Dog Eating Trezor, Craig Wright, Australian SEC and More on News of News – Trustnodes

Dog Eating Trezor, Craig Wright, Australian SEC and More on News of News


If you made a naughty mistake with your crypto-money that has now gone, we have an easy way out for you here at trustnodes. Tell your wife your dog ate all your coins.

If school kids can get away with it, why not grown up babies. Because apparently it does happen, dogs do seemingly eat Trezors.

Dog eats Trezor

Ledger is probably better anyway, but there cats might mistake them for a mouse and boom, your money gone.

That’s fine though, you can always be super serious while wearing Bermuda shorts when explaining to your wifu why you now haz no muneh.

Changpeng in Bermuda shorts.

That’s apparently formal attire in Bermuda. ‘Historic’ signing of crypto deal, local media shouts. A deal which means:

“Binance will spend up to $10 million on training for Bermudians in blockchain technology development.

The trading company will also make up to $5 million available for investment in new Bermudian blockchain business.”

In return, Binance gets to “develop its global compliance base in Bermuda,” and to “develop a Digital Asset Exchange in Bermuda subject to all required legal and regulatory processes.”

Zhao Changpeng is seemingly shopping around for the most favorable global jurisdiction. First to Japan, where he was warned to comply with AML, then to Malta, where he was welcomed by the PM, then to Uganda, now in Bermuda.

Tiny fish and massive whales, that might be the end story, but we’ll see whether Changpeng is as smart at navigating the legal waters as at coding.

Now, we apologize in advance for uttering this name, but Exeter university is quite a decent British university. They’ve apparently decided to give a podium to Craig Wright, with a statement quoting Dr Jack Rogers who says:

“It is a real privilege to welcome the greatest minds working on Bitcoin to the University of Exeter.”

There is plenty we can say there, far too much in fact, but we’ll quickly move away to something that is at least more what we’ll call “caty” controversial.

Apparently a telegram group has been formed to try and get “victims” to testify they have been mislead by to buy BCH when they meant to buy BTC.

From this, Bitcoinist makes a news article, and of course r/bitcoin votes it to the top. Ignoring the underlying “story” for a second, it is slightly curious how Bitcoinist started running some pretty slanted articles in the past two-three months. Curious because, aren’t they owned by

We don’t know, but unless something has changed, there should be some considerable relationship, and if that’s the case it may show Roger Ver does truly believe in full free speech or it may show the journalistic standards there are…

The story itself is probably a gimmick, if you can call it that, but it isn’t entirely without basis. There should be some care that at the very least the tickers are shown.

Because, although what exactly is bitcoin can be open to argument, just as can be what should be called Bitcoin Core or Bcash or Bitcoin Cash or the trillion of names they give each other, there can’t be much argument as to what is BTC or BCH.

Thus when it comes to actionable front-end interfaces, what one means exactly should be clear by stating the ticker. Where it comes to any potential lawsuits, however, its chances are probably the same as America suing Australia for calling their money Aussie Dollars.

Zurich has opened a new Trust Center. The blockchain center is next to the Swiss National Bank. Pretty much at the heart of the city, with Carmen Walker Späh, Director of Economic Affairs in Zurich, stating:

“Trust Square strengthens Zurich’s standing as a location for digital innovation and complements the varied blockchain ecosystem in the region, which already consists of university institutions and numerous startups.”

Sec blockchain companies.

That’s the current number of companies that have something to do with SEC according to their search engine.

That means they need to comply in some way, or are perhaps publicly listed, with only 15 shown so far, which might be surprising in different ways, depending on your time perspective.

John Price, Commissioner at the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, otherwise said Australia’s SEC, had something interesting to say recently which we did find persuasive, stating:

“If you are acting with someone else’s money… you have obligations placed upon you.”

That was primarily aimed at Initial Coin Offerings (ICOs), which initially weren’t really meant to have any control over our money. The tokens were meant to go to a Decentralized Autonomous Organization (DAO), with token holders then deciding on a case by case, incremental basis, just who should get how much for what.

The first DAO got hacked, so that whole stupendously innovative idea got shelved. With it so being reduced to basically give us money and we decide all things and you have no control whatever over it even if we run away with it.

That eventually necessarily brought in the SEC because scam-exits do exist, as we in this space know better than most. So now they’re trying to strike a right balance.

The balance should obviously be a ladder. Under one million dollars, then perhaps no compliance whatever except of course where there is fraud, something which Price does emphasizes applies in all cases and we very much agree. But that would be less compliance and more enforcement action.

Then, for ICOs up to say $20 million, there should be some requirements. If there are profit numbers, revenue, and if nothing else then some verification the team is who they say they are and has the experience they say they have.

That, of course, can’t be too rigid and it could even be self certified in a way through perhaps a self-governing body, with any requirements so being as minimal as possible.

You could have slightly more requirements for ICOs above $20 million and below $100 million. Then, have the whole thing where you require a legalese prospectus that no one else will read but other lawyers.

It is probably the way they will go because it is the most reasonable way, but the more fascinating way is for coders to stop being lazy and get that DAO thing running again.

The first planes crashed too. The first cars could barely move. What makes anyone think the brand new first DAO would just be a grown up nice adult at the very inception?

And if coders don’t want to do that, ICOs still have innovation, albeit of a less radical kind, and still have quite a lot of potential to raise capital in a more efficient way. But obviously, as investors would have little control, there would need to be some red tape.

Now, we wanted to do some press releases, but it looks like we’ve run out of ink. We’ll be back however, so, until then, enjoy your spring.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>