1/14 Now that everyone and their mother is talking about $LUNA & $MIR my message is
We don't need the money
This is why
👇
1. Adoption
2. Good value capture
High adoption without a good value capture is not ideal and vice versa
What does this mean and how is this aligned with $LUNA token holders?
Every transaction on Terra collects a small fee that is paid out to $LUNA stake holders.
High usage = high rewards = high price
If you buy and stake, you take out $LUNA but also dilute our guaranteed rewards
higher demand for stablecoins--> higher rewards-->higher amount of $LUNA being burned--->higher $LUNA price
More from Finance
The Dutch regulator and DNB as financial supervisor are a tough cookie to deal with. In essence they hyperregulate EU-rules into goldplated Dutch rules which go beyond what is prescribed in Europe.
All NL-customers at British banks may thus be kicked out on brexit.
Thread
/1
If we start with the capital requirements directive, it says attracting deposits is forbidden. In article 9.
https://t.co/RYl7SXligC
Now the translation of that rule into Dutch law is slightly expanded to not only prohibit attracting deposits, but to also prohibit, having those deposits under custody ('ter beschikking hebben').
That's not in EU law, but it is in our Dutch law.
https://t.co/PsbWfNY3PA
So if you wonder how this would work out for UK banks and Payment institutions servicing Dutch customers. Have a read at the technical explanation of DNB, the financial supervisor and their summarising table.
https://t.co/LL0fAnYkRJ
Passive servicing of Dutch is not allowed!
Any bank or PSP in the UK that continues to serve Dutch customers (as in retail customers, professional players are excepted) can thus be subject to fines and policing under Dutch law.
Meaning we not only have Accidental American issues in payments, but also Accidental Dutchies
All NL-customers at British banks may thus be kicked out on brexit.
Thread
/1
If we start with the capital requirements directive, it says attracting deposits is forbidden. In article 9.
https://t.co/RYl7SXligC
Now the translation of that rule into Dutch law is slightly expanded to not only prohibit attracting deposits, but to also prohibit, having those deposits under custody ('ter beschikking hebben').
That's not in EU law, but it is in our Dutch law.
https://t.co/PsbWfNY3PA
So if you wonder how this would work out for UK banks and Payment institutions servicing Dutch customers. Have a read at the technical explanation of DNB, the financial supervisor and their summarising table.
https://t.co/LL0fAnYkRJ
Passive servicing of Dutch is not allowed!
Any bank or PSP in the UK that continues to serve Dutch customers (as in retail customers, professional players are excepted) can thus be subject to fines and policing under Dutch law.
Meaning we not only have Accidental American issues in payments, but also Accidental Dutchies
You May Also Like
The entire discussion around Facebook’s disclosures of what happened in 2016 is very frustrating. No exec stopped any investigations, but there were a lot of heated discussions about what to publish and when.
In the spring and summer of 2016, as reported by the Times, activity we traced to GRU was reported to the FBI. This was the standard model of interaction companies used for nation-state attacks against likely US targeted.
In the Spring of 2017, after a deep dive into the Fake News phenomena, the security team wanted to publish an update that covered what we had learned. At this point, we didn’t have any advertising content or the big IRA cluster, but we did know about the GRU model.
This report when through dozens of edits as different equities were represented. I did not have any meetings with Sheryl on the paper, but I can’t speak to whether she was in the loop with my higher-ups.
In the end, the difficult question of attribution was settled by us pointing to the DNI report instead of saying Russia or GRU directly. In my pre-briefs with members of Congress, I made it clear that we believed this action was GRU.
The story doesn\u2019t say you were told not to... it says you did so without approval and they tried to obfuscate what you found. Is that true?
— Sarah Frier (@sarahfrier) November 15, 2018
In the spring and summer of 2016, as reported by the Times, activity we traced to GRU was reported to the FBI. This was the standard model of interaction companies used for nation-state attacks against likely US targeted.
In the Spring of 2017, after a deep dive into the Fake News phenomena, the security team wanted to publish an update that covered what we had learned. At this point, we didn’t have any advertising content or the big IRA cluster, but we did know about the GRU model.
This report when through dozens of edits as different equities were represented. I did not have any meetings with Sheryl on the paper, but I can’t speak to whether she was in the loop with my higher-ups.
In the end, the difficult question of attribution was settled by us pointing to the DNI report instead of saying Russia or GRU directly. In my pre-briefs with members of Congress, I made it clear that we believed this action was GRU.
