98 karma · joined February 1, 2022
No.
The GENIUS Act requires 100% reserve backing with liquid assets like U.S. dollars or short-term Treasuries and requires issuers to make monthly, public disclosures of the composition of reserves.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/07/fact-sheet-pr...
The Surveillance Legislation Amendment (Identify and Disrupt) Act 2021 (SLAID Act) introduced new powers for Australian law enforcement to combat serious cyber-enabled crime. These powers include data disruption warrants, network activity warrants, and account takeover warrants.
https://theconversation.com/facebook-or-twitter-posts-can-no...
The way I see it, once guaranteed security is offered, security conscious IT admins will insist on using it and the herd will eventually follow.
As I understand it, pretty much every developed country employed mmt practice in response to covid.
Now we have (even more) rampant inflation and wealth inequality with no sign of slowing down.
Keynesian economists and now mmt advocates are the reason that most of the productivity gains of the last hundred years have ended up in the hands of a few hundred people while most struggle.
I'd say it's high time to stop listening to these people who are nothing more than useful idiots of the elites.
The fact that the majority of listings on the site were for personal use quantities suggests that the majority of sales were to end users rather than traffickers.
It's hard to dispute that this saved lives and I would speculate that it saved many lives.
>That doesn't mean that large sales weren't made, or that those weren't in fact a significant portion of the site's revenue.
Nobody made any claim that large sales weren't made, of course they were.
Not really, this was a case of a private company deliberately pushing narcotics for profit without oversight or any associated increase in access to treatment options.
Now the "opioid epidemic" has been replaced with a "fentanyl epidemic" which is objectively a much more dangerous drug with absolutely no regulation and murderous cartels instead of doctors - and we're still throwing people in prison for the crime of being addicts rather than treating it as a medical issue.
I don't know the stats (or if it's even possible to accurately collect statistics due to prohibition) but I'm fairly certain this costs more lives than the short lived opioid epidemic.
He was trying to create a more just, egalitarian society. I don't understand how you can consider acting in accordance with leading research on successful drug policy "moronic"?
The society didn't decide, the ruling class decided to use drug policy to attack their own citizens.
History shows that prohibition is an abject failure. The fent epidemic is symptomatic of this failed policy.
If they actually cared about the epidemic, addicts would have access to regulated, pharmaceutical grade heroin whilst also having ready access to treatment.
But then we'd have empty prisons and the police would be free to solve real crimes so we can't have that.