#Neo de Bono in de media | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

cryptofeedzposts · 5 years ago

Text

Crypto Experts Give Their Top Predictions for 2020

In an industry built around digital scarcity, opinions are in plentiful supply. Everyone’s got one, and they’d love to share it with the rest of the cryptosphere. As the decade draws to a close and another prepares to launch, it’s the perfect time to consider what 2020 has in store. Here’s what thought leaders, professionals, and investors have to say about the trends that will define the coming year – starting with the predicted price of BTC.

Also read: Which Token Will Be Next Year’s 50x Winner?

In 2020, the price of BTC Will Reach…

Where BTC will venture next year depends heavily on whether you believe May 2020’s halving event is priced in – which no one can seem to agree on. The rational market theory holds that investors have had years in which to prepare, and thus the slashing of BTC’s block reward should have little effect on pricing. But since when have “rational” and “crypto markets” ever been synonymous? “Bitcoin needs bigger macro catalysts than a marginal 2% point reduction in inflation rates,” believes Messari’s Ryan Selkis. Yele Bademosi of Binance Labs expects that “the lowest price of BTC in 2020 will be higher than the yearly low of 2019 (~$3,300).”

Blockchain Capital believes BTC will surpass $20k in 2020, as does Su Zhu of Three Arrows Capital, while a partner at The Spartan Group believes bitcoin will reach $40k, and he’s not alone, with other bulls including Bithumb’s Seonil Moon, who has predicted that “in 2020, institutional investors will move beyond testing and will start to create new demand for crypto.” With Bitcoin Cash also due to halve its block reward next year, and Blockchain Capital predicting onchain BTC fees to hit $100, 2020 may also smile kindly on BCH. Next year’s biggest bull is John McAfee, of course, but no one in the industry believes his $200k EOY prediction for BTC will come to pass.

Blockchain Networks to Watch out for in 2020

The severity of the threat presented by quantum computing remains a matter of intense debate, with new breakthroughs in quantum supremacy by Google focusing attention on the security of crypto networks. There’s less debate over the prominence that quantum-resistant networks will play next year, which several crypto crystal ball-gazers have tipped to prosper in 2020. This includes Quantum Resistant Ledger, which has obtained draft approval from the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) for Stateful Hash-Based Signature Schemes, the technology that secures its blockchain.

Also tipped to prosper are smart contract blockchains that can rival Ethereum. In his 71-page Crypto Theses for 2020, Messari’s Ryan Selkis has highlighted Polkadot, which is set to launch next year, and Cosmos as the likeliest to succeed in this regard. He’s predicted that high volume dapps such as Earnbet, which has encountered scaling problems on EOS, will “build on their own Polkadot parachain or Cosmos zones.”

Web3 Protocols Tipped to Gain Ground

The decentralized web, borne along by Web3 technologies including IPFS, is also expected to come good in 2020. With Twitter’s Jack Dorsey launching Bluesky, a decentralized social media protocol, the spotlight has been shone on a vertical that promises to return data control to its owners and spawn censorship-resistant web platforms. On December 18, the New York Times addressed this trend, with Nathaniel Popper observing that “Decentralization used to be the thing the upstarts said would allow them to defeat Twitter and Facebook. Now Twitter and Facebook have adopted it as the solution to all the problems they are facing.”

Web3 projects that are projected to prosper next year include Cyber, a protocol that operates on top of IPHS (Interplanetary File System), providing an information consensus system for answers and a search engine. Its Interplanetary Search Engine and consensus computer will essentially form a decentralized Google that utilizes knowledge graphs. Permaweb storage solution Arweave, decentralized DNS Handshake, and Filecoin, which will launch in 2020, will also play a key role.

Next Year’s Likeliest to Succeed Altcoins

News.Bitcoin.com recently shared a list of predictions on the tokens likely to fare well in next year’s market. To that list can be added DOT – Polkadot’s native token – which Spartan Black expects to eventually reach a market cap in excess of Ethereum’s, reasoning “In China, it is the only project that comes anywhere close to Ethereum in terms of profile, community and investor interest.” He also expects Maker’s MKR to exceed $1,000.

Experts are less bullish on Telegram’s TON and Filecoin in terms of valuation, on account of the projects having launched late and raised amidst peak 2017-18 valuations. Blockchain Capital has predicted that none of the layer one networks to launch in 2020 will enter the top 10 by market cap. Spartan Black expects SNX and BAT to increase their market caps next year, but DOGE, NEO, and ICX to lose ground. Finally, Bram Cohen of Chia predicts that tether (USDT) will become the third largest digital asset by market cap.

Exchange Predictions

Coingecko’s Bobby Ong is skeptical that the exchange blockchains being developed by Huobi, Bithumb, Gate.io, and Okex will prosper next year, but is bullish on crypto derivatives, predicting that “Most crypto exchanges will start offering options to compete against Deribit.” Ari Nazir of Neural Capital anticipates that “Exchange tokens will continue to be the strongest performing non-vaporware investments in crypto.”

Bybit’s Ben Zhou has taken a more philosophical view of next year’s exchange landscape, telling news.Bitcoin.com: “As always, crypto remains a highly competitive market. I enjoy the constant competition as it reminds us to never rest on our laurels. However, we do not want to get too wrapped up in competing that we lose sight of our own goals. As Edward de Bono once said, ‘Companies that solely focus on competition will die. Those that focus on value creation will thrive.’”

These are my guesses for 2020 pic.twitter.com/ESa2Hgtukq

— nic carter (@nic__carter) December 19, 2019

Staking as a service, which is now dominated by exchanges, is tipped to wither away next year due to saturation and increased awareness of the dilution caused by inflationary staking networks. “Staking fees will drop to near zero in 2020 and more than half of the 200+ stakers will go out of business,” predicts Spartan Black. Both he and Bobby Ong anticipate staking fees levied by exchanges will be slashed in a bid to compete with Binance. Ryan Selkis, meanwhile, cut straight to the point, writing “inflationary staking rewards are without qualification the dumbest thing this industry has deluded itself into believing since white paper investing caught fire in mid-2017.”

Decentralized Finance

Predicting the amount of value locked up in decentralized finance has become a variant on the annual BTC price prediction game. Defipulse.com currently records this figure as $645M, with Bobby Ong expecting $1B to be surpassed next year. Blockchain Capital is more bullish still, tipping $5 billion. Ong has also predicted that at least one defi app will be hacked next year, as does Charlie Noyes of Paradigm who projects that “at least one DAO is taken over by overtly malicious colluding voters for >$1mm in profit.”

Ryan Selkis anticipates further VC investment in defi-based wallet services “to compete as the gateways to crypto for “self-sovereign” crypto users.” The Block has predicted that next year will see greater leverage for defi derivatives, more liquidity, and more sophisticated financial products.

Bitcoin layer two solution Lightning Network, whose $6.2M of locked up BTC is recorded by defi aggregators such as Defipulse, may not fare so well next year. As news.Bitcoin.com recently showed, LN still isn’t ready for the masses, and even some of its former proponents have changed their tune. “Lightning is taking more time to develop than I’d originally thought,” conceded Ryan Selkis, writing that “it’s tough not to be disappointed with its lack of growth” in 2019.

Whatever 2020 may hold for bitcoin, altcoins, and the rest of the cryptoconomy, investors are eagerly looking forward to the dawn of a new decade. It’s a chance to wipe the slate clean and start with renewed determination to avoid shitcoins, dubious ICOs, and outright Ponzi schemes. Only time will tell whether the coming year will smile kindly upon the cryptosphere, bringing profitable trades and vindicated predictions to the current crop of crypto clairvoyants.

What are your crypto predictions for 2020? Let us know in the comments section below.

Images courtesy of Shutterstock.

Did you know you can verify any unconfirmed Bitcoin transaction with our Bitcoin Block Explorer tool? Simply complete a Bitcoin address search to view it on the blockchain. Plus, visit our Bitcoin Charts to see what’s happening in the industry.

The post Crypto Experts Give Their Top Predictions for 2020 appeared first on Bitcoin News.

https://ift.tt/2th21jA

#ICO #Cryptocurrency

0 notes

theconservativebrief · 6 years ago

Link

A spiritual activist group known for taking on the religious right and conservative policy is splintering over its leader’s decision to enlist a lawyer who also represents prominent alt-right figures.

The Satanic Temple (TST) a nontheistic religious group that says it is dedicated to humanistic values, evidence-based scientific inquiry, and the separation of church and state, is currently suing Twitter for religious discrimination. TST argues it was not only unable to effectively report threats to its headquarters on the platform, but also that when its leader, who uses the pseudonym Lucien Greaves, spoke out, he was punished by being temporarily suspended.

Greaves’s decision to work with Marc Randazza, a lawyer whose other clients include Infowars’ Alex Jones and a number of neo-Nazis and white supremacists, has led to a fracture within TST. The Los Angeles chapter of the group has disaffiliated in protest, calling Randazza a “Twitter troll and an agent of the alt-right,” while the co-head of the New York chapter has resigned and left the organization.

The controversy over Greaves’s engagement of Randazza has crystallized wider debates within the organization. For Greaves and his allies, TST’s primary mission is to defend principles of personal sovereignty like free speech and separation of church and state, often by taking advantage of legal religious liberty exemptions. Greaves has frequently argued that this sovereignty is sacrosanct, even for views he finds repugnant: He has, for example, defended the right of ultra-conservative firebrand Milo Yiannopoulos to speak at California Polytechnic University after students purporting to be Satanists led a protest against him.

But for many of the progressive activists drawn to TST for its high-profile commitment to left-wing advocacy work, TST’s partnership with Randazza, and willingness to overlook his more troubling clientele, is a worrying sign that the organization is too willing to let the voices of its leadership — many of whom are straight white men — crowd out the wishes of a more diverse membership.

The fracture within TST reveals the complications and ambiguities inherent in activism in the age of Trump. It also raises questions about the responsibility of broader activist groups, including religious organizations, to its members.

The Satanic Temple has been blending trolling and activism since it was founded in 2012 by two friends, Malcolm Jerry and Lucien Greaves (both pseudonyms). Greaves is the organization’s only public spokesperson and de facto head.

The group gained prominence in 2013, when some members held a mock rally — complete with theatrical black flowing robes — celebrating Florida governor Rick Scott, who had recently signed a law allowing students to read inspirational messages at school events. While that law was designed primarily to allow Christian students to evangelize in school, TST grabbed media attention by praising Scott for reaffirming “our American freedom to practice our faith openly, allowing our Satanic children the freedom to pray in school.”

In 2016, TST again made headlines for using religious liberty exemptions to get around Texas’s then-new “fetal burial rule,” which mandated that all fetal remains, including those that were the result of abortion, be officially buried or cremated. Because the organization formally holds that fetuses are not people, TST threatened to file injunctions against any planned enforcements of the law on religious liberty grounds.

It’s unclear exactly how many members the organization has. Its Facebook page has about 85,000 likes and its Facebook members’ forum has 7,000 members. For many Satanic Temple adherents, TST provides a moral framework, a place to conduct spiritual rituals with like-minded people, and a chance to reify dearly-held values.

This latest controversy began in January, when former child actor Corey Feldman, who’s previously claimed “demonic forces” have influenced his life, retweeted another user, LaurieGatta1, calling for the Satanic Temple headquarters in Salem, Massachusetts, to be burned down.

LaurieGatta1’s tweet, which has since been deleted, read: “I doubt nothing anymore. I have em. In Salem MA. Opened a Satanic Church last year!!! The Witches are evil. And Satanists and Cults are VERY real! W a church like this Should not exist! Burn it! Blame Hillary I don’t care! It’s gutta go. If anyone likes this idea they r FKEd.”

Lucien Greaves retweeted it, asking his followers to report the original tweet as harassment to Twitter. Instead, Greaves’s own account was suspended indefinitely (it has since been restored).

The TST is now suing Twitter for religious discrimination. “When Twitter is going to choose to treat one religious group differently than another, in a way that dehumanizes us, that sets up a dangerous precedent. … There are deeper ramifications for society at large when social media can suspend your account just because of discrimination,” he told the Washington Post.

Greaves said that the only lawyer who would take his case pro bono was Randazza, a lawyer whose defense of free speech — no matter how repugnant the message — has led to him to defend a founder of the neo-Nazi website the Daily Stormer. Randazza is also defending far-right conspiracy theorist Alex Jones against several families of the victims in the Sandy Hook, Connecticut, shooting, who are suing him for defamation for propagating the idea that the massacre was a hoax.

However, many heads of individual local chapters expressed concern about retaining Randazza, especially because Greaves and TST were also simultaneously publicly fundraising for the suit despite being represented pro bono. (TST chapter heads and local councils organize and run local events and meetings, and funnel at least 90 percent of any profit from local events and fundraisers to the national level).

Emma Story, a former New York City TST chapter leader, said she expressed her concerns about Randazza to the national council several months ago. “We got a polite but non-useful reply about how lawyers represent all kinds of clients,” she told Vox. By mid-June, she said, other chapter heads had also express concern about Randazza’s affiliations, and in early July she and other chapter heads sent a longer formal letter to TST’s national council. They have yet to receive a response.

This week, the LA chapter disaffiliated from TST, branding itself the Satanic Collective, over concerns about Randazza. Story also resigned from the New York branch.

In a Medium post explaining her departure, Story wrote, “Randazza is not just another lawyer and it’s disingenuous to pretend that he is. … He has appeared on Alex Jones’s InfoWars again and again — not merely to discuss the Sandy Hook case but to express a whole variety of opinions about everything from Starbucks’s racial bias training to ‘the culture of victimhood’ in the United States.” Randazza has, she noted, appeared on InfoWars to warn: “one day in the future, there will be the uber victim: it will be one victim, to rule over all of them. There will be a black lesbian in a wheelchair with an eye patch and every single possible victimization and she will rule. … It’s a dystopian fairy tale.”

For Story, TST’s affiliation with Randazza highlights a wider issue within the organization: its unwillingness to prioritize the wishes of its most vulnerable and marginalized members. TST has, in her view, a diversity problem, skewing toward a generally privileged and largely white demographic.

“It’s not a coincidence,” Story wrote, “that the people who are leaving TST over this issue right now are predominantly members of the very same vulnerable groups we say we want to attract.” Still, members who are people of color, LGBTQ, or from other marginalized groups may feel uncomfortable with their religious organization doing business with someone who has not only defended, but also exhibited collegial behavior toward personalities like Jones.

In a statement made via Patreon, Greaves doubled down on his decision to work with Randazza. “I didn’t take the time to learn his politics, and I still don’t care what they are. He’s not representing our views, he’s defending our legal rights in court. He is a tool that has been made available to our enemies to their benefit. If we deny ourselves the same tools on the grounds that they’ve been used by our enemies, have we not merely forfeited our own fight?”

In a subsequent email to Vox, Greaves stressed that he believed that most chapter heads supported his decision to keep working with Randazza. He added, “We are not giving him a courtroom platform to pontificate about his political views, nor should those views be of consequence to us. [Refusing his services] would do nothing to hurt the alt right, it would merely hurt us.”

He acknowledged that national leadership had not replied to the initial letter of concern from some chapter heads, arguing that the organization was focused on upcoming projects. “The Satanic Temple is run by a small, overworked band of volunteers,” he wrote, “We’re still a young organization working out communication and administration issues, but we are deeply concerned about the well-being of all chapters and don’t disregard any internal disputes, nor do we disregard any concerns as superfluous even if we think they are misguided.”

Chalice Blythe, a member of TST’s national council, said in a statement that “a good portion of initially concerned chapter heads were given thorough explanations” about TST’s relationship with Randazza, and “felt their concerns were adequately addressed, acknowledged, and are in support of the standing of the lawsuit and retention of the lawyer.”

The debate about what the Satanic Temple is, or should be, and the degree to which its advocacy work demands a rejection of people like Randazza, is about far more than the politics of a single organization. Rather, it speaks to the degree to which even progressive organizations have been under increasing ideological strain in a political landscape in which news coverage of neo-Nazis and conspiracy theories has become, in essence, the new normal.

As a social justice organization, and as a religion devoted to celebrating personal autonomy, TST sees itself as a champion of unlimited free speech, and its choice of lawyer reflects that. But as a religion whose adherents are drawn to it because of their passion for social justice, and desire to advocate for the vulnerable, TST also runs the risk of alienating its members. In this, TST’s dual roles — as an activist free speech organization and as a welcoming religious space for a non-theistic community — may be in conflict.

The debate raging in TST, in other words, is ultimately a debate about the nature and limits of activism in the age of President Donald Trump.

As one current chapter head, who wished to remain anonymous, put it in an email to Vox: “We came into TST thinking it would be an organization that stands for something. I would rather not take the Twitter case than hire someone who represents members of the alt-right and Alex Jones. We know Lucien is not someone who has alt-right ideologies, but I would like to think he would consider all the members who are People of Color, LGBTQ+, and some Jewish members who have expressed discomfort with the idea of Randazza representing us.”

Original Source -> The Satanic Temple is divided over its leader’s decision to hire Alex Jones’s lawyer

via The Conservative Brief

#IFTTT #The Conservative Brief

0 notes

albertomansueti · 7 years ago

Text

Un héroe de nuestros días

Alberto Mansueti

Vaklav Klaus ha puesto sus títulos a todos los episodios de la historia que protagonizó. Es el artífice de la “Revolución de Terciopelo” de 1989 en su país, entonces República Popular de Checoslovaquia, cuando sin un tiro ni una gota de sangre, su “Partido Cívico” acabó la tiranía soviética, a pura fuerza de inteligencia política. Casado con Livia, su novia eslovaca de los ’70, estudiantes en la Universidad de Economía de Praga, Klaus negoció en 1992 el “divorcio amistoso” de checos y eslovacos, junto a su colega Vladimir Meciar, evitando sangrientas guerras tribales como en la ex Yugoslavia. Aprendieron los liberales una lección clave: la política es el único sustituto a la sangre y a la muerte.

En 1993, ya como Primer Ministro de la novel República Checa, y en los 5 años siguientes, dirigió la “transición completa” desde el comunismo al capitalismo liberal, a base de privatizaciones populares, con bonos canjeables por acciones, muy diferente de las “transiciones a medias”, como en Hungría, Polonia y otros países ex comunistas. El “milagro económico checo” se vio de inmediato en hogares, calles, fábricas y fincas; y luego en estadística de la economía. Pero enfrentó grandes obstáculos, mayormente legales; y los “transitólogos” liberales aprendieron otra lección clave: las reformas económicas profundas deben prepararse y acompañarse de profundos cambios jurídicos.

Desbancado del poder, Klaus encabezó la oposición a los gobiernos tibios que le sucedieron, mostrando el camino de salida: ampliar y profundizar las reformas; no revertirlas.

En 2003 fue elegido Presidente, y reelegido en 2008. Siguió su combate ideológico y político en cuatro frentes: contra la oposición socialdemócrata y ex comunista; contra el Nuevo Orden Mundial continentalista y globalista de la Unión Europea, la OTAN y la ONU; contra los embates del marxismo cultural; y contra los “liberales” despistados, que se limitan a repetir como loros las sabidas frases de Mises y Hayek, que son veraces y acertadas, pero el siglo XXI plantea nuevos y terribles desafíos, que piden respuestas y soluciones que sean liberales clásicas y creativas a la vez.

En 2013 Klaus dejó la Presidencia de su país; y se enfocó en esta cuarta brega. Sus discursos a la Sociedad Mont Pelerin, convertida en “amable Club de Viajes de los thinktanqueros”, pisaron callos, tan fuerte, que al fin le expulsaron del Instituto Cato, por “conservador” y peleador. Tres de sus discursos a la decaída Sociedad MP, resumen su titánico pensamiento; los de Praga en 2012, Hong Kong en 2014, y Seúl en 2017. (Todos en su Website, ordenados por fechas).

(1) El de Praga en 2012 fue muy esclarecedor y señero, ya desde el título: “No estamos en el lado ganador”. Apuntó una larga lista de factores que conspiraron contra las reformas liberales de los ’90, en la República Checa, y todo el mundo. De ellos, hubo 4 que “no nos tomaron de sorpresa”; pero otros 9 en cambio, “nos agarraron desprevenidos”.

¿Cuáles estaban previstos? A saber: la atracción fatal por el socialismo democrático, y su falaz y engañosa “Economía Social de Mercado”, tan querida por los “socialcristianos”; los rojos disfrazados de “verdes”; toda la plaga de “intelectuales” socialistas, escritores y “pensadores” (¿?) amantes de la planificación central y el dominio sobre la vida y negocios de la gente; y en fin, el “cientismo” y las ilusiones tecnocráticas, un duro primer golpe a la democracia, que los liberales clásicos siempre hemos defendido, como límite al ejercicio del poder.

¿Y cuáles “nos tomaron de sorpresa”? A saber: la contracultura de los hippies sesentayocheros del “Mayo francés” envejecidos, retocada en el marxismo cultural de Gramsci, Luckacs y la Escuela de Frankfurt; el atractivo de las “ganancias visibles y concentradas” para los grupos de intereses, y el escaso conocimiento de los “costos invisibles y dispersos” para las grandes mayorías. Y por último, el cambio de “derechos civiles” por “derechos humanos”, a los almuerzos gratis. Esos tres primeros.

¿Qué más? La repentina judicialización de la política o “Juristocracia”; y el poder de las ONGs, supuestamente “de la sociedad civil”, otros dos martillazos contra la democracia. Y siguen: la prensa basura, manipulada, escandalosa y sensiblera, abusa de la libertad de expresión; las Nomenklaturas de “los organismos internacionales”, en realidad “supranacionales”, arrogantes y prepotentes, y fuera de todo control democrático, a diferencia de las autoridades nacionales al interior de cada país. Y por último: feroz propaganda en favor de las falacias marxistas; y débil y defectuosa defensa de “las ideas de la libertad”.

Pero con estos dos últimos factores, Klaus apunta al cierre de su discurso, los “tanques de pensamiento liberal” nos fallaron. Callos pisados por doquier. Murmullos en la sala.

(2) En Hong Kong, en 2014, el ya viejo guerrero volvió a la carga, en defensa de un liberalismo “sanamente conservador”. “En el siglo pasado”, dijo, el liberalismo tuvo que defender la libertad contra el nacionalismo; contra la democracia deformada en “tiranía de la mayoría”; y contra la política pretendiendo atropellar la economía. ¡Muy bien! Pero en este siglo, las amenazas contra la libertad nos disparan desde nuevos frentes, y tenemos que defenderla. ¿Cuáles son esos nuevos enemigos de la libertad? Tres, principalmente: la desnacionalización de los países, con las migraciones masivas y las Nomenklaturas supranacionales; los burócratas que le tienen miedo a la democracia; y la ilusión antipolítica de un “mundo pospolítico”, que a la fuerza pretenden imponernos.

Por consiguiente, los liberales clásicos y conservadores hemos de asumir sin tibiezas la triple defensa del Estado nacional, de la democracia, y de los políticos y la política. Otra vez callos pisados, otra vez murmullos en la sala.

(3) El pasado 2017, en Seúl, Klaus otra vez estuvo demoledor; y más directo, si cabe. Tituló así: “Nuevas amenazas que la Mont Pelerin debe tratar”, sin anestesia. E hizo gala de su capacidad más admirable: combinar sus arengas típicas de experimentado político práctico, con citas eruditas de los académicos liberales y conservadores rigurosos y creativos, que no sólo repiten frases de Mises y Hayek; y quizá por eso mismo, no muy conocidos del público liberal convencional.

Se despachó en dos temas: primero contra las migraciones masivas, gente que llega de países rotos y atrasados, buscando “beneficios sociales”; es una amenaza a la cultura y la civilización occidentales. Son muy diferentes de las antiguas migraciones individuales, gente que llega buscando simplemente un trabajo, y un futuro, para hacer a punta de esfuerzo propio. Segundo tema: a favor de la rebelión de las mayorías silenciosas, que votan por candidatos antisistema; y contra los liberales despistados, que descalifican a las primeras como “populistas”, y a los segundos como “fundamentalistas”, “Neo-nazis” y “amigos de Putin”. Esta vez los callos sangraron; los murmullos subieron de volumen.

Doctor Klaus: si le es posible acompañarnos, ¡bienvenido a Guatemala!

0 notes