top image caption: Screenshot from Instagram of the #foxeyes hashtag.



To: Maurice Winn who wrote (170382)4/11/2021 12:08:34 PM
From: marcher  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 217572
 
--5G...very high resolution that will not make brains go wonky--

this is interesting. how so?



To: Maurice Winn who wrote (170382)4/11/2021 3:19:28 PM
From: TobagoJack  Respond to of 217572
 
Re <<Gold is so last century>>

... and several centuries before, smart, knowing macro, scarce, getting plentiful when the price moves in either direction depending on macro, autonomous, social-networked, anti fragile, and occasional eating the world

Same, perhaps, with digital gold, and in the lead, Bitgold

Power to the people

zerohedge.com

Scarcity Cred: Crypto Is A $2 Trillion Disruptive Force

Authored by Professor Scott Galloway via No Mercy / No Malice blog,

Any firm that approaches $1T in value has tapped into a basic human instinct. Consuming, signalling, loving, and praying have been the fuel of Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google’s ascents, respectively. That the crypto asset class universe has reached $2T reveals, I believe, that it taps into two attributes we instinctively pursue: trust and scarcity.



TrustOur superpower as a species is cooperation, which requires trust. It’s the reason banks, traffic lights, and anesthesiologists exist. Even before crypto, creative minds have been drawn to finance, as trust creates opportunities for leverage and securitization. In 1997, seeking more control over his songwriting catalog, David Bowie raised $55 million with Bowie Bonds. The bonds paid 7.9 percent interest over a 10 year-long term — a scant premium to a U.S. 10 Year Treasury Note at 6.4 percent. What made Bowie Bonds unique was the collateral, or source of trust: future royalties on Bowie’s music, which the bondholder felt people would continue to value. Moody’s rated the bonds A3 and Bowie used the proceeds to buy out his former manager, shoring up the bonds and securing long-term control of his music.

Though innovative in its collateralization, the Bowie Bond was on its face a vanilla financial instrument, no different in form than a bond issued by GM or P&G. In order to connect his art and potential investors, Bowie had to rely on the (expensive) apparatus of traditional gatekeepers in finance and entertainment to imbue his bonds with the essential attributes of trust and scarcity. The royalty stream (trust) was mediated by lawyers and accountants in big publishing houses, and the legitimacy of each individual bond (scarcity) was dependent on the financial powers of Wall Street.

What if Sir David Bowie (note: he declined knighthood in 2003, but it’s my blog) fell to earth in 2021? What might Bowie have done … with crypto?

ScarcityPeople like scarcity — a lot. Owning something scarce makes one feel unique, and signals success and worthiness as a potential mate. Scarcity is also an instinctual trigger for obsession — when we sense a scarcity of something, be it food or a mate, we are programmed to become obsessed with finding it. Art auctions, the (pre-pandemic) lines outside Supreme, and the margins on a Panerai Tourbillon prove this point.

A Van Gogh and a Rothko are both unique, and therefore scarce, because they are made of atoms, and it is impossible to arrange a second set of atoms in an identical configuration. Print artists, whose lithographs are made to be reproduced without alteration, use a small “17/100” written in the corner, to distinguish each print and bestow scarcity upon it.

To hold value, scarcity must be credible. The dirty (not-so) secret of the art world is that art buyers, and even professional art appraisers, struggle to discern originals from forgeries. A well-made forgery provides the same practical value as an original — you can hang it on your wall and bask in its profundity. Yet the art world invests millions of dollars in identifying the “real” version of valuable works; once unmasked, forgeries are nearly worthless.

Digital art suffers from perfect reproducibility, and hence, a lack of scarcity. There is no “real” version — even in the artist’s studio, copies proliferate in backups, on shared drives, and in cache files. For decades, we have experimented with watermarks and anti-piracy tech to try and enforce a physical, world-of-atoms scarcity on digital goods. By contrast, non-fungible tokens, (NFTs) reflect a digital-native approach to credible scarcity.

Attaching an NFT to a digital artwork gives the NFT owner discretion to designate any digital copy of that artwork as the sole authentic copy at any point in time. This approach jettisons our world-of-atoms obsession with a specific physical object, and acknowledges that scarcity has always been a function of bits, not atoms. Value is in the eye of the beholder.

Let’s DanceOn March 11, digital artist Beeple collected $69.3 million (minus the hefty fee of his gatekeeper, Christie’s) from the auction of an NFT associated with a collage of his 13 year-long project of daily digital artworks. The media has made much of the fact that the buyer of Beeple’s NFT, crypto investor Vignesh Sundaresan, did not obtain any tangible “thing” for his money. The art itself is available for anyone to view — for free — on Beeple’s web site. But collecting art has rarely been about the thing. It’s about credible scarcity.



NFTs create and capture the value of scarcity cred in a massively dispersed fashion that bypasses gatekeepers and taps into capital anywhere. At the high end, digital art sold for millions doesn’t really need an NFT, just as Bowie didn’t need crypto to securitize his royalties in 1997. Christie’s could have just as easily sold an embossed paper certificate, and entered the buyer’s name in a leather bound book securely held at Christie’s headquarters. But that sort of infrastructure isn’t available to the vast majority of digital artists, whereas anyone can create an NFT. Nyan Cat, a pop culture meme, isn’t likely to appear at Christie’s any time soon, but as an NFT it sold for nearly $600,000.

All the Young DudesScarcity cred explains more than NFTs. The entire $2T crypto asset class rests on scarcity cred. Bitcoin’s attractiveness as a store of value is a function of its scarcity cred, as it has a built-in limit of 21 million coins. Compare that to the USD: Almost 30 percent of the U.S. money supply has been created since 2020.

There’s a variety of crypto technologies/products/platforms evolving new means of creating and capturing value in a network: Ethereum, Ledger, Uniswap, Hedera, Cardano — a soup of innovation that is, similar to other tech innovations, not doing anything new … just doing it better.

It remains to be seen if this approach will take hold. Crypto’s energy use is a source of real concern, but the hardware and software are evolving quickly to become far more energy efficient. Even Beeple thinks the current mania is a bubble, as he told my podcasting partner Kara Swisher. But the history of the art market is a history of bubbles, as are the histories of finance and the internet. All are still with us.

Crypto is firing on the walls of the world’s financial citadels. Naturally, the generation of leaders behind those walls is not inclined to acknowledge the Wildlings outside. But scoffing at novel technology, be it a mangonel, black powder, or blockchain, rarely ends well for the legacy asset holders. Bigger castles are already being erected on the hill just above the naysayers … in this case, in mere years vs. generations. It’s likely that on the day of its imminent public listing, Coinbase will be more valuable than Goldman Sachs. A reasonable question in the JPMorgan and Goldman board meetings:

How the fuck did we/you let Coinbase happen?

But that’s another post. Unencumbered by regulation, reticence to destroy legacy assets, or boomer brains that just don’t “get it,” crypto is a $2 trillion disruptive force. I can validate that anybody over 50 has trouble understanding this stuff, and am fairly certain that the number of candles on the CEO’s office party birthday cake is inversely correlated to their understanding of crypto.

Of course, in a system that is still heavily skewed in favor of older, white men, “getting it” for that cohort can be worth billions. Crypto investors Michael Novogratz and Michael Saylor, both over 50, have a combined net worth approaching $10 billion. But they are the exceptions.



Bowie himself was 50 when he issued Bowie Bonds. A prolific art collector, Bowie was also famous for championing young creators, and being enamored of technology: In 1998, he launched his own internet service provider, BowieNet, an interactive music community a decade ahead of its time, and the next year, he launched an online bank (BowieBanc). “If I was 19 again, I’d bypass music and go right to the internet,” he said at the time. In a prescient 1999 interview, he is a time traveler explaining the future to our skeptical past.

RIP Bowie, you would have loved crypto.

Sent from my iPad



To: Maurice Winn who wrote (170382)4/11/2021 4:15:44 PM
From: TobagoJack  Respond to of 217572
 
<<Bitcoin>> serves two purposes, at least, that ...

(1) it aggregates capital in a pool eventually flowing to gold, and
(2) same, before, and now flowing to other cryptos, alt-coins, and such same

Maybe we think of BTC as a battery, storing energy and releasing to where needed.

In the meantime, little Casper casperlabs.io remains a baby, supping at the energy of the metaverse, and outrageously adding to those that engaged, not exactly eating the world, yet, but doing some good. Alas, its futures contract is neither deliverable in Caspers nor backed by Caspers (I do not actually know this last point to be exactly true), but the pricing energy better than when last checked Message 33276698

Now at 2.91 or 145X of my cost basis (0.015-0.02) Message 33224070 , but carried on the book at 0.0000 (close enough to actual cost) else it would skew the allocation by way too much. At 5.14 my NAV doubles, and then I would not have enough gold as ballast.

I am obligated to hold CSPR 12 months from April 2021 because am engaged w/ a validation pool that shall generate earnings in the form of more baby Caspers. So no point to mark to crazy value until the baby grows a bit more. Let us watch the baby progress.
Crypto is crazy. Say Internet 1996, and arguably has the Internet beat. And the crypto metaverse has at its core a transactional genesis currency that rules over all other monies, bitgold.

Key words, sovereign, anti-fragile, smart, network effect, singularity, ... CasperPlatinum, something more useful than BetterGold

Trades public 4th May 2021 at an exchange near you. Consider buying some, as a hedge if not as life-altering gambit. The reward / risk on all the schemas involving tokens seem way to skewed, because hardly anyone over 30 has any bets on.

I am going to make more, much more crypto investments / speculations. I cannot tell with a great deal of conviction the good wagers from the bad bets, I shall follow my betters even as I already and shall continue to fidget-fidget on random tokens in small throws.

I have GBTC, BTCC, BTC, Casper, and Rally, so far. The BTC flavored stuff was in aggregate the largest of the wagers, but Casper has overtaken by ~30X by just showing up.

For the astute investor showing up at the party @ 2.91, undoubtedly hoping for a 100X return, and given the early appearance of such astuteness, would be deserving and should be rewarded by at least, arguably, 10X, to be conservative.

coinmarketcap.com



To: Maurice Winn who wrote (170382)4/11/2021 6:40:32 PM
From: TobagoJack  Respond to of 217572
 
Re <<bitcoin ... gold>>

Ultra hyper super bullish news, for soon enough once the crowds everywhere realize something is happening and they need to do something re yeah or nay, per call-of-duty or dire-imperative, gold, bitcoins, and such same like hydrogen-tokens Pt / Pd and silver, and Ethereum, and the China-approved / USA-invented Casper (Casper is specifically able to do Casper China that will be China-operated, and Casper-anyone else by nation-domain and even by entities that be sub-national) should go from the lower left to the upper right when denominated in anything except crypto.

Folks (businesses and people) shall have to decide whether to accept eCNY / dRMB, or do without certain goods, and forego other goods on offer at discount prices relative to denomination in USD, and national Teams shall have to decide whether they issue own CBDC, and if so, with what best-of-class features.

Of course, the best CBDC shall feature on- / off-ramps to physical gold traded on the world’s largest physical gold exchange in Shanghai, and to- / from- the freshest BTCs mined in Sichuan.

I wonder when the Fed shall conclude on Powell’s deliberations.

Banning BTC by anyone large enough to matter? Chances are small, for in war some rash decisions are simply not done.

Recommendation: buy crypto, gold, and crypto-gold such as Anthem.

Grand unification nearly happening, and event horizon to the singularity straight ahead.

zerohedge.com

China's Digital Yuan Comes With An Expiration Date

It's been a long time coming, and now it's almost here.

Last August we reported that China's Commerce Ministry had released fresh details of a pilot program for the country's central bank digital currency (CBDC) to be expanded to several metropolitan areas, including Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area, Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region, and Yangtze River Delta region. This was the inevitable culmination of a process which started back in 2014 when as we reported at the time, " China Readies Digital Currency, IMF Says "Extremely Beneficial".



Fast forward a few months when China's preparations to rollout a digital yuan gathered pace, and we reported in October that China was poised to give legal backing to the launch of its own sovereign digital currency, "cementing its trailblazer status in virtual currencies far ahead of other countries, after already recently experimenting with large-scale trials of actual payments by consumers, which was met with mixed results." Specifically, the South China Morning Post reported that "The People’s Bank of China published a draft law on Friday that would give legal status to the Digital Currency Electronic Payment (DCEP) system, and for the first time the digital yuan has been included and defined as part of the country’s sovereign fiat currency."

The design framework for the digital yuan had been released one year ago on the heels of Facebook's ambitious but disastrous Libra token rollout after founding corporate partners split for lack of confidence in the project and on fears US federal regulators would seek to block it just as they did encrypted-messaging company Telegram's Gram cryptocurrency.

"The draft law would also forbid any party from making or issuing yuan-backed digital tokens to replace the renminbi in the market," the SCMP said.

This in turn brought us to the so-called "Shenzhen case study" when in October of 2020, China became the first nation to hold a trial run of its digital currency, when the government in Shenzhen carried out a lottery to give away a total of 10 million yuan (about $1.5 million) worth of the digital currency (nearly 2 million people applied and 50,000 people actually "won").

The winners were required to download a digital Renminbi app in order to receive a "red packet" worth 200 digital yuan ($30), which they can then spend at over 3,000 designated retailers in Shenzhen’s Luohu district, according to China Daily. After that, they’ll be able to buy goods from local pharmacies, supermarkets and even Walmart.

The idea was to not only test the technology involved, but boost consumer spending in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. In short, China is not only subsidizing the centrally-planned economy by manipulating the supply-side of the question- it now can prop up demand by handing out digital currency to anyone (or everyone).

Of course, unlike traditional central bank account-based currencies such as reserves, or decentralized cryptocurrencies like bitcoin, China’s digital currency would be controlled by the country’s central bank and will be instantly made available at a moment's notice to anyone who can receive it.



And since "China's adoption of digital central bank tokens is expected to be seamless as most of the nation's digital payments already pass through companies like TenCent and AliPay and are already very popular in the country", we concluded that "the successful Shenzhen test means that a broad rollout is just a matter of time."

Still, one thing was missing: a stamp of approval by the gatekeeper of not only the global payments system, but the protector of the dollar reserve system, SWIFT. But as two months ago, China got that too: as we reported in February, "SWIFT, the global system for financial messaging and cross-border payments, has set up a joint venture with the Chinese central bank’s digital currency research institute and clearing centre, in a sign that China is exploring global use of its planned digital yuan."

Actually, not just "exploring" but thanks to year of testing and partial rollouts, Beijing was about to become the first country in the world set to launch the digital yuan, and with both the IMF's and SWIFT's blessing, we said that it was "just a matter of months if not weeks."

We were right, because just a few days ago, China's "cyber yuan" became official when the WSJ finally caught up, writing " China Creates Its Own Digital Currency, a First for Major Economy."

While regular Zero Hedge readers are quite familiar with the details and chronology of China's transition to a digital currency, which incidentally is precisely the opposite of a cryptocurrency and has absolutely nothing to do with Bitcoin, a fact which Peter Thiel may want to dwell on a little more next time before making sweep and wrong statements about bitcoin, the WSJ focuses more on the geopolitical reasons of China's currency evolution - as a reminder, thousand years ago, when money meant coins, China invented paper currency, and now the Chinese government is minting cash digitally, in what the WSJ said is a "re-imagination of money that could shake a pillar of American power" - and specifically how to approach a decoupling from the global reserve currency, the US dollar so not only can Beijing avoid the "nuclear option", a weaponized US dollar, but allow countries that the US seeks to punish like Iran, a viable alternative (remember, the enemies of China's enemies - and none is bigger than the US - is China's friend). Here is the WSJ:

The U.S., as the issuer of dollars that the world’s more than 21,000 banks need to do business, has long demanded insight into major cross-border currency movements. This gives Washington the ability to freeze individuals and institutions out of the global financial system by barring banks from doing transactions with them, a practice criticized as “dollar weaponization.”

...

The digital yuan could give those the U.S. seeks to penalize a way to exchange money without U.S. knowledge. Exchanges wouldn’t need to use SWIFT, the messaging network that is used in money transfers between commercial banks and that can be monitored by the U.S. government.

To be sure, a credible alternative to the dollar, reduces the need to hoard the currency for US trade partners which in turn would have profound implications on global saving patterns, from there, global capital flows. The consequences for the perpetual US current account deficit would be unprecedented.

In addition to realigining the global balance of monetary power virtually overnight, China's the digital currency kills another bird with the same binary stone: it allows unprecedented surveillance and supervision over every single transaction.

[The digital yuan is] also trackable, adding another tool to China’s heavy state surveillance. The government deploys hundreds of millions of facial-recognition cameras to monitor its population, sometimes using them to levy fines for activities such as jaywalking. A digital currency would make it possible to both mete out and collect fines as soon as an infraction was detected.

A burst of cash-accumulation in China last year indicates residents’ concern about the central bank’s eye on every transaction. Song Ke, a finance professor at Renmin University in Beijing, told a recent conference that China’s measure of yuan in circulation, or cash, popped up 10% in 2020.

Then there are the myriad boosts to China's ironclad capital controls:

While China hasn’t published final legislation for the program, the central bank says it may initially impose limits on how much digital yuan individuals can keep on their person, as a way to control how it circulates and provide users a dose of security and privacy.

To be sure, none of this is actually new as we have discussed all these nuances of the digital yuan before. What is now, is this blurb in the WSJ article:

The money itself is programmable. Beijing has tested expiration dates to encourage users to spend it quickly, for times when the economy needs a jump start.

And there you have it: the Keynesian wet dream to boost the velocity of mean finally comes true. For the past decade we have joked that it is only a matter of time before central banks slap on an expiration date on every monetary unit in circulation...

... to offset the creeping petrification of the monetary system, where negative rates have sparked even more saving and not spending as central banks had intended...



... and where only the threat of money confiscation - which is what a monetary expiration date actually does - can spark aggressive spending, and eventually, runaway inflation.

Well, that's precisely what China is now ready to do... and it's only a matter of time before other central banks follow suit. As a reminder, according to tentative estimates for the rollout of ISO 20022, which is the required universal transaction standard which will make payment in digital currencies possible, we are looking at a 2022 launch date, although China looks ready to go live as soon as this year.



There is one final, geopolitical reason behind China's decision to give its digital currency an expiration date: as Byrne Hobart writes, "programmable money, tied to real-world identities, and universally tracked by a central bank, starts to look suspiciously like a substitute for the consumer of last resort. Every year that China gets richer, domestic consumption plays a bigger role (exports were 26% of China's GDP in 2010, and 18% last year). If domestic consumption can be tightly controlled, then it's a way to not just increase the volume of consumption but to control the variance of demand for the goods China produces. It's not yet enough to match the size and variability of global demand for China's exports, but every year it gets closer."

In short, while the US and China are both talking seriously about decoupling, the digital yuan - which is now a reality - indicates that China's government is not only more effectively planning for it, but will be the first to fully sever all ties with the US... when the moment comes.

Finally, for those who have missed our reporting on this fascinating issue, here again is Rabobank's Wim Boonstra explaining not only why China will be the first country to launch a digital currency but also looking at what happens next:

China Will Be The First Country To Launch A Digital Currency: What Happens Then

China may be the first major country to launch a central bank digital currency or CBDCThe Chinese CBDC, named DCEP, will strengthen the position of the central bank and help to further modernize the Chinese economyThe DCEP will probably also be available for China’s trade partners, to begin with AfricaThe DCEP may strengthen the international position of the renminbi to the detriment of the euroThe arrival of the DCEP should be a strong wake-up call for Western, especially European, policymakersIntroduction

Most central banks are busy preparing for the potential introduction of central bank digital currency (CBDC). CBDC is a digital currency issued by the central bank. It is sometimes referred to as a digital version of a bank note, but in many cases this is not correct. There are indeed many different potential variants.



So far, virtually all the central banks are keeping their options open as to whether a CBDC will ultimately appear.

China, where a far-reaching trial is under way, is the major exception. If this trial is successful, one can expect the Chinese CBDC to be introduced widely in the near future. China is therefore comfortably leading the way because the country has big ambitions for its digital currency. First, it should provide a sizable boost to the Chinese economy; second, it will concurrently further increase the Chinese government’s control of Chinese society; finally, the new currency is part of an ambitious plan to strengthen the international position of the renminbi, the Chinese currency, and potentially at the expense of the euro in particular. This Chinese decisiveness should spur European policymakers into action by further strengthening the euro.

China: from cash-based to almost completely cashless money in 10 years’ time

Not so long ago, retail payments in China were still almost entirely made in cash. There has been a revolution in payments traffic since that time, and China is now one of the leading countries in cashless payments. Unlike in other countries, such as the Netherlands and Sweden, in China this development did not originate from the banking system, but it was induced by a few key apps from relatively young Fintech companies such as WeChat (Tencent) and Alipay (Ant Financial). These parties, that form a kind of extra layer between the banks and their customers, now have a collective market share of more than 90% in Chinese payments cashless retail payments. The Chinese cashless payments system is already able to settle approximately 100,000 transactions per second.

The Chinese CBDC: DCEP

Against this background, the People’s Bank of China (PBoC), the Chinese central bank, has taken the initiative of developing its own digital currency known as the Digital Currency Electronic Payment (DCEP). Above all, the DCEP is a digital alternative to bank notes, although it has features that differ from cash in certain respects (see below). The DCEP does however have the same value as a renminbi.



The technology that can be used by the public for payments is based on traditional payment technology and not on blockchain technology. This is the only way to achieve the necessary scale. The aim is to reach a capacity of 300,000 transactions per second. The central bank might itself use blockchain, for example for wholesale transactions or settlements in DCEP between private banks. Although the DCEP is a cashless currency that will be held in an account with a private entity, there is also the possibility of using a token-based functionality on for example a chip to effect peer-to-peer payments, even where there is no Internet. This is especially needed for successful adoption in the rural areas of China. This token-based functionality will be widely used, as a result of which the DCEP will compete with cash. A sizable trial has been running for several months in which tens of thousands of people have been participating.

What does the PBoC want to achieve with the DCEP?

The PBoC has several objectives with the introduction of the DCEP.

Prevention of a monopoly in the payment system

The PBoC wants to prevent a situation in which WeChat and AliPay take over the Chinese payment system. It is concerned that the entire payment system will soon fall into the hands of these private parties. The DCEP therefore has to restrict the involvement of these parties and increase the role of the central bank in the payment system. It is even more likely that any key private firm will be prevented to become a dominant player, as ultimately China is not a ‘normal’ market economy (which explains Beijing's current crackdown on Ant Financial far better than just a feud between Xi Jinping and Jack Ma).

Promotion of financial inclusion and further reduction of the role played by cash

Highly efficient cashless payments dominate in large parts of China. But in the poorer regions, especially the rural areas, people have less access to banking services such as regular credit. In these areas, cash still plays an important role. Payments in the criminal underworld, including the illegal gambling industry, are also still largely made in cash. The DCEP will offer people in these regions full access to financial services, but it can also reduce the importance of cash payments. The main aim of the DCEP is therefore to replace cash. In terms of features, it will also closely resemble cash.

Better information on payment flows and prevention of illegal transactions

Unlike payment transactions using a bank account, which by definition leave traces in a bank’s records, cash payments are highly anonymous. As we have said, the DCEP will closely resemble cash, with the possibility of making payments directly from one person to another. Some degree of anonymity would thus appear to be safeguarded. But on further consideration, it becomes clear that the PBoC, and therefore the Chinese government, will have full insight.

To be precise, in a transaction between two people effected with DCEP, anonymity between these two people will be assured, as is the case with a cash payment. But the PBoC can always establish at a later date who were involved in the transaction. This will enable more effective tracing of illegal transactions than if these were effected in cash. But there will also be detailed insight into the payment behavior of individuals.

Restricting capital flight

Although China does not have free cross-border capital movements, capital flight is a common and substantial phenomenon. Capital flight can occur in various ways, and is often difficult to trace. For example, internationally trading Chinese companies can for instance manipulate invoices, as a result of which money can be transferred abroad. People can also use the Bitcoin system to hide money from the authorities and/or transfer it abroad.

The Chinese government, like its counterparts in Europe and the US, is concerned that stablecoins could assume an important role as an alternative to the regular money in circulation, but also may develop into a vehicle for capital flight (read " How The Chinese Use Illegal Online Gambling And Tether To Launder Over $1 Trillion Yuan"). Stablecoins are cryptos like Bitcoin, but unlike Bitcoin they are, at least in theory, secured by financial assets. When Facebook announced in April 2020 that it intends to add national stablecoins to its Libra, a digital currency basket that it announced in 2019, central banks reacted immediately by devoting more urgent attention to CBDC.23 Such stablecoins could for example create the possibility that people could use a Libra-stablecoin to transfer money abroad. With the DCEP, the PBoC intends to slow the momentum of private stablecoins. This is also an important consideration for the Western central banks.

Retention of monetary sovereignty

This is connected with the previous point. If people have easy access to a private stablecoin, it could actually in a sense reduce the role of the national currency. Something similar actually happened in Zimbabwe, where confidence in the national currency completely vanished as a result of hyperinflation and people turned en masse to foreign currencies such as US dollars and South African rand. In such a situation, the national central bank loses control of monetary conditions in its own country. Importantly, however, the DCEP could also be used by China to interfere with monetary sovereignty in other countries.

What about privacy?

The PBoC says it will respect the privacy of people and therefore the anonymity of the transactions but at the same time it says that DCEP will help it to detect illegal transactions. What this probably comes down to in practice is that people will be able to effect payments and retain anonymity between each other, but that the central bank will on the other hand be able to view the transactions. Anonymity will therefore not be guaranteed and the central bank will have much greater insight into people’s payment behaviour than it has at the moment. The DCEP will also have the status of legal tender. This means that Chinese residents will be obliged to accept the DCEP, as confirmed by various statements from the central bank on the issue (South China Morning Post, 10 November 2020). The DCEP is thus not really coming into being as a result of strong demand from the Chinese public, but it is being imposed on the population by the government. Moreover, the way the DCEP is designed, it may develop into a perfect vehicle for a quasi-command economy: it allows all transactions to be monitored, and opens the door for a retreat to a more Soviet model of banking, viz. banking under full state control.

Internationalization of the renminbi

The use of the renminbi in international transactions is still relatively limited, certainly in comparison with the dollar and the euro. But China is working steadily on increasing its usage, and even hopes that one day the renminbi can succeed the dollar as the global reserve currency. China sees the DCEP as an important vehicle for strengthening the renminbi’s international position, as foreigners will also be able to use the DCEP in transactions with China.

The benefit of this for China is that it can settle more of its international trade in (digital) renminbi. China has initially targeted Africa in this respect. Many African countries do not have fully convertible currencies and mutual trade is frequently settled in US dollars, which is expensive. China is aiming to achieve a situation in which African countries can use the DCEP not only in their trade with China, but will also use it for their domestic transactions. This is a good example of how China is aiming to position itself internationally and how various projects and institutions will cooperate under the direction of the government. The newest model of the Huawei smartphone indeed includes an app enabling payment in DCEP without the need for Internet (Eurasia). Huawei is currently already a leading telecoms provider in Africa, which gives China a head start. In other parts of the world, where Huawei is less dominant or even banned, it will off course be less simple for China to push the DCEP ahead.

Note that while China intends to strengthen its own monetary sovereignty with the DCEP, it clearly has no qualms regarding its use to undermine the monetary sovereignty of other countries. If not only a larger proportion of the trade between China and African countries but also part of intra-African trade could soon be settled in DCEP, therefore renminbi, international use of the Chinese currency will significantly increase. Note, that if a larger share of China’s international trade will be conducted in DCEP, it will also become more difficult for Chinese im- and exporters to use trade as a way to channel funds abroad. So it will held the Chinese government to reduce capital flight, although complete elimination of this phenomenon will not be possible.

Decision time: is the DCEP a wake-up call?

China is leading internationally with the introduction of CBDC, and is clearly moving in a different direction than many other countries considering a similar move. The debate in Europe is still mainly about the form the digital euro, its CBDC, should take, the question of whether there is consumer demand for it, and who should pay for it. The Chinese authorities are taking a more strategic approach, and most of all from the perspective of whether a digital currency can contribute to strengthening/entrenching China’s international position.

Assuming that the current Chinese trials are successful, we could very well see the DCEP appear as early as next year. This could be a significant step in the further movement of the Chinese economy towards cashless money. The payments system would be further strengthened by the DCEP, as this will prevent large private parties gaining a duopoly with the market power that this would entail. Financial inclusion would be improved in the underdeveloped areas, and everyone would have access to cashless money and the associated financial services that this would make possible. The black economy would be further reduced, and the Chinese government will have better insight (and control) of the payment behaviour of its citizens to an extent that we in the West would probably see as unacceptable. Lastly, the introduction of the DCEP can discourage capital flight and probably strengthen the renminbi’s international position.



All in all, the DCEP will certainly make a positive contribution to the further development of the Chinese economy. Although the DCEP looks to be less innovative than the CBDCs under consideration by the Western central banks in certain respects, the determination shown by China is undoubtedly impressive.

This Chinese resoluteness also shows that China is working very actively on strengthening the renminbi’s international position, with the central bank and companies such as Huawei working closely together to achieve this. While still a long way off, a scenario in which first parts of the African, but later maybe Asian, Latin American of even some European economies will use the renminbi for cross-border and in due course also domestic transactions is gradually becoming more plausible.

One may also expect China to try to get all countries involved in its Belt and Road Initiative to use the DCEP and therefore the renminbi. Today, the renminbi is still a small currency in comparison to the euro and most of all the dollar. But this situation could change if the DCEP becomes widely accepted. In the context of a situation in which the euro’s international position has more or less stagnated over the last decades, this is at the very least somewhat disconcerting.

Of course we may expect that, once the digital renminbi takes off and gains traction, other central banks will react strongly. Especially the US will be determined to hold on to the dollar’s international dominance. The US authorities will soon understand that a successful digital renminbi may in the long run turn out to be a larger threat to the position of the dollar than the euro ever was. The most important difference is that the euro is institutionally weak and European politicians have so far failed to use their currency as a geopolitical instrument. The Chinese government, in contrast, understand very well the power of money as a ‘peaceful’ instrument to increase international political clout.

But after all the good news may be, that the DCEP also turns out to be the important wake-up call that prompts European policymakers to finally devote serious attention to strengthening the international role of the euro. Having the second currency after the US dollar is maybe not optimal, but is not disastrous. Being third after the Chinese renminbi is a different story. In the end, money talks.

* * *

Appendix: what will the DCEP look like?

The exact design of the DCEP is still not clear. According to the BIS, the DCEP will be what is known as a hybrid CBDC. People will hold balances in their names at the central bank, but transactions will be approved using an intermediate layer of private parties (possibly including commercial banks). There will then be no direct interaction between the central bank and the account holders, but people will have an account in their names at the central bank. This would be similar to the ideas being mooted at other central banks such as the ECB and the Bank of England. Bloomberg, Blockchain News and the China Daily on the other hand describe the DCEP as a two-tier system, in which people will not directly hold accounts with the PBoC. According to these reports, in the Chinese system people will hold only a DCEP account with a bank or, more likely, with a payment service provider. These parties will in turn hold a balance with the PBoC as a liquidity reserve that exactly covers the amount of DCEP. They will also settle interbank payments in DCEP. This kind of system is also known as a synthetic CBDC (sCBDC), as people will not have their own CBDC accounts with the central bank. The PBoC will however receive regular statements of effected transactions.



If this last model is adopted, the Chinese CBDC model would be more like a full (liquidity) reserve bank than a real CBDC. A full liquidity reserve bank is a bank that would hold a 100% cash reserve with the central bank against the CBDC payment accounts held with it. But in the Chinese model, there would be no additional institution created, the existing financial institutions would offer additional accounts that would then be 100% backed by central bank reserves. Statements from the PBoC also suggest the direction is more towards a synthetic model. Technically speaking, this would represent a less innovative move than a true CBDC.

For those looking for more, Goldman's report on "China's digital yuan and its macro implications" can be found in the usual place for all pro subs.

Sent from my iPad



To: Maurice Winn who wrote (170382)4/11/2021 8:03:45 PM
From: TobagoJack  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 217572
 
I hear drums and bugles and sense a clear & presently impending perturbation in the Force

Team Biden must skip its fretting over bitgold, because on the eve to war, a far greater issue needs focusing of the already busy minds

Whatever Team USA chooses to do, it best engage with and embrace bitgold, else freedom premium goes to the currency of the returning sovereign, one that invented paper money and now reimagining money

The only way Team USA can safely ban bitgold is if Team China should choose to provide no on- / off- ramps to bitgold, and same for truegold. Team China has no reasons to ban either, two of the largest domestic industries.

For China to ban gold and bitgold would be akin to Japan banning sushi and sashimi, Thailand forbidding rice and lemongrass, Britain canceling fish & chips, France outlawing mistresses and wine, ... USA woking burgers and fries.

Peter Theil is correct, that BTC is a weapon, already weaponised, pre-positioned where they matter, and requires careful deliberation by the authorities. The folks thinking Peter meant 'ban bitgold' is wrong, because had Peter meant to say that, he would have said it. Peter was being polite to the guest of honour Pompeo at the conference, and refrained from, "buy bitgold, because it is salvation from the US$"

bloomberg.com

Biden Team Eyes Potential Threat From China’s Digital Yuan Plans
Saleha Mohsin
12 April 2021, 06:00 GMT+8

The Biden administration is stepping up scrutiny of China’s plans for a digital yuan, with some officials concerned the move could kick off a long-term bid to topple the dollar as the world’s dominant reserve currency, according to people familiar with the matter.

Now that China’s digital-currency efforts are gathering momentum, officials at the Treasury, State Department, Pentagon and National Security Council are bolstering their efforts to understand the potential implications, the people said.

American officials are less worried about an immediate challenge to the current structure of the global financial system, but are eager to understand how the digital yuan will be distributed, and whether it could also be used to work around U.S. sanctions, the people said on the condition of anonymity.

A Treasury spokeswoman declined to comment. A National Security Council spokeswoman did not reply to a request for comment.

The People’s Bank of China has rolled out trial issuance of a digital yuan in cities across the country, putting it on track to be the first major central bank to issue a virtual currency. A broader roll-out is expected for the Winter Olympics in Beijing next February, giving the effort international exposure.



Signage for the digital yuan, or E-CNY, at self check-out counter at supermarket in Shenzhen, China, Nov. 20, 2020.

Photographer: Yan Cong/Bloomberg

Many key details of the digital yuan are still in flux, including specifics on how it would be distributed. China’s recent establishment of a joint venture with SWIFT, the messaging nexus through which most cross-border settlements pass through today, suggests it is possible a digital yuan could work within the current financial architecture rather than outside of it.

U.S. officials are reassured that China’s intentions aren’t to use the digital yuan to evade American sanctions, according to people familiar with the matter. The dollar’s current dominance in cross-border transactions gives the U.S. Treasury the power to cut off much of a business or even a country’s access to the global financial system.

China’s officials have said the main intentions of the digital yuan are to replace banknotes and coins, to reduce the incentive to use cryptocurrencies and to complement the current private-sector run electronic payments system -- dominated by Ant Group Co.’s Alipay and Tencent Holdings Ltd.’s WeChat Pay. The PBOC has been working for years on the digital yuan, also called the e-CNY, having set up a specialist research team in 2014.

Here’s How a Central Bank Digital Currency Could Work: Chart

??“To provide a backup or redundancy for the retail payment system, the central bank has to step up” and provide digital-currency services, Mu Changchun, the director of the PBOC’s digital-currency research institute, said at an event last month.

The PBOC is also examining the potential for using the digital yuan in cross-border payments, launching a project studying the issue with a unit of the Bank for International Settlements along with the United Arab Emirates, Thailand and Hong Kong’s monetary authority.

The Biden administration isn’t currently planning to take any action to counter longer-term threats from China’s digital currency, the people familiar with the discussions said. However, China’s plans have given renewed impetus to efforts to consider the creation of a digital dollar, they said.

Members of Congress have also been increasingly interested in a digital dollar, aware of China’s moves, and asked Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell and Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen about the issue in hearings earlier this year.

Powell said in February the Fed was looking “very carefully” at a digital dollar. “We don’t need to be the first. We need to get it right.”

Yellen has signaled interest in research into the viability of a digital dollar, a shift from a lack of enthusiasm under her predecessor, Steven Mnuchin.



“It makes sense for central banks to be looking at” issuing sovereign digital currencies, she said at a virtual conference in February. Yellen said a digital version of the dollar could help address hurdles to financial inclusion in the U.S. among low-income households.

A recent report from the U.S. Director of National Intelligence said the extent of the threat of any foreign digital currency to the dollar’s centrality in the global financial system “will depend on the regulatory rules that are established.”

China’s currency makes up little more than 2% of global foreign exchange reserves compared with nearly 60% for the U.S. dollar. Policy decisions, rather than technical developments, will also be necessary to push forward yuan internationalization, as China maintains a strict regime of capital controls.

China’s financial system is too “fragile and weak” to pose a real threat to the dollar’s status as the world’s reserve currency, according to Mark Sobel, U.S. chairman for the Official Monetary and Financial Institutions Forum.

“At the end of the the day the markets have more confidence in the Fed” than China’s central bank, said Sobel, a former senior U.S. Treasury official for international matters.

Read More...
How China Is Closing In on Its Own Digital Currency: QuickTake Digital Yuan Can Be Rolled Out Rapidly Though China Banks, Apps China Digital Yuan Will Co-Exist With Alipay, WeChat, PBOC Says Federal Reserve’s Digital Dollar Push Worries Wall Street China’s Potential Steps to Raise Digital Yuan Across Borders

— With assistance by Lucille Liu, and Peter L Martin

Before it's here, it's on the Bloomberg Terminal.
LEARN MORE



To: Maurice Winn who wrote (170382)4/14/2021 10:27:05 PM
From: sense  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 217572
 
The industrial revolution largely replaced muscles. This one is replacing brains.

So, first from hardworking to fat and lazy...

Then, from fat and lazy... to fat, lazy and stupid ?