In times of indebtedness, ideas of a ‘reset’, debt forgiveness, or jubilee, are considered. For example, and published in 1919, John Maynard Keynes’ ‘The Economic Consequences of the Peace’ wrote to the problem of Germany’s liabilities from the Great War, where Germany owed a great debt to the Allies, the Allies a great debt to Britain, and Britain a great debt to America, with war loan holders in each country being owed a large sum by the state; the state in turn owed a large sum by these and other taxpayers.
For Keynes, the whole position was “artificial, misleading and vexatious”:
“We shall never be able to move again, unless we can free our limbs from these paper shackles. A general bonfire is so great a necessity that unless we can make of it an orderly and good-tempered affair in which no serious injustice is done to anyone, it will, when it comes at last, grow into a conflagration that may destroy much else as well.” (The Economic Consequences of the Peace, Chapter 7: Remedies, II The Settlement of inter-Ally indebtedness, 1919)
Keynes’ unheeded warning proved correct: Germany’s simmering resentment from the onerous terms bestowed on it from the Versailles Treaty — a “Carthaginian” peace — formed the back drop to the rise of fascism in Germany, sowing the seeds for a second world war.
As this is being written, the relationship between ‘History’ and prejudice is very much a contemporary hot-topic! The meaning of prejudice or the prejudicial, relate to what might be considered ‘judicial’, fair, or otherwise, in a predetermined sense to the wider context of the circumstances of which could be considered ‘justice’ as genealogical to the manner it forms an equilibrium of majority decision making and the form of determined representation by which such decision making is possible at any given time.
The ‘ideal’ form of justice wouldn’t be open to interpretation (it would be unstated and self evident) and while in a context of repetition and evolution of strategies, game theory acknowledges coalitions — as opposed to alliances — of players in a game could be implemented by contracts, it also acknowledges contracts are intrinsically verbal and therefore open to complication, rendering an ‘ideal’ legal, contract, or judicial standard, difficult.
Mike Tyson’s famous quote that “everyone has a plan until they receive a punch in the mouth” is redolent of Prussian Field Marshall Helmuth von Moltke and his saying “no plan of operations extends with any certainty beyond the first contact with the main hostile force” and von Moltke’s observation that strategy is a system of expedients speaks to geometrical representation of pictures and the Byzantine Generals Problem.
It was during the first of all encompassing military strategic campaigns between 1914–1918, that Ludwig Wittgenstein — who by this time had a philosophical relationship with Keynes (who once referred to Wittgenstein as God) — wrote Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus: addressing the central problems of philosophy and of the simultaneous world, thought and language — presenting a ‘solution’ (as Wittgenstein terms it) grounded in logic and in the nature of representation.
For Wittgenstein, the world is represented by thought, which is a proposition with sense, since they all — world, thought, and proposition — share the same logical form. Hence, the thought and the proposition can be pictures of the facts, irrespective to plans and strategic games.
In 2003, Economics Nobel Memorial Prize winner John Nash published a paper on how to eliminate verbal complications from contracts in context of repetition and evolution of strategies by specifying an election procedure.
This procedure was to “form the basis for a game of non-cooperative form to be played by the players of the original game being translated.”
This was an election process where the agent is entirely uncommitted and his election is irrevocable for each specific playing of the game:
“…the actual results of calculations seem to indicate that this convention on elections is “asymptotically non-prejudicial” since the probability of simultaneous votes seemed to tend towards zero while the probability of “successful” elections tended towards +1.” John Nash, A Project Studying Cooperation in Games Through Modeling in Terms of Formally Non-Cooperative Action in a Repeated Game Context, 2003
In consideration of bitcoin, the problem which bitcoin is said to solve is the determination of representation in majority decision making, and there is further insight in respect of bitcoin application:
“The design supports a tremendous variety of possible transaction types that I designed years ago. Escrow transactions, bonded contracts, third party arbitration, multi-party signature, etc. If Bitcoin catches on in a big way, these are things we’ll want to explore in the future, but they all had to be designed at the beginning to make sure they would be possible later.” Satoshi Nakamoto, 2010
While modelling cooperation in games in the first decade of this century, John Nash was also promoting the “Ideal Money”, which was theoretically ideal because it was intrinsically free of inflation or “inflationary decadence”, depending on which version of Ideal Money is being read.
Nash recognised however that an Ideal Money couldn’t be so ideal, that it wouldn’t circulate because of an attractiveness to hoarding (in the way an “ideal justice” couldn’t be so perfect as to be open to instant and universal consensus), so Nash introduced a steady and constant inflation rate (an “Asymptotically Ideal Money”) that would be more or less as good as ideal money, in the way Nash introduced an asymptotically non-prejudicial basis for an election process that could serve coalition formation through cooperative adaptations in repetitive games and evolutionary strategies — John Nash’s Ideal Money would be a metric for comparisons of competing currencies, as well as a media for dispute resolution.
Nash notes his first observations on the Ideal Money were a system for the successful performance of contracts, and spoke to refining indices that would be reflective of longer term economic patterns, which wouldn’t need be good for all eternity, but would only be in need of regular adjustment.
While there were no specific proposals for the components of such an indices (an Industrial Consumption Price Index), Nash does speak to electrical energy, coincidentally to how Satoshi Nakamoto speaks on the price of a commodity gravitating toward its costs of production in relation to the mining of bitcoin.
Nash’s notations on the psychology of inflationary dynamics and its targeting, include a remark on the business cycle taking its toll:
“…even if at a certain moment in time, the freshly minted money is not immediately ‘bad money’ (in Gresham’s terms), it can soon turn into ‘bad money’ when it becomes part and parcel of the inflationary dynamic and the business cycle takes its toll.” John Nash, 2015
Specifically, John Nash remarks on the effects of a time dimension being introduced into a mortgage:
“…when it comes to inter-temporal, long-term transactions, e.g. mortgages, the difference between ideal money and typical European currencies would be somewhat intense, if not dramatic.” John Nash, 2015
John Nash acknowledges the thinking of Keynes as “multi-dimensional”, even if Nash is critical of so-called “Keynesians” and their ability to create money from a basis of variance: there are similar characteristics to Keynes’ bancor proposal and John Nash’s Ideal Money in the recognition of the paradox of there being a burden of a reference currency used in international relations (the American dollar).
There is parallel too between John Nash’s Ideal Money and his modelling of coalition formation in dispute resolution, and the characteristic of bitcoin irreversibility as part of a bonded contract and legal arbitration process similar to how Keynes spoke of The Economic Consequences of the Peace.
In returning to Ludwig Wittgenstein’s Tractatus: it is a structure which sets itself as representative to its internal essence, constructed around seven basic propositions, numbered by the natural numbers 1–7, with all other paragraphs in the text numbered by decimal expansions.
There is a resonance with John Nash’s Ideal Money and of a “dimension paradox” and the internal properties of a bitcoin:
“…as a result of the devotion of labor and capital to the effort of mining to increase less (or decrease more) than might be expected. There is a “dimension paradox”: agricultural products are produced by using the 2-dimensional resource of the earth’s surface, so the “disappearing frontier” creates a limitation.” John Nash, Ideal Money, 2002
The simple inference being, that more can be found to the internal realm by “digging deeper”. A place where the culture becomes the mind and where the machines are capable of taking less explicit instruction.
SafeEarth Donates $100,000 to TheOceanCleanUp Kicking Off Blockchain Eco Project
Bitcoin Press Release: Blockchain eco project SafeEarth has donated over $100,000 to TheOceanCleanUp charity with more donations planned for other global charities.
16th April, 2021, London, UK — SafeEarth, a blockchain eco project, has donated over $100,000 to community selected charity TheOceanCleanUp. The donated funds will help towards the removal of plastic waste from the planet. This generous donation represents the first act of SafeEarth’s continuing initiative to help charities across the globe.
The money was raised from SAFEEARTH token transaction fees. From each token transaction a portion of the fees will continue to be used for further donations to charities that focus on green initiatives as SafeEarth looks to effect a lasting and positive change on the planet.
The Ocean Cleanup Head of IT Steven Bink offered his thanks to Safe Earth on Twitter, stating:
“Dear SafeEarth community. On behalf of the entire crew at The Ocean Cleanup, I would like to thank you for this very generous donation. We are also honored that you chose The Ocean Cleanup to be the first charity to receive this gift from @SafeEarthETH”
Safe Earth & Earth Fund
Deforestation, pollution, global warming and many other factors have had an adverse effect on the environment for decades. As the world shifts more towards renewables and eco-friendly alternatives, initiatives like that of Safe Earth represent a changing mentality in industry
SafeEarth’s sole focus is to generate capital and build a community which is able to repair the ecological damage done to the planet. Safe Earth also collaborates with another green charity called The Earth Fund, which has raised around 50 ETH ($125,000 at the time of writing) to be used for similar causes.
As a part of their plan to raise awareness for ecological causes SafeEarth have also started a #PlasticChallenge on twitter, which urges people to get rid of plastic waste. The challenge (which launched on 27th of March) rewards users from a prize pool of $3,600 in SAFEEARTH tokens.
In the short time since the challenge began the SAFEEARTH token has been listed on the number one DEX Uniswap, recorded $3 million in trading volume and locked away more than $1.5 million in liquidity.
SAFEEARTH Token Burn & Benefits
The SAFEEARTH token is a deflationary asset that uses an autonomous yield and liquidity generation protocol. Each transaction charges a total of 4% in fees, which is then broken up evenly with 1% going to charities, 1% refunded to holders, 1% for advertising and 1% token lock-ups to increase liquidity. By burning at least 50% of the total supply after launch, (which will go to a black hole address) SafeEarth ensures increased token scarcity and liquidity.
$SAFEMARS is the sister token to SafeEarth and available on PancakeSwap exchange. The token uses very similar tokenomics to SAFEEARTH and over 50% of the tokens have already been burned. As none of the transaction fees from SafeMars go towards charity the company has chosen to give more back to users, with a total of 2% going instantly back to the holders wallets and the other 2% is auto-locked to increase scarcity and liquidity. Right now the number of $SAFEMARS holders is growing steadily with 93,699 holders at the time of writing.
Save Earth Through Safe Earth
Harnessing blockchain technology through it’s unique protocol in the interest of both charitable giving and community incentives is helping SafeEarth to stand out from its competition. This $100,000 donation is just the beginning of the company’s mission to effect a lasting and positive change to the planet.
SafeEarth blockchain eco project is already gearing up for another large donation with another 35 ETH (roughly $87,600) reserved for 5 charities that focus on humanitarian causes, such as access to clean water and wildlife preservation. The charities will be chosen by the SafeEarth community and will be announced on Earth Day, April 22nd, 2021.
Media Contact Details
Contact Name: Bitcoin PR Buzz Press Team
Contact Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
Learn more about SafeEarth — https://safeearthcrypto.com/
Buy SafeEarth Coin on Uniswap — https://app.uniswap.org/#/swap
Take off with SafeMars — https://www.safemarscrypto.com/index.html
About Bitcoin PR Buzz
Bitcoin PR Buzz has been proudly serving the crypto press release distribution needs of blockchain start-ups for over 9 years. Get your Bitcoin Press Release Distribution today.
SafeEarth is the source of this content. This Press Release is for informational purposes only. The information does not constitute investment advice or an offer to invest.
The post SafeEarth Donates $100,000 to TheOceanCleanUp Kicking Off Blockchain Eco Project appeared first on Bitcoin PR Buzz.
Did Elon Musk’s ‘jet fuel’ set GameStop (and Bitcoin) ablaze?
Depending on where you stand on the GameStop saga, which saw organized retail traders extract $6 billion from Wall Street overnight, you may think someone should either take the matches away from Elon Musk, or give him more.
The CEO and “Technoking” of Tesla was accused of pouring “jet fuel” on the GameStop short-squeeze at a critical moment by hedge fund manager David Einhorn, founder of Greenlight Capital, in a letter to investors published Thursday.
Einhorn said Elon Musk and venture capitalist Chamath Palihapitiya were the real instigators behind the short-squeeze, claiming both had supplied “the real jet fuel” for the pump with their tweets and TV appearances.
“We note that the real jet fuel on the GME squeeze came from Chamath Palihapitiya and Elon Musk, whose appearances on TV and Twitter, respectively, at a critical moment further destabilized the situation,” wrote Einhorn, according to Markets Insider.
Amid the orchestrated short-squeeze on GameStop by redditors on r/WallStreetBets, Elon Musk tweeted what some interpreted as his support for the endeavor. On Jan. 26, shortly after GME stock was pumped 91% in a single day, Musk tweeted the phrase “Gamestonk!!” accompanied by a link to the WallStreetBets sub-reddit.
Over the course of the next 24 hours, GME stock soared 134%, climbing from a unit price of $147 to $347. The following 24 hours brought even more fireworks, and by Jan. 28, the value of GameStop shares had hit an all time high of $483 — an 18,693% increase on the stock’s value just nine months earlier.
Chamath Palihapitiya appeared to voice his support for the short-squeeze on Jan. 27, when he told interviewers on CNBC that the GameStop saga was an example of the man on the street pushing back against the man on Wall Street.
Einhorn said that “quasi-anarchy” now reigns, based on what he sees as toothless regulation of the stock market. Einhorn compared the situation, where “the laws don’t apply to [Elon Musk]” to the defunding of the police force.
“Many who would never support defunding the police have supported — and for all intents and purposes have succeeded — in almost completely defanging, if not defunding, the regulators,” said Einhorn.
Previously Elon Musk was suggested to have unduly influenced the cryptocurrency market with his vocal support of Bitcoin (BTC) and Dogecoin (DOGE) via Twitter. Legal professionals suggested in February that Musk’s tweets may have acted as a catalyst for the coins’ gains at the time, and warned that such tweets could attract SEC attention.
Musk laughed off the suggestion at the time, claiming that he would welcome any SEC investigation into his tweets, and that he simply liked “dogs and memes.”
Turkey to ban cryptocurrency payments
A new ban in Turkey will prohibit crypto holders from using their digital assets for payments, in addition to preventing payment providers from adding funds to their digital wallets at crypto exchanges.
According to a Friday announcement by the Central Bank of the Republic of Turkey, the ban will come into effect on April 30, rendering any crypto payments solutions and partnerships illegal.
The bank stated, “any direct or indirect usage of crypto assets in payment services and electronic money issuance” will be forbidden.
While banks are excluded from the regulation, which means users can still deposit Turkish lira on crypto exchanges using wire transfers from their bank accounts, payment providers will be unable to provide deposit or withdrawal services for crypto exchanges.
Payment providers and digital wallets are widely used in Turkey to transfer fiat funds to crypto exchanges and vice versa. Major global exchange Binance partnered with local payment provider Papara when they first entered the Turkish market to provide a lira onramp for several different cryptocurrencies.
This new regulation means that users have two weeks to clear their balances if they exclusively use payment providers as fiat-to-crypto gateways.
Historically, the Turkish government has always had a tight grip on the payment ecosystem. In 2016, Turkey banned major global payment provider PayPal in the country.
Crypto regulation is a hot topic for Turkey in recent months. Last month, the Turkish Ministry of Treasury and Finance announced that they are monitoring the crypto ecosystem and working with the Central Bank, Banking Regulation and Supervision Agency, and Capital Markets Board to regulate crypto.
Additional reporting by Cointelegraph Turkey’s Emre Günen.
By The Numbers: The Rate Bitcoin Must Climb To Reach $100K By July
NYSE celebrates historic ‘first trades’ with NFT series
Bitcoin’s time has come: TIME magazine to hold BTC on balance sheet
Whole Earth Coin (WEC) Set for IEO to Inject New Life Into Aging Infrastructure
USDT, USDC, and BUSD represent 93% of stablecoin market cap
Binance launches zero-commission tradable stock tokens
NYSE Joins NFT Mania With Special First Trade Collection
Crypto has arrived.
Bitcoin Price Analysis: 11 April
Tron, Tezos, Synthetix Price Analysis: 12 April
German digital stock exchange will list physical Litecoin ETP
WAX introduces first Topps baseball cards on the blockchain
Moonstake integrates with Sylo to bring their staking protocol to the Sylo Smart Wallet
Bitcoin Prepares For its Next Move: Where is the 100 SMA, the Key BTC Level?
dHEDGE launches tokenized index tracking its top 10-ranked traders
Binance offers Tesla stock token, could Coinbase (COIN) follow?
Boson Protocol concludes $25.8M public sale, token listed on exchanges
How COPA’s lawsuit against Craig Wright could benefit Bitcoin
Kraken Daily Market Report for April 12 2021
Litecoin Price Analysis: 11 April
Blockchain1 week ago
Decentralized oracle solution Umbrella Network adds Huobi as validator node
Blockchain1 week ago
Uhive social network enables users to mint their profiles into NFTs
Blockchain1 week ago
Tesla’s landlord accepts crypto; will Elon Musk pay rent in Bitcoin?
Blockchain1 week ago
XRP Price Analysis: 08 April
Blockchain1 week ago
Why JP Morgan’s CEO calls Bitcoin regulation a “serious issue”
Blockchain1 week ago
$48B Asset Manager Millennium Management Dabbles With Bitcoin
Blockchain1 week ago
Bitcoin Miners Hit Jackpot as Hash Rate Peaks Again
Blockchain1 week ago
Binance Smart Chain Daily Transactions 200% More Than Ethereum’s