Avatar
OldmanCrypto
d5d3614750735e1f658faa269e2ec1bfa820afa1684cd3c329e00aece152db2e
I keep learning till I die I must be one of the oldest Plebs here. Very soon I will be 67 ! Have only begun in the Btc space and loving every minute because it’s Freedom money 😎

The book is an apocryphal book - a story widely circulated as being true but is of doubtful authenticity or questionable origin

Replying to Avatar sudocarlos

Need more knowledge

Australian Bank Spots Scams via How Users Hold Their Phones

National Australia Bank seems to think that monitoring the angle customers hold their phones will offer extra protection against scammers. "Speaking during the Australian Banking Association Conference in Melbourne Wednesday (June 26), CEO Andrew Irvine said the lender introduced more 'friction' to payments processes and new predictive protection tools to spot scammers," reports PYMNTS.com, citing a (paywalled) Bloomberg report. From the report: "We've added tooling that looks at biometrics and the way you actually interact with your devices and how you think about keystrokes," said Irvine, per the report. "If these things are different to how you've used your phone in the past, our intelligence will kick in." Irvine, who called fraudsters the "scourge of our times," also noted that Australia is one of the few countries where bank fraud has declined, the report said.

Still, he said that as scammers have embraced new technology like artificial intelligence, banks have had to shift from making payments fast and simple to adding more steps to protect against fraudulent transactions, per the report. "These threat actors go where the money is," Irvine said, according to the report. "You want to be the best alarm system in the street and right now Australia's leading the way."

">

">

https://mobile.slashdot.org/story/24/06/26/2043229/australian-bank-spots-scams-via-how-users-hold-their-phones?utm_source=rss1.0moreanon&utm_medium=feed

at Slashdot.

https://mobile.slashdot.org/story/24/06/26/2043229/australian-bank-spots-scams-via-how-users-hold-their-phones?utm_source=rss1.0mainlinkanon&utm_medium=feed

It was because of “The whistleblower” book by an Australian journalist that made me thinks - and then I fell down the Bitcoin rabit hole

What a beautiful place to wake up to

Can someone explain why a VPN dosnt represent freedom?

Replying to Avatar Lyn Alden

One of the big macro questions is when will the US banking system run into the liquidity floor, requiring the Fed to end quantitative tightening? Due to current regulations and the "ample reserve" regime, banks generally have liquidity requirements relative to their overall size, and their overall size keeps growing nominally.

-Big banks ran into the liquidity floor in September 2019 at $1.5 trillion with the repo spike, and the Fed had to end quantitative tightening and resume mild quantitative easing (which was then overshadowed by the giga-liquidity-bazooka in 2020/2021).

-Smaller banks ran into the liquidity floor in March 2023 at $3.0 trillion (the new floor) with the regional bank crisis. Both the Fed and the Treasury provided liquidity in response, although the Fed has maintained quantitative tightening. Liquidity has been maintained above that level without being greatly elevated, which is probably what would have happened post-2019 if not for the pandemic/lockdown stuff thereafter.

The New York Fed thinks the liquidity floor will be reached sometime in 2025, and that they'll go back to gradual balance sheet expansion then. Andy Constan, formerly of Bridgewater, thinks it'll be late 2025. I debate him a bit on this since both of us cover this closely, and I generally think it'll be mid 2025, although there are enough moving variables that neither early 2025 or late 2025 would surprise me, so conservatively I say "by the end of 2025."

I was talking to a large institutional investor today, and he said that his contact who is a major repo operator at an investment bank, thinks the current floor is now $3.3 trillion, which is roughly where it is currently. That basically means any further quantitative tightening has to be offset by reverse repo drainage, or they'll have a repo issue and the Fed will need to end QT. My estimate is somewhere in the $3.1-$3.2 trillion range for the liquidity floor, meaning I think there's a bit more room than that repo operator. But either way it's pretty tight.

This is all kind of rambling but generally when that liquidity floor is reached and is responded to, it tends to be good for a lot of liquidity-driven assets, including bitcoin. And it'll probably be with a whimper more than a bang, kind of like the September 2019 repo crisis that nobody other than macro nerds remember.

Thanks Lyn, now I know what the giga -liquidity bazooka is - it’s simply the turning on of the money printing machine😎

Replying to Avatar walker

Want to understand how inflation impacts your purchasing power?

Let's look at The New Yorker, which publishes the price of each copy right on the front of the magazine.

1925: 15 cents

2024: $8.99

What the heck happened to make The New Yorker so much more expensive?

It's important to understand that technology is naturally DEFLATIONARY.

Everything should be getting cheaper over time, including The New Yorker.

Think about it: printing, writing, & editing technology has improved tremendously since 1925.

So, why is the magazine more expensive now?

From 1925 to 1971, The New Yorker increased in price from 15 cents to 50 cents, an increase of 233.33%.

That's pretty dramatic, but not THAT bad...

But from 1971 to 2024, price increased from 50 cents to $8.99, an increase of 1698%.

So, WTF happened in 1971?

In 1971, Richard Nixon "temporarily" suspended the convertibility of dollars to gold, ending the Gold Standard.

This meant that the Federal Reserve could now print dollars out of thin air without restriction.

Increasing the money supply by creating new money out of thin air is literally "inflation."

"Prices rising" is the result of inflation.

When more monetary units are created, the purchasing power of the monetary units that already exist decreases.

When the government/central bank prints money out of thin air, they are STEALING your purchasing power.

Here's The New Yorker over a few decades:

1971: $0.50

1980: $1.00

1990: $1.75

2000: $3.00

The magazine did not become more valuable, our MONEY became LESS valuable.

https://m.primal.net/KEpn.webp

https://m.primal.net/KEpo.webp

https://m.primal.net/KEpr.webp

https://m.primal.net/KEps.webp

By looking at this example of The New Yorker, which cost 15 cents in 1925 and costs $8.99 today, we see that the U.S. dollar has lost approximately 98.33% of its purchasing power in less than 100 years.

This is what happens when you print money out of thin air...

When money is controlled by the State, you are powerless to stop the destruction of your purchasing power.

Technology should be making everything LESS expensive over time, but even something as simple as a magazine gets more and more expensive over time.

So, what can you do to protect yourself from the government/central bank printing money out of thin air and destroying your purchasing power?

Study #Bitcoin with nostr:npub10qrssqjsydd38j8mv7h27dq0ynpns3djgu88mhr7cr2qcqrgyezspkxqj8

There will only ever be 21 million bitcoin and no government or central bank can print more.

Great post making it clear that we need an anti deflationary means of exchange like Bitcoin