"In conclusion, using active surveillance, mRNA-1273 vaccine-associated mild transient myocardial injury was found to be much more common than previously thought. It occurred in one out of 35 persons, was mild and transient, and more frequent in women versus men."
1 in 35 were injured.
Note: We know heart muscle doesn't really repair itself well. Damaged muscle is replaced with scar tissue. So beware of the "transient" assertion.
Would a web3 proponent getting a traffic ticket also count?
We have documented evidence of clear, willful violation of the law. And nobody is seriously mooting a CBDC anymore. (Given Silvergate was (a) downed by FTX and (b) the proximate cause of our recent banking meltdown, it is reasonable to argue Chokepoint 1.0 didn't go far enough. But that's irrelevant to this thread.)
For the financial system dealing with cryptocurrencies isn't worth the risk. The banks would have to perform all sorts of AML/CFT checks on every penny that has come into contact with an exchange, and they just don't have the resources to do that.
Coinbase is engaged in motivated reasoning here; they're trying to find every reason they can to not label their services as securities. I'd have to look up precedents to find more detailed guidance as to particular prongs, but offhand:
1. I really need to look up case law to decide if Coinbase is right on the investment of money part here, and I suspect in part it relies on technically-detailed arguments I have no knowledge of. But if your money is locked up, it's almost certainly meets this prong, and my understanding is that staking does lock your assets for a time.
2. The not-"common enterprise" argument here boils down to "it's all down by computers, so how can it be a common enterprise?" Which feels like the sort of gotcha legal loophole that plays out poorly in courts, although I will admit that I don't know the case law in detail to evaluate this claim well.
3. Expectation of profit is derived in large part from how it's advertised, which... yeah, this is going to point towards security. I should note in particular that in trying to describe why Coinbase's staking service doesn't meet this prong sounds suspiciously like the original scheme in the case that provided the Howey test. This alone should cast significant doubt on the entire analysis.
4. The "efforts of others" again relies on the "it's just computers, so obviously it can't count, right? ... right?" style of argument as prong #2, but even less convincingly.
More accurately, Coinbase is claiming their staking service does not count as a security under the Howey Test. A judge or panel of judges will be the ones making the actual determination, Coinbase’s claim has yet to be tested in court.
The only way this even tries to make sense is by creating the idea that the obviousness of it being a security (you're lending something of value to an enterprise in hopes of generating return) doesn't count, because it's a computer or something.
Like if the exact same thing was accomplished by people it's obviously a security but since it's done by code (which was magically and immaculately conceived, presumably) then it's different somehow.
It's not different. Coinbase wants people to give them money, have them do [complicated thing] then give them a return on that money.
They compare staking to mining. Cryptocurrency mining is a business activity that fulfills the last three criteria but mining on its own is not a security. The only confusion is whether the staked cryptocurrency counts as an investment of money.
Give it up, the Vaccine is mostly worthless for young people. The analysis always compares Covid vs Vaccine. Most vaccinated will get covid anyway and how many booster shoots do you need given the effect lasts 120 days?
I have been using Blazor for projects in the last year. It's okay (still immature). It uses Websockets when available (HTTP fallback) to transfer the rendered page.
There's little chance this will ever be supported by the administrative class at MIT or any other institution. By expanding protected speech it limits their power. They have fewer punitive options and less dominion over campus activities.
In that case, shouldn't we get rid of money laundering regulations for all financial institutions? That would (presumably) provide even more privacy; there's no reason to make crypto an exception.
1 in 35 were injured.
Note: We know heart muscle doesn't really repair itself well. Damaged muscle is replaced with scar tissue. So beware of the "transient" assertion.
https://www.uclahealth.org/departments/medicine/cardiology/r....