Monthly Archives: May 2021

Probing federalism: The Supremacy Clause | Columnists | willistonherald.com – Williston Daily Herald

Posted: May 11, 2021 at 10:47 pm

Federalism, which refers to the allocation of powers between the federal and state governments, has been a source of contention since the dawn of the republic. American citizens have vigorously participated in discussions and debates about how and where the line of authority is drawn between the two spheres of governance and, as everyone knows, deeply-held, tragic misconceptions exploded in the form of the Civil War.

Historically, and in our time, many of the great political and legal issues that have enveloped the nation have lain at the doorstep of federalism. Consider, for a moment, that the Civil Rights Movement, the Womens Rights Movement, the very issue of voting requirements, qualifications and, yes, voter suppression, as well as the regulation of the economy, the environment, commerce, education and relations between and among the states, in addition to many others, have given rise to considerations of the scope, limits and contour of federalism. State legislators across the country, including North Dakota lawmakers, grapple with these questions every year.

The confusion surrounding the relative authority constitutionally granted to the federal government and the states invites a review, in the form of several columns, of the constitutional provisions that shape this relationship. We begin with Article VI, the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. The key provision in Article VI states: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution of Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Anti-Federalists, those who opposed ratification of the Constitution, viewed the Supremacy Clause as menacing because they thought it superseded their state bills of rights and authorized the enactment of laws that were offensive to their personal rights. Many Anti-Federalists thought the enumerated powers in the Constitution, enforced by the Supremacy Clause, could be abused at a high cost to their rights and liberties. Patrick Henry, he of give me liberty or give me death fame, with a flair for hyperbole, feared that tax collectors, unrestrained by a ban on general search warrants, might invade homes and search, ransack, and measure, everything you eat, drink, and wear. Others thought the taxing power of Congress might target the free press and would, in the words of Richard Henry Lee, represent a power to destroy or restrain the freedom of it. Some feared that the power to tax might require the people to support a church or religious denomination. These concerns contributed to the pressure on the first Congress to enact a Bill of Rights which, when enacted, allayed the various fears through protection against unreasonable search and seizures (Fourth Amendment), stubborn support for a free press (First Amendment), and protection through the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment against governmental authority to require citizens to support religion. For most Anti-Federalists, except for those on the fringe that still longed for the Articles of Confederation, the problem was not the Supremacy Clause, but rather the lack of a Bill of Rights. In their eyes, that shortcoming was remedied in 1791 through the ratification of the Bill of Rights.

The Supremacy Clause is the cornerstone of federal power, national supremacy and, more than anything else, assurance that the Union will function effectively. This critical provision prevents the federal government from becoming subordinate to the states, which was the principal vice and futility of the Articles of Confederation. Under the Articles, states were sovereign, an arrangement that plundered the nation in every conceivable way, including anarchy, which left the Confederation Congress helpless to address the financial woes and national security threats that confronted the newly minted United States.

Adler is president of The Alturas Institute, created to advance American Democracy through promotion of the Constitution, civic education, equal protection and gender equality.

Send questions about the Constitution to Dr. Adler at NDWTPColumn@gmail.com and he will attempt to answer them in subsequent columns.

This column is provided by the North Dakota Newspaper Association and Humanities North Dakota.

The Supremacy Clause, according to Chief Justice John Marshall, set forth two essential constitutional principles. First, states would be prohibited from interfering in any way with the functioning of the federal government. Any other arrangement, as Marshall made clear in the landmark case of McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), would render the federal government subordinate to state governments and, in fact, transfer supremacy back to the states, which would defeat the very purpose of the Constitutional Convention.

Second, federal action, whether in the form of a statute, treaty, court decision or administrative act, must prevail over any inconsistent state act. Justice Joseph Story, the most scholarly of Justices, explained the rationale the necessity of uniformity in 1816, in Martin v. Hunters Lessee: without uniformity, the laws, the treaties and the Constitution of the United States would be different in different states. The public mischiefs that would attend such a state of things would be truly deplorable. Next week, we will consider some of those public mischiefs.

Adler is president of The Alturas Institute, created to advance American Democracy through promotion of the Constitution, civic education, equal protection and gender equality.

Send questions about the Constitution to Dr. Adler at NDWTPColumn@gmail.com and he will attempt to answer them in subsequent columns.

This column is provided by the North Dakota Newspaper Association and Humanities North Dakota.

More:

Probing federalism: The Supremacy Clause | Columnists | willistonherald.com - Williston Daily Herald

Posted in Federalism | Comments Off on Probing federalism: The Supremacy Clause | Columnists | willistonherald.com – Williston Daily Herald

Cryptocurrency ether rises to new record high over $3600 – Reuters

Posted: at 10:47 pm

A representation of virtual currency Ethereum are seen in front of a stock graph in this illustration taken February 19, 2021. REUTERS/Dado Ruvic/Illustration

Ether , the world's second-largest cryptocurrency after bitcoin , on Thursday extended a breakaway rally to a new record high of $3,616.10, gathering momentum as investors diverted focus from its main rival.

On the Bitstamp Exchange ether was last up about 4.0% at $3,568.92. Bitcoin was down 0.3% at $57,353.03 and about 11% below its record intraday high at $64,895.22 set on April 14.

Ether, the token traded over the ethereum blockchain, topped $3,000 for the first time on Monday. It is up more than 385% this year, compared with 96% for bitcoin.

The rise is in part a spillover from flows into bitcoin, which has grown in stature as big-name investors from Elon Musk's carmaker Tesla Inc (TSLA.O) to Wall Street investor Stanley Druckenmiller bought in.

"Ethereum has been able to maintain its positive momentum, a crushing series of all-time highs in the past week," said Konstantin Anissimov, executive director at cryptocurrency exchange CEX.IO.

"The current all-time high has reignited the ambitious sentiment that ethereum may eventually flippen (supplant) bitcoin by market capitalization in the near future."

Also, a technical adjustment called EIP (ethereum improvement proposal) 1559, expected to reduce the supply of ethereum and go live in July, has provided a lift for the digital currency.

Still, there is a speculative frenzy going on in the asset class. Joke cryptocurrency dogecoin is up by 24,000% over the last 12 months and is now the fourth-largest cryptocurrency by market capitalization. read more

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Link:
Cryptocurrency ether rises to new record high over $3600 - Reuters

Posted in Cryptocurrency | Comments Off on Cryptocurrency ether rises to new record high over $3600 – Reuters

As scrutiny of cryptocurrency grows, industry turns to Washington lobbyists – Business Standard

Posted: at 10:47 pm

When federal regulators late last year accused one of the worlds most popular cryptocurrency platforms of illegally selling $1.38 billion worth of digital money to investors, it was a pivotal moment in efforts to crack down on a fast-growing market and in the still-nascent industrys willingness to dive deeply into the Washington influence game.

The company, Ripple Labs, has enlisted lobbyists, lawyers and other well-connected advocates to make its case to the Securities and Exchange Commission and beyond in one of the first big legal battles over what limits and requirements the government should set for trading and using digital currency.

Ripple has hired two lobbying firms in the past three months. It has retained a consulting firm staffed with former aides to both Hillary Clinton and former President Donald J. Trump to help it develop strategy in Washington. And to defend itself against the S.E.C., it hired Mary Jo White, a former chairwoman of the commission during the Obama administration.

Ripple is just one of a long list of cryptocurrency companies scrambling for influence in Washington as the Biden administration begins setting policy that could shape the course of a potentially revolutionary industry that is rapidly moving into the mainstream and drawing intensifying attention from financial regulators, law enforcement officials and lawmakers.

There is a tectonic shift underway, Perianne Boring, the president of the Chamber of Digital Commerce, a cryptocurrency lobbying group, told other industry lobbyists, executives and two House lawmakers who serve as industry champions, during a virtual gathering last month. If we dont start planning and taking action soon, we have everything to risk.

So far, cryptocurrency has been a highly volatile investment, but it is already starting to alter the way individuals, companies and even some central banks do business. Firms like Ripple, which is based in San Francisco, run cryptocurrency platforms that allow customers to make nearly instant global payments through a system that operates largely outside government monetary networks.

Globally, the value of all outstanding cryptocurrency has jumped to about $2.4 trillion or more than the approximately $1.2 trillion of United States currency in circulation worldwide from about $200 billion two years ago. This is from an industry that was born only a dozen years ago, when the first cryptocurrency, Bitcoin, was introduced.

As the stakes have grown, so has the recognition that the industrys future at least in the United States will be shaped in Washington, prompting the rush to scoop up well-connected advocates.

The board of advisers at the digital chamber is stuffed with former federal regulators, including a former member of Congress and a recent chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, J. Christopher Giancarlo, who was named to the board of BlockFi, a financial services company that tries to link cryptocurrencies with traditional wealth managers.

Max Baucus, the Democratic former chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, and Jim Messina, a former top Obama adviser, also have recently been named to senior industry posts.

Lobbying disclosure records show that at least 65 contracts as of early 2021 addressed industry matters such as digital currency, cryptocurrency or blockchain, up from about 20 in 2019. Some of the biggest spenders on lobbying include Ripple, Coinbase the largest cryptocurrency exchange in the United States and trade groups like the Blockchain Association.

The lobbying burst is one of several recent signs nationwide that the industry is becoming a bigger presence in the economy. FTX, the cryptocurrency trading firm, is spending $135 million to secure the naming rights to the home arena of the Miami Heat.

The billionaire Elon Musk, who hosted Saturday Night Live this weekend, was asked about Dogecoin, a cryptocurrency featuring the face of a Shiba Inu dog that was created as a joke but has recently surged in value. Its the future of currency. Its an unstoppable financial vehicle thats going to take over the world, Mr. Musk said, before adding, Yeah, its a hustle. The price of Dogecoin plunged nearly 35 percent in the hours after the show aired.

With the industrys hires of recent government officials, claims of conflicts of interest are already starting to emerge.

Jay Clayton, who was the S.E.C. chairman until December, is now a paid adviser to the hedge fund One River Digital Asset Management, which invests hundreds of millions in Bitcoin and Ether, two cryptocurrencies, for its clients. Mr. Clayton declined to comment.

The day before Mr. Clayton resigned from the S.E.C., the agency filed a lawsuit against Ripple Labs, which competes with Bitcoin, alleging that the company had improperly raised $1.3 billion from investors through what the agency claimed was effectively an illegal stock offering.

Binance.US, which runs a cryptocurrency exchange, this month hired as its chief executive Brian P. Brooks, who until January served as the acting head of the Office of Comptroller of the Currency, which helps regulate banks. The day before he stepped down, the agency granted a conditional charter to Anchorage Digital Bank, making it the countrys first national cryptocurrency bank. A spokeswoman for Mr. Brooks said Binance was not a bank, so there was no conflict.

Ripples new lobbying firms include one that was recently set up by K. Michael Conaway, a Republican who until this year served as a House member from Texas and helped push pro-cryptocurrency legislation last year. Mr. Conaway is banned from lobbying his former colleagues for a year.

So Ripple has enlisted Mr. Conaways former chief of staff, who is also a partner at the lobbying firm but is no longer subject to the revolving-door ban, to lobby on bills pending in Congress.

Among the other firms working for Ripple is Teneo led by Declan Kelly, a former aide to Mrs. Clinton which has assigned Tony Sayegh, a senior Treasury Department official during the Trump administration, to help shape its communications strategy in Washington.

So far, the industry has not become a big player in campaign contributions, although there are major exceptions, like Sam Bankman-Fried, the 29-year-old billionaire founder of FTX, who donated $5 million in October to a political action committee that backed President Biden. (Mr. Bankman-Fried said in an interview that his donation was not an attempt to influence industry regulation, but that he does want to participate in the discussion.)

The cryptocurrency industry has a long list of lobbying goals, detailed in an eight-page letter sent to Mr. Biden in March that called for the government to settle on a clear set of policies with a light-touch regulatory approach.

The regulatory questions relate to at least two key parts of the cryptocurrency industry: so-called tokens, which are the currencies themselves, like Bitcoin, and platforms like Ripple that allow rapid money transfers with these cryptocurrencies, or the buying and selling of them, like Coinbase.

But considerable tension remains over existing federal rules, with public sparring among rival companies like Coinbase and Binance, a sign of how hard it will be to reach consensus on any new regulations.

Industry leaders are at least somewhat hopeful that it will have more support from the Biden administration than it did from the Trump administration, pointing out, for example, that Gary Gensler, the new S.E.C. chairman, taught courses about blockchain technology at M.I.T.

At his confirmation hearing in March, Mr. Gensler said cryptocurrencies had brought new thinking to the world of payments and financial inclusion. However, he indicated that he would strike a balance between encouraging new financial technology to flourish and protecting investors.

The cryptocurrency industry is less optimistic about Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen, who expressed deep concern this year about Bitcoin.

It is a highly speculative asset, and I think people should beware, it can be extremely volatile, Ms. Yellen said at a New York Times DealBook event in February. And I do worry about potential losses that investors in it could suffer.

One sign of the industrys growing clout in Washington came during the closing days of the Trump administration, when the Treasury Department proposed a rule to curb the use of cryptocurrencies for money laundering by requiring companies handling certain transactions over $3,000 to know the names and addresses of the customer and the recipient.

Even before Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin announced the proposed rule in December, he was targeted in industry appeals to delay or abandon the idea.

In the early days of the internet, there were people who called for it to be regulated like the phone companies, Brian Armstrong, the chief executive of Coinbase, wrote on Twitter in November, adding that he had sent a letter to Treasury to object. Thank goodness they didnt.

Thousands of such comments have been sent to Treasury.

Among those raising concerns was Sigal Mandelker, who until late 2019 was the top Treasury official overseeing the financial crimes agency that proposed the tighter rule, after her departure. She now works for Ribbit Capital, which is an investor in Coinbase and other cryptocurrency industry players and joined the chorus objecting to Treasurys plan. Ms. Mandelker did not respond to a request for comment.

Mr. Mnuchin backed down and pushed off final action to the Biden administration, which has extended the comment period and is considering how to proceed.

The Ripple enforcement case brought by the S.E.C. in December centers on whether a digital asset the company sold, called XRP, should be defined as a security or a commodity, a major distinction in terms of regulation.

Ripple asserts that XRP is effectively a currency, and like any currency or commodity can be bought and sold without S.E.C. intervention. But the agency argues that each sale of XRP is like a stock or bond trade, meaning a buyer is effectively acquiring a stake in Ripple when purchasing the asset. As a result, the S.E.C. argues that Ripple should have registered with the agency and provided extensive public disclosures like those required with stock or bond offerings.

Ripple, which in 2019 became one of the first cryptocurrency companies to open a lobbying office in Washington, has aggressively pushed back, successfully asking a federal judge to force the S.E.C. to turn over what the agency considers confidential internal documents.

Stuart Alderoty, Ripples general counsel, said that in the absence of clear cryptocurrency rules, the federal government was effectively creating regulatory policy via enforcement, an approach that is confusing and harmful to investors and the industry.

If you have a responsible player in the industry, they are going to be engaging with policymakers, he said.

The S.E.C. case against Ripple has helped persuade industry players on the sidelines to get involved.

The industry needs to accept that good legislation and regulation is what is required, not no regulation, said John E. Deaton, a lawyer who has moved to intervene in the enforcement action against Ripple. Because right now it is like the Wild, Wild West, and you have different federal agencies fighting over which one has jurisdiction.

The House this month passed a bill backed by industry lobbyists to create a working group of federal regulators, industry executives, investor protection groups and others to examine possible frameworks for a regulatory system.

We need to get the big prize done, Representative Darren Soto, Democrat of Florida and a member of the Congressional Blockchain Caucus, a group of lawmakers working with the industry to help promote cryptocurrencies, told the industry conference last month. Which is the statutes and jurisdiction and definitions to create that certainty, to really let blockchain and cryptocurrency flow and improve in the United States.

More:
As scrutiny of cryptocurrency grows, industry turns to Washington lobbyists - Business Standard

Posted in Cryptocurrency | Comments Off on As scrutiny of cryptocurrency grows, industry turns to Washington lobbyists – Business Standard

Poll results show the power of federalism – Hindustan Times

Posted: at 10:47 pm

In my last column, I warned that the results of the West Bengal elections could further undermine Indias federalism and take the country one step closer to becoming a one-party democracy.

Mamata Banerjees sweeping victory has shown that even an election-winning machine as well-resourced and as successful nationally as the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) could not resist Bengali federalism. The results also show that federalism could be the way for the Opposition to challenge the BJP nationally.

The BJP charged into Bengal promising that it would guarantee the right to shout Jai Shri Ram, a right Bengalis already had and didnt particularly want to exercise. Their deity is the goddess Durga. Their language, of which they are proud, is Bengali, yet the BJP built its campaign around Hindi-speaking outsiders. Bengalis were not swayed by the fact that the star speakers were the prime minister (PM), the home minister and the BJP president. Bengalis barely starred in the campaign. Aggressive Hindutva thwarted the BJPs efforts to divide the Muslim vote. And women were shocked at the way even the PM derided Banerjee.

For the BJP, the lesson of the election taken with the results from Kerala and Tamil Nadu is that India, by its nature, is a federal nation. Its nationalism has to rejoice in its diversity rather than try to bind the nation together in an unnatural uniformity.

The Congresss failure to recognise Indias federal nature is the main reason for its humiliating position. Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury, the party leader in the Lok Sabha, and the man who had the misfortune to head the Congress campaign in Bengal, has asked, We have been decimated by Mamata Banerjee regionally and by Modiji nationally, so where do we go now? If, as is all too likely, the party reacts to this disaster in the same manner as it has reacted to disasters since 2014, it will once again go nowhere.

For 50 years, the Congress has suffered from a top-down structure which denies its state leaders the freedom to put down their own roots and establish their independence. The structure has been made even more stifling by the absolutism of the Nehru-Gandhi family. The answer to Chowdhurys question is that the Congress should go on to become a federal party with strong, independent-minded chief ministers. If that were to happen, then there might be a great homecoming of former Congressmen and women who left the party after falling out with the Gandhis. Is it beyond the bounds of possibility that this homecoming could include former Congress leader, Mamata Banerjee?

Her triumph has revived talk of a national opposition front. The Janata Party was a hurriedly cobbled together union of six parties which defeated Indira Gandhi. Although the party collapsed amid unseemly brawling over leadership, the Janata government had its achievements. The administration, derailed by the arbitrary interference of Sanjay Gandhi, was put back on the rails and legislation was passed to ensure that there could never be another Emergency of the same nature. The mistake the Janata leaders made was to merge six separate parties into one party. If they had formed a federation, it might well have been flexible enough to survive its full term.

If opposition parties now formed a federation, there would be rivalries over the leadership. But if there was agreement that the PM was only to be the first among equals, and would not have the exalted status of that office, it would be easier for leaders of different parties to work together. So where does Banerjee go now? She has said her top priority is the pandemic, and that is as it should be. If she does get involved in national politics, she should never neglect her roots, or forget that a large number of Bengalis did vote for the BJP.

The views expressed are personal

Follow this link:

Poll results show the power of federalism - Hindustan Times

Posted in Federalism | Comments Off on Poll results show the power of federalism – Hindustan Times

If You Want To Fix the Country, Devolve Power – Reason

Posted: at 10:47 pm

It's a given in American politics that partisans become born-again believers in federalism when their faction is out of power in Washington, D.C., only to lose faith in decentralization the next time they win control of Congress and the presidency. Bossing folks around is, after all, a lot more fun than being bossed around. So, it's refreshing to see in this deeply divided country at least tentative steps towards bipartisan agreement that not every issue should be settled by dictates issued from the nation's capital. As encouraging as it is, though, this grudging acceptance of live-and-let-live doesn't go far enough.

"American federalism has always been a partisan issue the GOP are the modern advocates," notes Democratic political adviser and former legislator Frank Pignanelli in the Deseret News. "But the left-leaning have reason to be equally suspicious of overreaching nationalism on key issues: privacy, immigration, environment, etc."

Pignanelli joined with Republican counterpart LaVarr Webb to warn of frantic pandemic-era spending and rules-making by first the Trump and then the Biden administrations. "[T]his immense federal intervention comes at the risk of making states even more subservient to the federal government, both financially and with more federal regulation and mandates."

Pignanelli isn't the first Democrat to discover the attractions of decentralization.

"In the wake of the presidential election, as Democrats realized that Republicans will soon control all three branches of the federal government, progressives disinclined to secede from the Union rediscovered another exit strategy: states' rights," Jeffrey Rosen wrote for The New York Times in 2016. Democrats spent the next several years battling for local governance against the Trump administration's insistence on federal control over matters such as immigration and marijuana.

Since then, Democrats have recaptured the presidency, the House, and (sort of) the Senate. Now they're back to insisting that beltway preferences should prevailat least when their party's positions on issues such as guns and taxes differ with local preferences.

This back-and-forthing on the value of local control vs. central supremacy is exhausting, not to mention overtly opportunistic. As Pignanelli adds, with Webb's agreement, "Federalism must be a bipartisan issue. Otherwise, it will continue to be subject to the inconsistent whims of elections."

To some extent, this opportunism is baked into American politics, argued Ernest A. Young, then of the University of Texas at Austin School of Law, in a 2004 Brooklyn Law Review article about attitudes towards federalism during the War on Terror. He saw switching preferences on central vs. local power as inherent to a system in which elections are won and lost, rotating factions through control of the federal government and localities. "Federalism is about dividing power; nothing much depends on what the power in question is being used for," Young wrote.

But "[i]t is also about providing institutional space for a diversity of political views" and so is inherently important beyond its utility to whoever lost the last federal election. State and local autonomy functions "as a rallying point for political opposition to national policy" and "assures that a particular faction cannot become entrenched and unaccountable in power."

Or, as Webb put it in the Deseret News, "On issues like gun control and the minimum wage, why not let Wyoming be Wyoming and New York be New York? Half of congressional dysfunction could be eliminated by modestly accepting the diversity of our country."

That political differences are coming into dangerous conflict is obvious not just from the formal contests observed by Pignanelli, Webb, and Young, but from the national tensions and strife of recent years. February polling by CBS News/YouGov found that 57 percent of Republicans think of Democrats not as political opponents, but as "enemies"; 41 percent of Democrats return the sentiment.

"The country is increasingly split into camps that don't just disagree on policy and politics they see the other as alien, immoral, a threat," Nate Cohn commented in The New York Times last month. It's not an unprecedented problem, he notes, and other countries that have divided into mutually loathing camps have kept the peace and held together through arrangements including "power-sharing agreements, devolution or home rule."

Power-sharing, devolution, or home rule sounds a lot like federalism, come to think of it, and for good reason. Decentralization of power reduces the danger that people will resent top-down decisions that are contrary to their own preferences and that may even be maliciously intended to hurt "enemies" in a sectarian society. If you believe that people of varied values and preferences shouldn't be forced to live in lockstep, it makes sense to embrace "space for a diversity of political views" and to largely "let Wyoming be Wyoming and New York be New York."

But the federalism of the Constitution was designed for a nation of about 4 million people; many states and even some counties are now more populous than the whole country was at the founding. Are you really allowing free range for diverse views by devolving control down to the level of a California or a Texas that each contain multitudes sufficient to entertain many more conflicting ideas than the original United States could have contemplated? Even Los Angeles County, with 10 million people, is far larger than the entire United States of 1790.

At this point, real federalism, through the devolution of power, requires more than paying lip service to the existence of states and their ability to set independent policies. Decision-making has to go further down the food chain, at least to the county level, to revive something like the federalism of the Constitution. To the extent possible, power should devolve to individuals whose right to make their own decisions and govern their own lives should be respected. Individual self-rule is about as pure an expression of the distributed power embodied by federalism as you'll find.

Failing that, the major parties will continue to pretend that they care about federalism when they've lost control of Washington, D.C., and discard their faith in the principle when they've regained a grip on the central political apparatus. And the country will continue to descend into sectarianism and strife as they play their opportunistic games.

See the rest here:

If You Want To Fix the Country, Devolve Power - Reason

Posted in Federalism | Comments Off on If You Want To Fix the Country, Devolve Power – Reason

1 Simple (and Safer) Way to Invest in Cryptocurrency – The Motley Fool

Posted: at 10:47 pm

Cryptocurrency has been making waves in the investing world, and many investors may be wondering whether it's time to jump on the crypto bandwagon.

While it's true that some cryptocurrencies, such as Bitcoin (CRYPTO:BTC), have experienced phenomenal returns over the past few months, that doesn't necessarily mean they're a safe investment.

Cryptocurrency is highly speculative at this point, and nobody knows what kind of staying power it has. Although it could change the world, it could just as easily crash and burn. Right now, it's too soon to tell what the future has in store for cryptocurrency.

Image source: Getty Images.

In addition, crypto is famous for its volatility. Bitcoin lost roughly 80% of its value at one point, and since the beginning of the year, it has experienced a roller coaster of ups and downs. Not all investors have the stomach for that type of turbulence.

However, if you're eager to invest in cryptocurrency but want to limit your risk, there's another option: crypto stocks.

When most people think of investing in cryptocurrency, they think of investing directly in the currency itself. But it's possible to invest in crypto without actually investing in crypto.

A crypto stock is a company that is involved in cryptocurrency in some way. That could mean the company offers crypto as a form of payment, it may have invested in crypto, or maybe it builds the technology behind digital currencies.

Take Tesla, for example. The company announced this year that it made a $1.5 billion investment in Bitcoin, and it also accepts Bitcoin as a form of payment.

NVIDIA is another example of a crypto stock. The tech company designs and builds graphics processing units (GPUs), which are often used in the creation of cryptocurrency.

If you were to invest in Tesla or NVIDIA, you wouldn't be investing in cryptocurrency directly. However, if crypto does become mainstream and is adopted as a standard form of currency, these companies could benefit from it. As a result, your investments could thrive.

Crypto stocks are generally safer than investing in cryptocurrency directly. This is because crypto is only a portion of these companies' businesses. If digital currencies fail to see long-term success, the companies themselves likely won't crash along with them.

Although crypto stocks may be less risky than investing in cryptocurrency itself, there are still a couple of things to consider before investing.

First, look at the company as a whole to decide whether it's a solid investment. In other words, don't invest in a stock only because of the cryptocurrency factor. The best investments are the companies that have solid fundamentals and are likely to remain strong over the long term. If they happen to be invested in crypto as well, that's an added bonus.

Also, make sure you have a well-diversified portfolio if you decide to invest in crypto stocks. Building a diversified portfolio is a smart move regardless of where you choose to invest, but it can help limit your risk even further if your crypto stocks don't perform well.

Investing in crypto stocks can be a smart way to diversify into cryptocurrency while limiting your risk. Just be sure you're choosing your investments wisely and opting for stocks that have strong underlying fundamentals. By investing for the long term, you're more likely to see success with crypto stocks.

This article represents the opinion of the writer, who may disagree with the official recommendation position of a Motley Fool premium advisory service. Were motley! Questioning an investing thesis -- even one of our own -- helps us all think critically about investing and make decisions that help us become smarter, happier, and richer.

Read more:
1 Simple (and Safer) Way to Invest in Cryptocurrency - The Motley Fool

Posted in Cryptocurrency | Comments Off on 1 Simple (and Safer) Way to Invest in Cryptocurrency – The Motley Fool

Why Scottish independence and federalism within the UK could have similar practical outcomes Joyce McMillan – The Scotsman

Posted: at 10:47 pm

As the long neoliberal experiment of the past 40 years has shown, fantasies of total individual freedom, as a legitimate goal of politics, tend to destroy communities, reward sociopaths, and create societies notable for their heartless prioritisation of wealth over all other measures of value.

And fantasies of total national freedom are, of course, at least as dangerous, disrupting the ordinary trading and human relationships that enable neighbours to work together in harmony, and often leading directly to conflict.

Sign up to our Opinion newsletter

Sign up to our Opinion newsletter

If Scots need a vivid example of those dangers, they need look no further than the shambolic conduct of Britains exit from the European Union, an infantile fantasy of freedom from all European ties now playing itself out in the waters off Jersey, as two near neighbours and allies waste time and money bickering over fishing and power supply arrangements that were operating without difficulty until the Brexit disruption.

The Daily Mail may be delighted to be able to quote a French official declaring himself ready for war over the fisheries dispute. To many Scots, though, this kind of absurd and tragic sabre-rattling between friends represents yet another reason why Scotland now urgently needs to get out from under the rule of an increasingly jingoistic UK Conservative Party, for which we have not voted since the 1950s.

If and when it finally opts for independence, though, Scotland needs unlike the Brexiteers to be clear-sighted about one thing; and that is that independence in the 21st century world is always limited, and highly dependent on negotiations with neighbouring nations. Its much to the credit of Scotlands independence movement that it long ago accepted this truth in relation to the European Union, and other European trading blocs.

Interdependency with England, though, is a harder pill for some independence supporters to swallow, as is the idea that the disentangling of our 314-year union would probably take many years of negotiation, if it is to be completed in the kind of good order that has been so lamentably absent from the Brexit process.

Despite apocalyptic predictions to the contrary, there are plenty of examples of mature negotiations over these matters in the history of the UK itself, not least in the negotiations for Irish independence, a century ago this year, which resulted in free trade, a common travel area, and even mutual voting rights, never challenged to this day.

However irritating such complicated arrangements may be, though, to those elements in the independence movement that simply want to cry freedom! and be gone the Alba faction, if you will these are the real options and possibilities that will have to be confronted, if and when Scotland votes for a radical change in its relationship with the rest of the UK.

And the truth about all of this negotiation if it goes well, and is not rushed is that its likely outcome is some kind of new confederal arrangement, among the countries of these islands, not vastly different in its practical outcomes from what could have been achieved at any time in the last 30 years, by a full-blooded federal reform of the United Kingdoms antiquated political system, and its doctrine of absolute Westminster sovereignty.

Even now with Wales and northern England growing ever more restless the Labour Party is setting up a new Constitutional Commission to propose radical change, with Gordon Brown, who is to advise it, talking of a constitutional revolution.

In the end, though, there are two profound problems with the idea of further constitutional reform initiated by the UK government. The first lies in the politics of England, which is still with a few exceptions profoundly uninterested in any such project. And the second lies in the politics of Scotland, which has heard these assurances of further UK reform before, notably in the flagrantly broken Vow of September 2014, and is increasingly unwilling to give them credence.

The Brexit debacle has made it increasingly clear to at least half of Scots voters that the relationship between Scotland and Westminster urgently requires renegotiation; and most of those voters are now likely to conclude that the only way to kick-start that negotiation, on something resembling an equal basis, is for Scotland to vote for independence and assert its legal sovereignty, and then to take it from there.

It is all a far cry, of course, from the politics of Braveheart, or the oft-repeated image since the good ship Brexit set sail of Scotland simply paddling off in its own little lifeboat, towards the bright lights of the European Union.

For our own peace and prosperity, we will always have to move in convoy with England to some extent, and to maintain powerful links with all the millions there who share same needs and aspirations as most ordinary Scots; my own trade union, the National Union of Journalists, continued to organise across the UK and Ireland after 1922, and would do the same in the event of Scottish independence.

Yet so far and whatever the outcome of yesterdays vote north of the Border there is little sign of English politics changing in a way that would make that Scottish assertion of independence less necessary.

And unless the UK government stops treating Scottish opinion with evident contempt, and using the vagaries of the British constitution to impose its will on a dissenting nation, the chances are that that moment of Scottish self-assertion will continue, little by little, to become more likely; and increasingly difficult to avert.

A message from the Editor:

Thank you for reading this article. We're more reliant on your support than ever as the shift in consumer habits brought about by coronavirus impacts our advertisers.

Go here to see the original:

Why Scottish independence and federalism within the UK could have similar practical outcomes Joyce McMillan - The Scotsman

Posted in Federalism | Comments Off on Why Scottish independence and federalism within the UK could have similar practical outcomes Joyce McMillan – The Scotsman

Cryptocurrency investors should be prepared to lose all their money, Bank of England governor says – CNBC

Posted: at 10:47 pm

Bank of England Governor Andrew Bailey.

Simon Dawson | Bloomberg via Getty Images

LONDON Cryptocurrencies "have no intrinsic value" and people who invest in them should be prepared to lose all their money, Bank of England Governor Andrew Bailey said.

Digital currencies like bitcoin, ether and even dogecoin have been on a tear this year, reminding some investors of the 2017 crypto bubble in which bitcoin blasted toward $20,000, only to sink as low as $3,122 a year later.

Asked at a press conference Thursday about the rising value of cryptocurrencies, Bailey said: "They have no intrinsic value. That doesn't mean to say people don't put value on them, because they can have extrinsic value. But they have no intrinsic value."

"I'm going to say this very bluntly again," he added. "Buy them only if you're prepared to lose all your money."

Bailey's comments echoed a similar warning from the U.K.'s Financial Conduct Authority.

"Investing in cryptoassets, or investments and lending linked to them, generally involves taking very high risks with investors' money," the financial services watchdog said in January.

"If consumers invest in these types of product, they should be prepared to lose all their money."

Bailey, who was formerly the chief executive of the FCA, has long been a skeptic of crypto. In 2017, he warned: "If you want to invest in bitcoin, be prepared to lose all your money."

Bitcoin is up over 90% this year, thanks in part to rising interest from institutional investors and corporate buyers such as Tesla. The electric car firm bought $1.5 billion worth of bitcoin earlier this year, and the value of its holdings have since risen to nearly $2.5 billion.

Proponents of bitcoin see it as a store of value akin to gold because of its scarce supply only 21 million bitcoins can ever be minted arguing that the cryptocurrency can act as a hedge against inflation as central banks around the world print money to relieve coronavirus-battered economies.

However, skeptics view bitcoin as a market bubble waiting to burst. Michael Hartnett, chief investment strategist at Bank of America Securities, said bitcoin's rally looks like the "mother of all bubbles," while Alvine Capital's Stephen Isaacs said there are "no fundamentals with this product, period."

Alternative digital currencies have made even larger gains than bitcoin. Ether, the native token of the Ethereum blockchain, has seen returns of more than 360% year to date, while meme-inspired crypto dogecoin is up a whopping 12,500%.

Analysts have attributed dogecoin's rise to tweets from celebrities like Tesla's Elon Musk and Mark Cuban, as well as retail investors buying the token on the free-trading app Robinhood. David Kimberley, an analyst at U.K. investing app Freetrade, described the dogecoin rally as "a classic example of greater fool theory at play," referring to the practice of selling overvalued assets to investors who are willing to pay a higher price.

At the same time, central banks are considering whether to issue their own digital currencies. Last month, the Bank of England launched a joint taskforce with the Treasury aimed at exploring central bank digital currencies, or CBDCs. Such a currency would exist alongside cash and bank deposits rather than replacing them, the bank said.

Read more:
Cryptocurrency investors should be prepared to lose all their money, Bank of England governor says - CNBC

Posted in Cryptocurrency | Comments Off on Cryptocurrency investors should be prepared to lose all their money, Bank of England governor says – CNBC

Cryptocurrency On the Move – Yahoo Finance

Posted: at 10:47 pm

Julie Hyman, Brian Sozzi, and Myles Udland discuss the flow of cryptocurrency as Dogecoin slows and Ethereum rises.

JULIE HYMAN: --open, and we got to talk about cryptocurrencies here this morning, following Elon Musk's star turn on Saturday Night Live. We'll leave the reviews of his performance aside. Well, maybe we won't. I thought he was fine. But he did, of course, as expected, talk about Dogecoin.

But, well, maybe those Dogecoiners didn't get what they bargained for, as we saw the price fall. And he basically said, it's a hustle, right, during the news update portion of it. Myles, you know, I guess this illustrates just what Dogecoin is all about, which is not much. But at the same time, we're seeing things like Ethereum go higher. So I don't know. What's our sort of Musk, SNL, Dogecoin correlation chart look like this morning?

MYLES UDLAND: Well, did you think that-- do you think that he was imitating Tom Kean with the bow tie? Because that was my thought, is that--

JULIE HYMAN: Oh.

MYLES UDLAND: --he trying to find, like, venerated financial commentator. And you kind of have two options. You could try to be Jim Cramer, which would be a jacket-- well, let's see, no jacket, tie, rolled up sleeves, bang the table, or you do the bow tie look with the glasses, which is what Elon went. And I sort of thought he was basically imitating versions of us, but no one's going to imitate any of the three of us on the air. But they might imitate Tom Kean. So maybe that was kind of my thought with that.

And I thought it was, you know, sure, it's a hustle, whatever. I think people's focus on the action in Doge during SNL, like, whatever. I mean, I'm surprised by myself, honestly, at how little interest I have in trying to get involved in the Doge conversation or the crypto conversation. But you know what? It just doesn't excite me maybe to the extent that it should, given this environment.

There we see in the real stock market, things that are not just vibes, or whatever we want to call them, on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange, Coke Euro PAC Partners, CCET. Of course, there are multiple Coke-related tickers out there, KO, the main ones, CCET ringing the bell down on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange. But let's stay on the important news, Julie. Talk a bit more about SNL.

Story continues

JULIE HYMAN: Well, all I was going to say is what's interesting here is that we're starting to see more differentiation among the cryptocurrencies. That perhaps is an interesting takeaway. I mean, the action in Dogecoin is pretty parallel to what we saw with the so-called Doge Day, right, on 4/20, where there was a lot of talk about it going up to the day, and then it fell on the day itself. You know, classic sort of buy the rumor, sell the news or whatever version of that trope you want to use. And we see Ethereum going up today.

There don't seem to be a lot of catalysts, usually, for this stuff. But it does show the different flows and the ins and outs of the different cryptocurrencies. I don't know exactly what's driving what, but we do see the breakdown in correlation between them for what it's worth.

BRIAN SOZZI: And for what it's worth, Myles, if I was going on SNL this coming weekend, I would imitate you. No doubt about it, baby.

MYLES UDLAND: I mean, look, there's plenty there. It's just that everyone's going to be like, no one knows who that guy is. So it can't be-- like, you have to imitate a famous person. And I think Tom is probably famous enough, although, look, I mean, we all know the crossover between the Bloomberg surveillance audience and SNL watchers probably pretty limited.

JULIE HYMAN: Yeah, I don't know. I wonder kind of what the boomer audience of SNL is at this point in time. And PS, I would love to see Brian Sozzi's Myles Udland impression. Perhaps at our afternoon meeting, you can give us a little preview. All right, we are going to move it on to commodities here, because as we talked about at the top of the show, we're definitely seeing commodities movement.

And it's really across commodities, right? Whether you're talking about metals or energy or agriculture, all of that is going up. We're watching copper prices hit new highs. We talked about the spike in gasoline, although that was event-driven. And most of what we're seeing in commodities is supply, demand-driven much more broadly, right?

I was telling you guys in this morning's meeting, you know, more and more, we are seeing the real world consequences of this, whether it's Tyson talking about feed costs going up or, you know, the-- my livestock farmer, who I talked to at the farmer's market, talking about lumber prices going up for his barns and feed prices skyrocketing, as I noticed his prices going up. I mean, this stuff is making its way through the system.

BRIAN SOZZI: Yeah, and--

MYLES UDLAND: Yeah, I mean, look--

BRIAN SOZZI: --it's amazing, Julie, that the market can absolutely care less. I mean, you have the Dow out of the gate here up on 170 points. You have that deep freeze in Texas a couple of months ago. The stock market still goes up here. To me, if this was a couple of years ago, I would have thought, well, maybe the market is down a couple hundred points here on the Dow in the early going. And it's not. And, Myles, I think we're continuing to watch the power of the Federal Reserve, their ability to put a lot of money into the system and essentially make any dips in the markets essentially viable.

MYLES UDLAND: Yeah, and look, I think we continue-- I mean, this story for 2021 is starting to come into focus, right? I mean, we don't-- I mean, it's the economic version of the medical supply story that hit in 2020. Last year, we didn't have enough PPE. We didn't have enough ventilators. We didn't have enough medical staff to take care of all the COVID patients. And now, we don't have enough workers. We don't have enough stuff, so it's commodities, inputs, whatever it might be, to provide for all the demand that is coming in from consumers.

And you can go almost infinite different directions with how that economic pressure is playing out. But it has been quite a long time since we have seen just this many real resource constraints on the economy, hitting all at once. And how it plays out, I don't think any of us really know. We all have sort of our ideas of where this goes. But it is certainly the most unique economic environment that we have seen, at least so far as I can recall.

JULIE HYMAN: And yet, it's not having that much of a depressive effect on stocks as--

More here:
Cryptocurrency On the Move - Yahoo Finance

Posted in Cryptocurrency | Comments Off on Cryptocurrency On the Move – Yahoo Finance

What the dogecoin army is saying as the cryptocurrency’s tumble triggers a bearish break in the long-term trend line – MarketWatch

Posted: at 10:47 pm

A major tumble in dogecoin prices has one of the most popular meme assets in the doghouse with investors on Mothers Day at least for the moment.

Dont miss: Dogecoin price flops as Elon Musk hosts Saturday Night Live

At last check Sunday evening, dogecoin DOGEUSD, -2.66% was changing hands at 55 cents, according to CoinDesk. The virtual coin had been down by as much as 36% overnight, hitting a low of around 47 cents in New York.

Its drop has driven the crypto below its 200-day moving average, which stands at 51.99 cents, according to Investing.com. A move above or below a 200-day moving average a proxy for changes in an assets long-term trend is always closely watched by traders for bullish and bearish trends.

Sundays slump was seen by some as bearish for doge after anticipation around Musks SNL appearance, as a patron of crypto broadly and dogecoin specifically, failed to deliver a jolt to doge.

One Reddit user appeared to blame doges fall on a lack of conviction by investors in doge, which was created in 2013 as a lighthearted riff on the emergence of a wave of alternatives to the worlds most prominent crypto, bitcoin BTCUSD, +0.26%.

Paper hands refers to investors that tend to sell easily rather than adhering to popular a strategy in the crypto world known as holding indefinitely or hodling.

Bullish talk about dogecoin by the chief executive of Tesla Inc. TSLA, -1.88% and Space Exploration Technologies Corp., had been a rallying point for the doge community,which had been eagerly anticipating his appearance, but dogecoin owners who had hoped his mention of the digital currency on TV would boost its price toward $1 were left disappointed.

Doge devotees have very publicly set a target of $1 for the coin in 2021, a number that might seem extremely modest at first glance but not when viewed through the lens that Doge traded at $0.005 on the final day of 2020.

So far in 2021, doge is up over 10,000%, even factoring in its recent pullback. Gains in traditional assets have been pedestrian set against dogecoin. Gold futures GC00, -0.38% are down 3% so far this year, the Dow Jones Industrial Average DJIA, -1.36% and the S&P 500 index SPX, -0.87% are up by nearly 13% in 2021, while the Nasdaq Composite Index COMP, -0.09% has gained about over 6% so far this year.

NBC said that for the first time it livestreamed SNL internationally via YouTube in more than 100 countries, including Australia, Brazil and South Africa.

During SNLs Weekend Update, co-anchors Michael Che and Colin Jost pressed a fictional financial expert named Lloyd Ostertag, who was played by Musk, to explain dogecoin. His efforts werent successful: OK, but whatisDogecoin? was the constant refrain of the anchors. Eventually, they reach the conclusion, prompted by Che, that dogecoin is just a hustle.

Staunch supporters of dogecoin are advocating for investors to remain committed despite the major setback, which is likely caused by investors opportunistically deciding that it was a good time to take some profits on the speculative surge in doge.

Other purported investors in dogecoin on social media sites like Reddit implied that expectations for Musks SNL appearance to be a major catalyst for doge were likely overdone.

Some speculated that the decline in dogecoin was tied to large investor unwinding a big position:

Whale rumors come as Barry Silbert, a power player in the digital-asset sector, said hes betting against dogecoinand urged investors in one of the hottest trades in 2021 to convert their doge holdings into bitcoin via a Saturday tweet.

Silbert also said that he would donate $1 million to charity if dogecoin hit $1 by May 31.

The doge army, so far, has taken Silberts comments as an affront.

Still, others pointed to technical glitches on popular trading platform Robinhood Markets as contributing to some of the downturn in doge early Sunday.

Worth a read: A $25 billion dogecoin whale lurks, but Robinhood CEO says we dont have significant positions in any of the coins we keep

Popular financial blogger and CEO of Ritholtz Wealth Management in Midtown Manhattan, Josh Brown in a Saturday blog wrote that SNLs record spoofing on financial markets has tended to mark the top of most assets, including the speculative fervor around GameStop Corp. GME, +2.58% and nonfungible tokens, or NFTs.

I think its worth pointing out that Saturday Night Live has done lots of stuff about financial markets and the economy recently and the sketches have actually been pretty funny. Unfortunately, theyve also marked the top in price or enthusiasm for the underlying subject matter, he wrote.

In the end, the dogecoin army is trying to look on the rosier side of things. Early investors are still enjoying major gains.

Its the newbie investors who are facing the most pain.

See original here:
What the dogecoin army is saying as the cryptocurrency's tumble triggers a bearish break in the long-term trend line - MarketWatch

Posted in Cryptocurrency | Comments Off on What the dogecoin army is saying as the cryptocurrency’s tumble triggers a bearish break in the long-term trend line – MarketWatch