Tuesday, May 31, 2022

[Altcoin Discussion] - June 2022

Thread topics include, but are not limited to:

  • Discussion related to recent events
  • Technical analysis, trading ideas & strategies
  • General questions about altcoins

Thread guidelines:

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • All regular rules for this subreddit apply, except for number 2. This, and only this, thread is exempt from the requirement that all discussion must relate to bitcoin trading.
  • This is for high quality discussion of altcoins. All shilling or obvious pumping/dumping behavior will result in an immediate one day ban. This is your only warning.
  • No discussion about specific ICOs. Established coins only.

If you're not sure what kind of discussion belongs in this thread, here are some example posts. News, TA, and sentiment analysis are great, too.

Other ways to interact:


USD Stable Coin That Prevents a “Run on Reserves”, Shrinking and Growing Supply as Needed

Introduction to problem: I was going through different ideas on how to save $USTC from its de-pegging event. While thinking of ideas I thought about how would someone go about creating a crypto coin that held 1 USD with out a second crypto as the coins reserve because this is what $USTC would need to fully recover because it’s reserve coin (now $LUNC) essentially went to zero making $USTC backed by nothing and trading on pure speculation. Many proposed burning $USTC but at this point the algorithm is lost without its pair $LUNC. In this short essay I will explain a solution that I came across which might have even more benefits than any other crypto weather it is a stable coin or a regular fluctuating price coin.

How stable coins are supposed to work: Stable coins are supposed to provide immediate liquidity of exactly 1USD when a seller wants to sell. The key to this is by either having 1USD to give to a seller of the coin, or if at the time the seller wants to sell their coin it is worth less then 1 USD, Allowing the seller to swap to a separate crypto reserve for 1 USD in that crypto to receive their money that way. The issue is that both of these methods can create a run on their reserves. Wether the company who says they can always give you a dollar for each coin runs out of dollars or the reserve runs out of value. Both end up with a large collapse. What if I told you there might be a way to create a reserve through the buyer and seller without causing a collapse? The basic premise is that the farther away from 1USD the coin becomes the more it costs per transaction for the same USD in crypto. The extra money per transaction (buy/sell) goes towards the natural reserve of the network. This means that as the coin starts to de-peg down, it becomes backed by more USD and gains trust back that there coin is worth 1USD.

How this works out in sudo-code: Seller price per coin if slips below 1 USD = $1.01

Buyer percentage fee per coin if slips above 1 USD = 1%

If (coin price < 1 USD){ 1. Sellers will sell their coin with a transaction fee per coin where 2. Transaction fee per coin = (Seller price per coin if slip below 1 USD / coin price) - 1) 3. //This extra fee will be used by the network to buy and burn the coin until back to 1 USD. This creates many different pressures on the coin as it 1. reduces the number of people willing to sell at a loss of the percentage fee 2. decreases the supply of the coin 3. Buyers will want to buy more as they can take profits when it re-pegs to 1 USD. 4. //Please note that the buyer does not pay a transaction fee only the seller does. } Else If(coin price > 1 USD){ 1. Buyers will buy their coin with a transaction fee per coin where 2. Transaction fee per coin = coin price * buyer percentage fee per coin if slips above USD 3. //This extra fee will be used by the network to mint new coin 1USD to 1Coin. This also creates many pressures on the coin as it 1. Will cause buyers to not want to buy the coin at a loss of the fee percentage 2. Increases the supply of the coin 3. Causes sell pressure because anyone holding the coin would make money selling at above 1USD. 4. // please note the seller does not pay a transaction fee only the buyer does. } Else if (coin price == 1USD){ 1. Create New coins for buyers at 1 coin per 1USD and liquidate sellers per usual. }

other points: 1. Many might wonder why someone would buy or sell at the cost of a transaction fee at all? In the case of ask and bid prices it works similarly. The benefit of those paying that extra fee is simple, transaction time. It gives those paying the fee the ability to get in and out fast instead of setting some limit order at 1 USD and waiting for the supply to increase or decrease back to a stable price. 2. The fundamental Theory behind this coin is it uses the same principles as brokerages use to steal your money except it can be implemented in a way that only takes the max amount of USD needed to keep your coins safe at the 1 USD price point. While also not being used for a profit. 3. Why might this kill exchanges? An easier question to ask is why go back to USD and normal banking transactions when you can invest in crypto that will always be 1 USD. You can swap your token into long term Bitcoin investments and if you think Bitcoin will go down or you need to pay for things in USD it will always be there waiting. The exchanges will no longer be able to steal their commissions from you going fully in and out with actual USD. 4. The transaction fees can also be increased or decreased as if there is a lot of momentum towards a de-peg up or down it can be pulled back to 1 USD much faster. 5. The benefits of this are that it essentially can grow and shrink with the demand of the market and is hard coded to be backed 1:1 instead of having to trust people (like with USDC where they have been found to lie) that the coin is backed 1:1

Math to show dumping a coin to crash the value is nearly impossible and will always gradually go back to 1USD: Coin price = .09USD Transaction fee for seller per coin = 1.01 - .09 = .82USD Coins repurchased and burned by network using the transaction fee = .82 / .09 = 9.111111 coins Making it near impossible for any large dump to cause a crash in value More pressure can be added by increasing the original value of 1.01 USD to something more and once peg is re-attached decreasing back to 1.01 USD or whatever preferred value is decided.

Final Words/ Call to action: If any developers would like to work with me my name is Gavin Bogdan and please message my Reddit (u/Signal_League_8929) or reply with your thoughts.

Final Thoughts: I spent a lot of time working out in general how it would work but, I still need a better way of picking the seller price per coin and buyer percentage per coin. A way I thought of doing it was with an inversely related equation with a constant that can be changed to make the fee move larger the faster the price falls or rises. However, I think the core design is strong enough that the fee does not have to be so dynamic and can be set to one number and changed later on in the project if there is abnormal moves away from 1 USD per coin.


A Different Type of Crypto Coin by: Gavin Bogdan

Before I get into my essay I would like to say I put a lot of time and effort into this idea and could not find any cryptos who do this exact thing. Please let me know your thoughts below.

Introduction to problem: I was going through different ideas on how to save $USTC from its de-pegging event. While thinking of ideas I thought about how would someone go about creating a crypto coin that held 1 USD with out a second crypto as the coins reserve because this is what $USTC would need to fully recover because it’s reserve coin (now $LUNC) essentially went to zero making $USTC backed by nothing and trading on pure speculation. Many proposed burning $USTC but at this point the algorithm is lost without its pair $LUNC. In this short essay I will explain a solution that I came across which might have even more benefits than any other crypto weather it is a stable coin or a regular fluctuating price coin.

How stable coins are supposed to work: Stable coins are supposed to provide immediate liquidity of exactly 1USD when a seller wants to sell. The key to this is by either having 1USD to give to a seller of the coin, or if at the time the seller wants to sell their coin it is worth less then 1 USD, Allowing the seller to swap to a separate crypto reserve for 1 USD in that crypto to receive their money that way. The issue is that both of these methods can create a run on their reserves. Wether the company who says they can always give you a dollar for each coin runs out of dollars or the reserve runs out of value. Both end up with a large collapse. What if I told you there might be a way to create a reserve through the buyer and seller without causing a collapse? The basic premise is that the farther away from 1USD the coin becomes the more it costs per transaction for the same USD in crypto. The extra money per transaction (buy/sell) goes towards the natural reserve of the network. This means that as the coin starts to de-peg down, it becomes backed by more USD and gains trust back that there coin is worth 1USD.

How this works out in sudo-code: Seller price per coin if slips below 1 USD = $1.01

Buyer percentage fee per coin if slips above 1 USD = 1%

If (coin price < 1 USD){ 1. Sellers will sell their coin with a transaction fee per coin where 2. Transaction fee per coin = (Seller price per coin if slip below 1 USD / coin price) - 1) 3. //This extra fee will be used by the network to buy and burn the coin until back to 1 USD. This creates many different pressures on the coin as it 1. reduces the number of people willing to sell at a loss of the percentage fee 2. decreases the supply of the coin 3. Buyers will want to buy more as they can take profits when it re-pegs to 1 USD. 4. //Please note that the buyer does not pay a transaction fee only the seller does. } Else If(coin price > 1 USD){ 1. Buyers will buy their coin with a transaction fee per coin where 2. Transaction fee per coin = coin price * buyer percentage fee per coin if slips above USD 3. //This extra fee will be used by the network to mint new coin 1USD to 1Coin. This also creates many pressures on the coin as it 1. Will cause buyers to not want to buy the coin at a loss of the fee percentage 2. Increases the supply of the coin 3. Causes sell pressure because anyone holding the coin would make money selling at above 1USD. 4. // please note the seller does not pay a transaction fee only the buyer does. } Else if (coin price == 1USD){ 1. Create New coins for buyers at 1 coin per 1USD and liquidate sellers per usual. }

other points: 1. Many might wonder why someone would buy or sell at the cost of a transaction fee at all? In the case of ask and bid prices it works similarly. The benefit of those paying that extra fee is simple, transaction time. It gives those paying the fee the ability to get in and out fast instead of setting some limit order at 1 USD and waiting for the supply to increase or decrease back to a stable price. 2. The fundamental Theory behind this coin is it uses the same principles as brokerages use to steal your money except it can be implemented in a way that only takes the max amount of USD needed to keep your coins safe at the 1 USD price point. While also not being used for a profit. 3. Why might this kill exchanges? An easier question to ask is why go back to USD and normal banking transactions when you can invest in crypto that will always be 1 USD. You can swap your token into long term Bitcoin investments and if you think Bitcoin will go down or you need to pay for things in USD it will always be there waiting. The exchanges will no longer be able to steal their commissions from you going fully in and out with actual USD. 4. The transaction fees can also be increased or decreased as if there is a lot of momentum towards a de-peg up or down it can be pulled back to 1 USD much faster. 5. The benefits of this are that it essentially can grow and shrink with the demand of the market and is hard coded to be backed 1:1 instead of having to trust people (like with USDC where they have been found to lie) that the coin is backed 1:1

Final Words/ Call to action: If any developers would like to work with me my name is Gavin Bogdan and please message my Reddit or reply with your thoughts.

Final Thoughts: I spent a lot of time working out in general how it would work but, I still need a better way of picking the seller price per coin and buyer percentage per coin. A way I thought of doing it was with an inversely related equation with a constant that can be changed to make the fee move larger the faster the price falls or rises. However, I think the core design is strong enough that the fee does not have to be so dynamic and can be set to one number and changed later on in the project if there is abnormal moves away from 1 USD per coin.


The perfect Stable Coin That isn’t a Stable Coin

Before I get into my essay I would like to say I put a lot of time and effort into this idea and could not find any cryptos who do this exact thing. Please let me know your thoughts below.

Introduction to problem: I was going through different ideas on how to save $USTC from its de-pegging event. While thinking of ideas I thought about how would someone go about creating a crypto coin that held 1 USD with out a second crypto as the coins reserve because this is what $USTC would need to fully recover because it’s reserve coin (now $LUNC) essentially went to zero making $USTC backed by nothing and trading on pure speculation. Many proposed burning $USTC but at this point the algorithm is lost without its pair $LUNC. In this short essay I will explain a solution that I came across which might have even more benefits than any other crypto weather it is a stable coin or a regular fluctuating price coin.

How stable coins are supposed to work: Stable coins are supposed to provide immediate liquidity of exactly 1USD when a seller wants to sell. The key to this is by either having 1USD to give to a seller of the coin, or if at the time the seller wants to sell their coin it is worth less then 1 USD, Allowing the seller to swap to a separate crypto reserve for 1 USD in that crypto to receive their money that way. The issue is that both of these methods can create a run on their reserves. Wether the company who says they can always give you a dollar for each coin runs out of dollars or the reserve runs out of value. Both end up with a large collapse. What if I told you there might be a way to create a reserve through the buyer and seller without causing a collapse? The basic premise is that the farther away from 1USD the coin becomes the more it costs per transaction for the same USD in crypto. The extra money per transaction (buy/sell) goes towards the natural reserve of the network. This means that as the coin starts to de-peg down, it becomes backed by more USD and gains trust back that there coin is worth 1USD.

How this works out in sudo-code: Seller price per coin if slips below 1 USD = $1.01

Buyer percentage fee per coin if slips above 1 USD = 1%

If (coin price < 1 USD){ 1. Sellers will sell their coin with a transaction fee per coin where 2. Transaction fee per coin = (Seller price per coin if slip below 1 USD / coin price) - 1) 3. //This extra fee will be used by the network to buy and burn the coin until back to 1 USD. This creates many different pressures on the coin as it 1. reduces the number of people willing to sell at a loss of the percentage fee 2. decreases the supply of the coin 3. Buyers will want to buy more as they can take profits when it re-pegs to 1 USD. 4. //Please note that the buyer does not pay a transaction fee only the seller does. } Else If(coin price > 1 USD){ 1. Buyers will buy their coin with a transaction fee per coin where 2. Transaction fee per coin = coin price * buyer percentage fee per coin if slips above USD 3. //This extra fee will be used by the network to mint new coin 1USD to 1Coin. This also creates many pressures on the coin as it 1. Will cause buyers to not want to buy the coin at a loss of the fee percentage 2. Increases the supply of the coin 3. Causes sell pressure because anyone holding the coin would make money selling at above 1USD. 4. // please note the seller does not pay a transaction fee only the buyer does. } Else if (coin price == 1USD){ 1. Create New coins for buyers at 1 coin per 1USD and liquidate sellers per usual. }

other points: 1. Many might wonder why someone would buy or sell at the cost of a transaction fee at all? In the case of ask and bid prices it works similarly. The benefit of those paying that extra fee is simple, transaction time. It gives those paying the fee the ability to get in and out fast instead of setting some limit order at 1 USD and waiting for the supply to increase or decrease back to a stable price. 2. The fundamental Theory behind this coin is it uses the same principles as brokerages use to steal your money except it can be implemented in a way that only takes the max amount of USD needed to keep your coins safe at the 1 USD price point. While also not being used for a profit. 3. Why might this kill exchanges? An easier question to ask is why go back to USD and normal banking transactions when you can invest in crypto that will always be 1 USD. You can swap your token into long term Bitcoin investments and if you think Bitcoin will go down or you need to pay for things in USD it will always be there waiting. The exchanges will no longer be able to steal their commissions from you going fully in and out with actual USD. 4. The transaction fees can also be increased or decreased as if there is a lot of momentum towards a de-peg up or down it can be pulled back to 1 USD much faster. 5. The benefits of this are that it essentially can grow and shrink with the demand of the market and is hard coded to be backed 1:1 instead of having to trust people (like with USDC where they have been found to lie) that the coin is backed 1:1

Final Words/ Call to action: If any developers would like to work with me my name is Gavin Bogdan and please message my Reddit or reply with your thoughts.

Final Thoughts: I spent a lot of time working out in general how it would work but, I still need a better way of picking the seller price per coin and buyer percentage per coin. A way I thought of doing it was with an inversely related equation with a constant that can be changed to make the fee move larger the faster the price falls or rises. However, I think the core design is strong enough that the fee does not have to be so dynamic and can be set to one number and changed later on in the project if there is abnormal moves away from 1 USD per coin.


Dr. McGreevey exposes the DC pedo mafia, Rosenstein's insurrection, Pence's sodomy, Obama's stealection satellites, Chief Justice Robert's adoption pimping, the Secret Service's rogue hacker, Scalia's assassination, and feral Feds galore!

intro

Heroic whistleblower Dr. McGreevey speaks faintly, because a couple of dirty Feds waterboarded him with diesel fuel, scarring his nose, throat and stomach. Therefore the linked video has a voice actor read McGreevey's muffled words as they were transcribed at the interview. However, the pdf download link for the transcript is broken. So I have restored (and possibly improved) the transcript by editing the YouTube auto-generated transcript.

My transcription is imperfect. There are errors at each stage of this game of telephone. The disabled Dr. McGreevy rambles; the original transcriptionist may have made errors; the voice actor occasionally speaks indistinctly; and YouTube auto-transcribe certainly errs frequently. I can only recover so much, and am too busy to refer to the original recording.

So forgive any non-sequiturs and ?question marks indicating uncertain transcription. The explosive contents of this message are worth reading, even in imperfect form. Corrections welcome!

In particular, note that some names are probably spelled phonetically rather than correctly, such as "Narwatches".

Once the Internet bloodhounds take this message seriously, I am sure a better transcript can be crowdsourced. Feel free to use mine as a starting point.

YouTube transcript, edited

Interviewer: This is an interview with Ryan Dark White. This is an interview for attorney Lynn Wood. This is Saturday, January 9 2021. And Ryan, if you could just give us a brief background, excuse us, brief background about yourself, where you grew up, where you went to school, just so we know a little bit more about you.

McGreevey: Ryan D White. It's not my birth name; it's not the name I prefer. Originally from Maryland. I hold graduate degrees, I held graduate degrees — I'll explain that — in physics, mathematics, biology and chemistry, from the University of Pennsylvania and Green College, Oxford. Graduate school would be University of Pennsylvania, John Hopkins University of Maryland, and University of Maryland's physics program.

Throughout this control that Rod has put on, he has actually personally sent letters, or his assistant, but he signed them. I went to school very young; it throws people off. And he used that against me. He would send letters to my schools, my undergrad and grad. He'd send letters to the military, saying that, "You know, this person Ryan White is using John McGreevey's information. John McGreevey is deceased, so best if you just destroy it.

He got much of it destroyed. There's still pieces there that can easily be verified and checked out, rebuilt, hopefully. But he did his best to destroy it.

He did the same thing with the military. The US Army, Army from '85 to '96, and Guard for Maryland, Guard for three years after that, three and a half years after that.

Rod apparently didn't know that the Guard was separate, so a lot, they have records, he didn't get to them. But like I said, it's easy enough to check them and find them in pieces, and hopefully somebody can help me put them back together.

This was just a means of control, a means to discredit me, to keep their secrets. You know, "Don't believe anything he says. He's a scumbag. No matter what he produces, he's a scumbag." So…

Interviewer: Okay, any more questions about the background?

Unknown female: I don't think so.

Interviewer: All right, that's good. Thanks Ryan.

END OF RECORDINGEND OF PART 1

TRANSCRIPT PART 2: BACKGROUND

Interviewer: All right, we're here with Mr. Ryan Dark White, doing an interview for a attorney Lynn Wood. Ryan, if you could give us a brief bit about your background

McGreevey: Ryan White is not my birth name. It's a name I ended up with, for safety. I have a background in physics, math, biology and chemistry. Graduate degrees in those. Then in the military, and then as a contractor-consultant for various intelligence agencies and think tanks throughout. Then in the late '90s, I became ordained, and was pretty much retired from all that, except for a think tank and consulting. But September 11th changed that for everyone.

Then in 2005, I met a doctor. We became friends. Dr. Afiq Abol Nasir, a very nice man and non-violent. He was born in Egypt into the Muslim Brotherhood. His childhood friend, from childhood in the neighborhood, all the way through high school, college, medical school was Event Alizar Ahi. Their families mixed. But Dr. Nasir did not believe in violence, especially with a country that took you in. He would maintain ties. His brother is the violent side. So much so that Dr. Nasir would not allow his children to be with him very long. They met their uncle when they went home, but, and Dr. Nasir would not allow his children to practice Islam.

So he provided a great deal of information and access to the violent side of terrorism overseas and within the US, and their structure, their financial structure, CAIR, things like that, the people involved, and provided many introductions.

I provided, I started providing this information to local law enforcement in Maryland, and it very quickly jumped to the Department of Justice in Baltimore, because much of it was out-of-state, and the crimes involved were federal-level crimes.

I started providing this in 2005, and in 2008 i started working directly with Rod Rosenstein in Baltimore. And because of the access with the other agencies, the FBI for instance would come for corroboration of something they were working on, or just ask questions: if i'd seen something like this, if this related to anything. Then it grew from there.

Because of the undercover nature of my, many of the investigations i worked on, terrorists or domestic terrorism within the country, they kept me fairly well-concealed, and access was limited to a certain group headed by Rod Rosenstein.

It became known as the dirty-trick squad in Baltimore. This is where they were using Hammer, Sunrise, Sunset, things like that to illegally spy on people — corrupt, well attempt to corrupt judges, compromised them, Hillary Clinton and others. I mean it was just ongoing.

They concentrated on judges, but they wanted to concentrate on [inaudible]. This was done under the guise of a CISSP operation. It's a DOJC SIMS computer operation. it was run out of Fort Washington, but had a satellite office location in Baltimore.

They would illegally compromise people, illegally wiretap, break into computers, plant reverse, change information, change emails, things of that nature. And it was in this capacity, of working with him, that the information about Judges Roberts and Pence and things like that have come out.

I've tried several times in the past to get it out, and was thoroughly squashed by Rod and the DOJ and the FBI, to a horrible extent. I tried again in 2015, tried to end-run them and go to the Department of Homeland Security. And once it got — I went there with a pile of evidence and some video and audio recordings. It got too large for them, I suppose, but it made its way back to the FBI and DOJ. And they came down on us again. That was in 2015.

In 2016 I made a video discussing quite a bit of this, in an effort to get it to Devin Nunes, who was the head of the House Intelligence Committee at the time. But there was interference from one of the people involved, and he messed that all up, so it went largely unnoticed.

But in the video I tried to warn President Trump about the people he was dealing with daily, and especially Rod, and things like that, as they were working together to remove them, trying to compromise the people around them when they possibly could.

Interviewer: Now where, now how were Rod and Rod Rosenstein and Mike Pence connected?

McGreevey: That group, I mean they're all interconnected, one way or the other. That particular group was Rod, Vice President Pence, Paul Ryan, that was the core of the group. Rod was in there, but that was the core of it.

It was an attempt where Rod was a brilliant legal mind behind it, to remove President Trump under the 25th Amendment. They had an operational name for it in the beginning, Run Silent Run Deep, but nobody really used it after a while, and it didn't make any sense, because it was such a small group. But that's an old movie about somebody being passed over for a promotion, which they've both felt like they were.

Now Vice President Pence hated Trump, because he had taken his slot as rightful President. He felt that he did. And Paul Ryan was actually considered running as well for the Vice Presidential slot, and Mitt Romney was also involved. But they don't, they thought President Trump was an outsider who had not paid his dues. They just didn't like him.

So once Vice President Pence was in there, once President Trump was elected, and obviously Vice President Pence, he just walked away, and everything became very quiet.

That was their mole inside. So he could run interference, and make certain things, and just keep tabs on the President, and manage him.

Interviewer: So was this a friendly relationship between Mike Pence and Rosenstein, or was there any kind of leverage being placed on the President or the Vice President at the time?

McGreevey: There was leverage on Mike Pence, because of the surveillance from way back in the 2013 range. They had gotten FISA warrants to exploit, and Rod had that. He wanted the Vice President slot himself. Then if they could remove President Trump, Vice President Pence becomes President, and Rod felt that he would be the natural selection for it. Paul Ryan felt differently, as did Mitt Romney, but that was the overall goal: Each one of them vying for the Vice Presidential slot.

Rod thought he was a clear winner, because of his legal brilliance and his management of the Mueller investigation and special counsels and things. You know, he would be the one to remove the President, damage him so thoroughly he could be removed, and he deserved it.

Interviewer: Okay, do you know what type of leverage would have existed over the Vice President?

McGreevey: The Vice President has had homosexual relations in the past. It's not a problem, many of them were adults. This is something he had done throughout his time in Congress. When he became Governor, he thought he had, thought that he was free to explore them more.

There were two specifically that they had recorded. One gentleman roughly 20 years his junior. They had a fairly steady relationship. There was one about half his age. That was much more sporadic, because it was more dangerous, harder to get time alone.

This person would introduce others, bringing people with him. He'd have people waiting when he showed up. And it was that second one that introduced the younger and younger people. "This is whomever. He's 17." And he's really 15. "This is whomever, he's 15." And he's really 13.

And Rod and Roberts, Chief Justice Roberts, a lot of the younger people involved, the ones that were brought in as favors, were supplied by Jeffrey Epstein's channels. Through his channels, his people.

We were able to get FISA warrants because Chief Justice Roberts had vice court, and helped prepare them. But it was also, Epstein was an intelligence asset of some type to various agencies around the world. They used his information, they exploited it for their own good. So when he was here, or his people were here, it was easy enough to justify a FISA warrant on them. You know, they would enact a warrant, surveil everything, documented, but they would not help, and they would not save the child. They would not, you know, reveal it. It was more important for them to have leverage on everything.

And of course, this was under their own corrupt ideas, but under Rod, his tutelage. And they wanted the leverage.

Interviewer: Do you know, do you have any idea how Epstein and the Supreme Court Justice Roberts initially would have met, or how that relationship would have developed?

McGreevey: How they would have met. I think they met when he was under Bush, not too long after he was appointed, somewhere along in there. Just meeting powerful people. Something like that. He did help him with his adopted children, from what was said. There was, you know, discussed openly in this little dirty-trick squad.

The children are not genetically brother and sister, but they're raised that way. So that's more valuable to them.

One if not both were originally from Wales, but they were in Epstein's channels, and were easily removed from their version of foster care to Ireland, which has much more open adoption type records.

He facilitated for Roberts, so that he could adopt them both at the same time. There was a little gap, but it was just paperwork. And Epstein had done that for him.

So they met, they worked together, and he was doing favors at some point.

Interviewer: Was this something the Supreme Court Justice Roberts would have paid for, or is this, you know, a favor exchange to Epstein, to link him up with these children, or?

McGreevey: I don't know. At that point, it's possible it could be either one.

I don't think there would be a payment at that point. It was more for his position; there would be some type of favor. But I don't know; either one was done. He facilitated it.

Interviewer: Uh-huh.

McGreevey: Was there a payment; was it a favor? I can't say.

Interviewer: Okay. Can you go into it anymore, details on Supreme Court Justice Roberts, with these children, and the circles that he ran in, as far as you're aware?

McGreevey: Children are often used as a commodity, a way to buy yourself into certain inner circles. And these people are all wealthy. They're all powerful, and they don't trust you unless you're as compromised as they are. So you provide children to them. Your children, adopted children, whatever.

This is how they trust you. You're as dirty as they are. You cannot be exposed, because you can't expose them, they can't expose you. If everybody's just as dirty, you know, you're safe.

And like I said, this is a way for them to buy their way into these inner circles, and get access to whatever. Children are the payment and the dirt and the control.

Interviewer: Now who else would we want to talk to, or is there any additional documentation that we could pursue, to solidify what you're saying here today?

McGreevey: Yep ?Yani has copies of the videos from the FISA surveillance. It was discussed, but I can't prove it, that Roberts has a copy. Rod Rosenstein certainly has a copy. Sean Henry of Crowdstrike, who was FBI at the time, he took two copies back to the FBI with him. So the copies were made, and then that was actually Sean Bridges who encrypted them and gave them the keys. So there are copies out there.

Interviewer: And who would be on these tapes, most likely, as far from your conversations in the dirty-trick squad?

McGreevey: From just those tapes, when i was talking about the copies?

Interviewer: Uh-Huh.

McGreevey: Those would be Pence and his two lovers, and the younger ones. There were also, they would do the same thing, illegal surveillance and sometimes ill [inaudible].

This was mostly in the country, illegal surveillance with Robert's children and whomever they were with. They'd set it up.

They knew that they weren't going to be exposed, because it's Chief Justice Robert's children.

And please keep in mind, these children have been abused since birth. And I don't want anything else happening. They've already lived through hell. They don't need anything else.

But they were getting loaned out for these different groups, and they did surveil many of them.

Interviewer: Okay. Now you also said in past discussions that there was a plot, that Roberts was allegedly part of, where they discussed murdering other judges on the Supreme Court under Hillary Clinton's administration. Can you give me some amplifying details on that?

McGreevey: This is something the FBI set up under their guidance, their political people, going to be a false flag.

This had gone out two years almost before the election, and it was a Sovereign Citizen group. Obama did not want any terrorism unless it was white terrorism, so this is a Sovereign Citizen group that had the FBI, that the FBI had infiltrated and armed and instigated against other targets. They were for the most part pro-America, but they were racist in some of their origins. There were a lot of them, a lot of them were divorced fathers with a grudge against the court system. Anyway.

And the FBI people had infiltrated and exploited this. They moved them up to the level of assassinating federal judges, political people, things like that. You want names, I can tell you.

So anyway, part of their was to, was various types of attack on the Supreme Court, to take down as many judges as they could. And Roberts was aware of this.

He actually provided some scheduling, because apparently the justices are not all there at one time. They come and go as they please. And these three would be working on something, these three. And he provided this to the group, so they could finalize their plan.

They were very, very close to what they were trying to do. They were given explosives and all types of automatic weapons. They had rocket launchers, and they were very close to it.

They were going to assassinate F Dennis Saylor, a federal judge in Massachusetts, Martha Coakley, Lisa Monaco and her family. They were going to make it look like a home invasion and film it until later, when they needed it. And this was their initial attack plan, and then the Supreme Court. This was a group that got infiltrated, on their request.

And when I found out what they were doing, they were going to attack these judges, they were going to attack the Supreme Court, I tried to end-run them. I had minders, people kept tabs on me. I had an FBI minder, but I tried to end-run around them and expose it.

I took all the evidence and went to Homeland Security, who were overwhelmed, and called in the FBI. And then the DOJ came right back at me, and they picked me up just a few weeks later, when they found out who I was.

The damage to their plots had been done. They did get close to assassinating people. Up there, Lisa Monaco, the judges were under 24/7 security. Martha Coakley had in-state security.

And it did prevent them from going after the Supreme Court, although their plans were all out. They had the maps, they had the weapons, they had everything planned. So at least it prevented something like that.

Interviewer: Now were the teams that were supposed to do the actual operations against the judges, were those Americans, or were they foreign?

McGreevey: No, these were Americans.

Interviewer: Okay.

McGreevey: A third would be the Sovereign Citizen group, and two-thirds would be the FBI people, or people working with the FBI. They were going to get rid of them anyway.

And actually I have recordings of their planning on the phone with me as, you know, part of this group. And then they did not hang up the phone, they did not kill the phone, and we were listening to them talk about killing me and my wife, things like that.

And another time they actually butt-dialed me, and they were talking about, he was on the phone talking to various people about their plans, about who they were going after, and what they were going to do to us, because we knew too much, and we were outside at the time.

So they could not do their plan. We got the people under surveillance. We saved them, got credit for saving them.

They were very upset that their plans had gone to crap. They were upset with me especially, when they came and picked me up. But it stopped it.

Their plans were written out. They were, they had maps, they had surveillance, they had quite a bit of equipment.

Interviewer: What was the timeline that they were hoping to do this in?

McGreevey: This would be right after, within the first year of Hillary Clinton's Presidency. She was not supposed to lose.

So this was all planned up, and it was more than just — then it was twofold. They wanted to pack the court, and they wanted to take out as many as they could. Roberts was actually helping, because he didn't want to be one of them, and he wanted some choice in who it would be on the bench. After that he wanted to maintain some form of control. So he did provide information.

But this was to be done within the first year of Hillary Clinton's campaign [sic], so they could ban firearms as well, and impact the court. So they have plenty of time to do that. This was their main two goals.

Interviewer: Do you believe the death of Antonin Scalia was a part of this same plot, or is that, do you know if that was separate?

McGreevey: It was the same people. He was a backup plan. He was their biggest threat, being the most conservative judge.

Justice Scalia actually, I believe he found out about this, the plans, and he went to the White House like a week before his death. I believe he found out what they were trying to do, when they moved away from the overall attack of where these people lived, or you know, they would attack around the holidays, where more than one justice would be in their home. Things like this. And again, Roberts was providing this.

But they had to take him out. He was seen as their biggest obstacle. So the same basic group that was involved were given access to the ranch where he was found.

They talked about how they did it. They had a couple of different options, but it was discussed prior to his death, what they intended to do, where they could possibly do it, how they could do it, who they would need. The records are there at the Cibolo Ranch. One person was brought in. There were three men. One person was brought in as a temp worker. The other two, same team, were brought in as servants for a group that was there hunting.

And they discussed how it was done. That they used ?dyspo ?dot dimethyl-sulfoxide, which is a fairly inert chemical it just goes through your skin. But if you can mix it with a poison or a drug or something like that, it'll go directly in your system and overload you. I believe that's what he was found with, his pillow over his face. He was struggling to breathe. He couldn't breathe; he was choking.

And this particular chemical, you can tailor it to the person. If they have a drug problem, you could put in fentanyl and overdose them. If they have a heart condition, it would take a very little to go directly in. It would be like a direct injection into the heart. And they talk about how they did it.

And Roberts is on the phone with these people, discussing his successor, that he wants to say in how. Because now he was going to be only one person, and he wanted to pick that person. And he wanted a say in who was going to take it.

And of course there was a lot of people there that were talking about Eric Holder taking it, all kinds of people, but he wanted a say in who was going to take over Justice Scalia's spot.

And i don't think he got it. I mean, obviously it didn't happen, because President Trump was here. But he did want it.

And this was all prior, the discussions on him complaining that he wasn't getting any say, prior to his death, his sudden death. So it is well-known, and…

Interviewer: So aside from the, aside from Roberts being on this, did Rosenstein or anyone outside the White House, have they been made aware of the plans, perhaps in Hillary's camp, that you can't, that you can speak about?

McGreevey: Oh Hillary and Obama knew about it. I mean it was supposed to be done under her watch, her term, so they could pack the court. They were fully aware of it.

Rod had an intense hatred of Hillary, even though he worked with her. He had to. He's not fond of Obama. Really he's only fond of himself.

But this was planned to be enacted through them, and Rod was integral in wanting the Hammer system throughout Baltimore. This is why he was the only US attorney to keep his job under Obama. Now Obama fired every US attorney at the same time, except Rod. He was the only one, and this is why: because he was running things for them. He was involved in their plans, and he was running the Hammer, and things through Baltimore.

Interviewer: So you've also done interviews as to — switching channels slightly, but I'm sure it'll tie back together — the death of Seth Rich.

McGreevey: Uh-Huh.

Interviewer: And Rod Rosenstein was witting in this, in this operation as well, I believe you correct

McGreevey: Yes, okay, sorry, he was there for their reasons, for the illegal reasons, but he also had to cover himself. When Seth Rich had gone in the first time, I don't have much information on it, other than what I've told, but not what I had seen personally. His first contact with Wikileaks, I just don't know.

I do know that when he went to him the second time, and came back, Wikileaks had directed him on how to get further information. And they wanted specific things: Look here, look there, here, here. Because we went in for the break-in, and he grabbed a lot of information, just downloaded everything he could, and it's, and that exposed a lot.

They were worried about the exposure, the DNC Hillary and Bowser and Brazil.

They were all very worried about it. But Rod was personally worried about it as well, because he had been authoring stuff to affect Hillary Clinton, and he didn't want that to come out. Because he would be out of it; he would be done. He would not be appointed to anything, and he had a personal interest in that one.

So when he got dumped in his lap to handle the problem, he hired, tapped people, who he'd already worked with for years, who were dirty. And he controlled, they owed their continued federal careers to him. He had saved them before, looked over other things, and allowed them to continue their career. And he, people all around him in one small circle in Baltimore.

Interviewer: So it was intended to be an assassination of Seth Rich, or was it more intended to be a robbery, or do you know?

McGreevey: Intended to be a robbery. Rough him up. All they wanted was a thumb drive they routinely carried on him. The information he was going to pass to Wikileaks, what he had uncovered, the more focused information that Wikileaks had requested. That's what they wanted.

He did not leave it at home. He always carried it, because he had people living with him.

And again, Rod was very upset that this could expose everything, and wreck his plans. He would have been done. It was a fairly tenuous relationship, you know, him being a Republican and things. But he had proved himself to be really dirty like they were, and willing to give access to everything he was doing for them.

So he had to recover it, and they didn't care, he did not care how it was done, except for it was supposed to be robbed. They had to recover it; did not care. But Rod put the additional thing on it, was: Get it no matter how.

He hired, tapped his agent friend from the DEA, who he had covered for many, many times, and he's dirty, in Baltimore and other places throughout Maryland, and then put him in charge of it. He recruited someone else, and then they went down.

And this particular DEA agent is a gang specialist for the DEA. He specializes further in MS-13. He was the one who went outside the local people and hired, who found the two MS-13 people down south, and brought them up, or met them actually. They came up and met him, and he brought them into the city, and things went poorly beyond that.

They were supposed to rob him. Then two guys went ahead and killed him, shot him. He died later.

They recovered the thumb drive, which was then switched for one that Rod had provided, the one that Sean had loaded up for this for him previously. So he did, he was able to recover, his involvement in altering emails, breaking into Hillary Clinton's server, things like that. And he kept…

Interviewer: So they switched a thumb drive that was on the body for a thumb drive that Rod had prepared to be left behind as a…

McGreevey: Right.

Interviewer: Okay.

McGreevey: One that would be convincing but not exposing.

Interviewer: Understood.

McGreevey: A lot of it was the same information, but not because, they knew that breaches had occurred, so a lot of it was the same thing. Just a void of anything that would point towards them or Rod specifically.

And things rapidly went downhill, because they couldn't break into it. It was encrypted. They got it to a couple of different people. They couldn't get it, couldn't get into it. And they decided to clean up the mess.

And one DEA agent went down the following day, called out, took his wife's car, and drove down and killed them. Things like that.

So it went bad quickly. Once he died, it's supposed to be a robbery, and the next thing they hear is, you know, Donna Brazile and Muriel Bowser, the mayor of DC were at the hospital, before he was even brought in.

And they did have people at the crime scene as well. They were there to recover it.

As I said, it was supposed to be a robbery, and he was supposed to be, you know, beat up, unconscious, bad shape. And they wanted to recover the thumb drive. That's why they went there.

Interviewer: So back to Rod Rosenstein for a moment. What can you tell us about his involvement with foreign nations, with any type of intelligence transfer to groups outside the country?

McGreevey: This goes back to the FBI operation called Ghost Stories. It was very successful. They just kept heavy surveillance on known Russian assets within the US. Everything they were doing, whatever they found, you know, they were communicating back. It was just surveillance.

But if you knew that, what you were sending back, then it would go the other way. You could tell people what they were accessing, and what they had access to. Thoroughly good operation. It was supposedly very successful.

It was Obama and Biden who did the Russian reset, along with Secretary Clinton. And they didn't want any problems with the Russians, so they told him to cancel it.

Well, they didn't. They kept their communication open with him. It just changed. Instead of just surveillance, they started communicating. They started providing information. And initially it was wrong, but then they started giving it to them in exchange, in an exchange-type situation. Then they started altering the information, giving them information, giving them inaccurate information. They were working from, they were working them from the other side.

Rod was aware of this; he was part of it at this time, because once it was shut down, it became under the heading of the DOJ in Maryland in DC. So he was part of it. And then they were giving up this information, they tried to pay him, and he didn't take it. He got, he was like, "Oh no no no no no." Because they were coming towards 2015-2016 at the time, and he was angling for a big position: Attorney General, Supreme Court, and hopefully Vice President. So he didn't want anything like that to pop up.

Well, Sean Bridges was actually taking the money they were offering. He was laundering it through Bitcoin around the world, and Rod was hyper-pissed when he found out. It's one of the reasons he went after Sean, and put him in jail. He's still there. And so the deal was, you get six years, keep your mouth shut, or we'll go after you for everything and get 40.

But he started talking, had too much access when he was in Terra Haute, and they brought him out to Virginia, where he's at now, just to keep an eye on him.

Interviewer: Okay.

END OF TRANSCRIPT

INTERVIEW WITH DR. JOHN MCGREEVEY CONTINUED:VICE PRESIDENT MIKE PENCE

Interviewer: All right, we're here again with Ryan Dark White, taking an interview for Attorney Lynn Wood. We're going to speak briefly about Vice President Mike Pence in specific, and as much amplifying detail as we can gather as to his relationships, and any crimes he may be a part of.

Dr. John McGreevey: Okay, Mike Pence, when he was in Congress, he had been surveilled multiple times. He is known to be bisexual, but tries to keep it hidden. He puts forth a persona of uber-Christian. When he was Governor, he was very strict on the gay and lesbian communities, things like this, to hide that.

He was surveilled then, and it was well-known that — the FBI and CIA do illegal surveillance of many members of, you know, politicians at all levels, to get it. It's all illegal. They want the leverage. And it's well-known, they said.

Interviewer: So he was just kind of caught up in a dragnet of just general surveillance of congressional members.

Dr. John McGreevey: I mean, it was known. There were rumors. So they [inaudible] down and did the surveillance through.

Interviewer: Just to have a good baseline for future, I suppose.

Dr. McGreevey: Well, one he's a politician.

Interviewer: Uh-Huh.

Dr. McGreevey: He'll be around. He has influence. So the FBI is all about getting influence. Now they're dirty, so they control it.

It's not like they control it every day. They don't tell them, "Do this, this and this." It's just that when they need the big one, they can call it in. And then when he became Governor, he felt more secure to pursue his longer-term relationships.

Like I said, there's only one roughly 20 years his junior, that was a longer term one, that he had had when he was in Congress. And then there's one that was much more sporadic, but that gentleman's about half his age. He's the one that introduced the younger and younger people to him.

But as Governor, he felt it was much more secure, not as wide open, able to pursue it. And he went the other way with his politics and crackdown on gay and lesbian communities. He would never have anything to do with that.

Interviewer: Now Mike Pence is known to never be in public with another woman besides his wife. Do you know that has he ever been seen in public with these young men? Was that something he ever felt like he needed to hide, or is it just kind of swept under the… ?

Dr. McGreevey: I don't know if he was in a public with him or not. They would usually set up a location that was already wired up before he got there, so, or it was a known location, or the location like the younger gentleman was helping, and he helped set him up, so he would tell them when and where they were going to meet.

That's why he was, he was the one that was about half his age, was, I've seen the videos. I mean, I've seen a few, from when he was in Congress. But I've seen these from when he was Governor, and made copies of them, and Sean encrypted them, Sean Bridges. So he, that guy was actually working with the FBI to set him up. So he would provide locations where they were going to meet, and they'd be there ahead of time.

So they had, there were probably the best surveillance tapes they had of him. The other ones would be this or that, some better than others. This one you got the whole group.

Interviewer: Uh-huh.

Dr. McGreevey: And when he actually got into talks about being Vice President, running with President Trump, they shut it down. Because they had everything they needed to control the Vice President. And it looks like they did.

Reddit character limit reached! Continue reading at original source: https://cyberthal-ghost.nfshost.com/waterboarded-whistleblower-dr-jon-mcgreevey-exposes-the-democrat-pedo-mafia-rosensteins-rebellion-pences-sodomy/


The BitcoinCash Merchant Onboarding Event just took place in India!

https://www.news-next.in/the-bitcoincash-merchant-onboarding-event/

Towerbank, a top 30 bank in Panama, just announced bitcoin friendly services at an event hosted by the Chamber of Digital Commerce and Blockchain of Panama. (x-post from /r/Bitcoin)

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/v22i93/towerbank_a_top_30_bank_in_panama_just_announced/

Amidst Gusting Winds | Monthly FIRE Portfolio Update | May 2022

Make a spot in the middle of your mind where you can lie hidden, rejoice, and relax with no one interrupting you.

- Petrarch

This is my sixty-sixth monthly portfolio update. I complete this regular update to check progress against my goal.

Portfolio goal

My objective is to maintain a portfolio of at least $2,620,000 through 2022. This should be capable of producing an annual income from total portfolio returns of about $91,600 (in 2022 dollars).

This portfolio objective is based on an assumed safe withdrawal rate of 3.5 per cent.

A secondary focus through 2022 will be achieving the minimum equity target of $2,100,000.

Portfolio summary

  • Vanguard Lifestrategy High Growth Fund $763,710

  • Vanguard Lifestrategy Growth Fund $40,760

  • Vanguard Lifestrategy Balanced Fund $73,303

  • Vanguard Diversified Bonds Fund $90,568

  • Vanguard Australian Shares ETF (VAS) $378,234

  • Vanguard International Shares ETF (VGS) $320,331

  • Betashares Australia 200 ETF (A200) $287,538

  • Telstra shares (TLS) $2,068

  • Insurance Australia Group shares (IAG) $5,536

  • NIB Holdings shares (NHF) $8,868

  • Gold ETF (GOLD.ASX) $116,688

  • Secured physical gold $18,607

  • Plenti (P2P lending) $23

  • Bitcoin $487,750

  • Raiz app (Aggressive portfolio) $20,142

  • Spaceship Voyager app (Index portfolio) $3,196

  • BrickX (P2P rental real estate) $4,715

  • Total portfolio value $2,622,037 (-$158,939)

Asset allocation

  • Australian shares 38.2%

  • Global shares 25.9%

  • Emerging market shares 1.6%

  • International small companies 2.0%

  • Total international shares 29.5%

  • Total shares 67.7% (-12.3%)

  • Total property securities 0.2% (+0.2%)

  • Australian bonds 2.5%

  • International bonds 5.8%

  • Total bonds 8.3% (+3.3%)

  • Gold 5.2%

  • Bitcoin 18.6%

  • Gold and alternatives 23.8% (+8.8%)

Presented visually, the chart below is a high-level view of the current asset allocation of the portfolio.

[Chart]

Comments

This month is a story in two parts – with declines across both the traditional financial portfolio, and in the value of Bitcoin holdings.

Combined, these led to an overall loss of about $159,000 or around 5.7 per cent of the total portfolio value.

The portfolio has narrowly stayed above the revised portfolio goal of $2.62 million at the end of the month, but through the month dipped below it for the first time in nearly a year.

[Chart]

More than three-quarters of the absolute decline in portfolio value was caused by a fall of around 20 per cent in the price of Bitcoin over the month.

These falls occurred as inflation outcomes continued to illustrate the potential need for monetary policy tightening to the market, and the price of Bitcoin was also likely impacted by the failure of the Terra Luna algorithmic stablecoin.

The remainder of the portfolio loss was largely attributable to simultaneous declines in Australian and global share indexes. These each fell between 2 to 2.5 per cent.

Completing the overall negative pattern were falls in gold (of 3.3 per cent) and continued further declines in the value of bonds or fixed interest (0.2 per cent).

[Chart]

Global economic conditions continue to be challenging for equity-focused portfolios, as well as more traditional portfolio mixing both equity and bonds.

Across a range of dimensions, the first five months of the year have been one of the most negative starts to the year in equities and bonds in decades – as well as one of the relatively few where equity and bond losses have coincided.

The factors contributing to this include higher bond yields demanded due to higher expected inflation, global supply chain disruption, and increasing input prices across commodities and energy.

With the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, geo-political uncertainty is also high, and trade in wheat and other mineral exports are circumscribed compared to normal conditions. Expectations of recession and stagflation are higher now than at any time since the Global Financial Crisis.

This month, Incrementum AG released its annual In Gold We Trust report, titled appropriately enough Stagflation 2.0. While clearly having a strong gold focus, the report provides a persuasive set of warnings around the risks facing the global economy and financial assets. One of its primary focal points is on the unsustainability of current paths of government debt under any standard process – by historical expectations – of normalising interest rates.

The recent sharper falls in global equities, compared to Australia shares has led to investments this month being focused on the Vanguard international shares ETF (VGS).

The difficult start to the year for global equities has the portfolio allocation to international shares at well below its target, and in danger of falling further behind the medium-term objective of reaching an equal allocation of Australian and international equities.

Diverging courses: tracking the financial and full portfolio

A significant feature of the past year and a half has been a sharp divergence between the traditional financial portfolio – made up of equities and fixed interest – and the full FIRE portfolio including Bitcoin.

Consistent with a focus on all significant assets, this record typically reports on the full FIRE portfolio, seeking to avoid the behavourial traps of ‘thinking in buckets’. This was the rationale for beginning to report Bitcoin holdings in my financial records, once they passed beyond a minimal threshold and started to represent a potentially meaningful part of the portfolio.

From time to time, however, it can be useful to ‘look through’ the consolidated numbers and identify what is happening to different components, if only to better understand the whole. More pessimistically, this could be considered an analysis based on an extreme ‘what if’ scenario of Bitcoin turning out to be entirely valueless.

The chart below set out a different perspective of monthly portfolio progress. It counts monthly changes in value of only traditional financial assets – excluding Bitcoin entirely. The effect of this is to take out its contributions to upward and downward price variations across the past three and a half years.

[Chart]

This month represented the fourth largest loss in absolute dollar terms for the whole portfolio over the history of the financial independence journey.

Yet the chart above also shows that this loss is approximately the same magnitude as a quite ordinary monthly gain over the period from early 2019 onwards, and is comparable to levels of losses in other months across the past two years.

That is, from a financial assets point of view, the result this month falls well inside the distribution of gains and losses ordinarily to be expected.

Another broader perspective is gained by looking at the shifting levels of the financial asset portfolio, and the full FIRE portfolio over the past three and a half years, when Bitcoin started regularly emerging from the shadows as a major portfolio element.

[Chart]

This chart starkly illustrates that from around December 2020, Bitcoin appreciation led to a period of the financial and full portfolio substantially departing from each other.

More recently, what is observable is a general period of relatively sideways movement in the financial portfolio, whilst the full FIRE portfolio including Bitcoin has experienced in turn significant growth, volatility, and now contraction.

Interestingly, compared to around a year ago, the traditional ‘financial assets only’ portfolio is larger, even as the full FIRE portfolio itself is smaller.

A further more subtle point highlighted by the recent changes in the value of different portfolio components is easy to overlook. This is that the portfolio is now closer to its target weightings than at any point since December 2020.

The share of equities is approaching 70 per cent, and holdings of international equities, even after the recent falls, are as a percentage of the portfolio at levels not seen since the first quarter of 2019.

Thus, while the route may not may not be that which would have been chosen, the final course may have been brought into closer sight this month.

Trends in average distributions and expenses

There were minimal shifts in average portfolio distributions or expenses over this month. Distributions continue to track around $1,200 per month above average total expenses.

The trend of the three-year average of total distributions slowly declining continues.

The blue line of distributions continues to track at around $7,300 per month. The total expenses (red) line continues to sit at around $6,100, rising slightly this month.

[Chart]

Monthly total expenses have generally drifted downwards since mid-2017, but shifted materially lower from February 2020. This lowering now appears to have paused, with a floor of around $6,100 having been found in recent months.

Distributions payments, on the other hand, have recently reached a maximum, and have started to gently decline, as some higher distributions in the first half of 2019 progressively drop out from the sample set of those averaged.

Progress

Measure Portfolio All Assets * Portfolio objective – $2,620,000 (or $91,600 pa) 100% 130% * Total average expenses (2013-present) – $84,300 pa 109% 141% * Target equity holding in portfolio – $2,100,000 85% N/A

Summary

This month has rushed by, without a lot of time to think about personal finances or developments. Despite heightened volatility in markets, the focus has been less on the portfolio, and more on broader macro-economic and financial market trends.

In many ways the market environment feels turbulent, something akin to the second half of 2018 – but as yet nothing like either 2008 or 2020.

Recession, further supply chain challenges, higher inflation all loom over market participants’ expectations. And yet whatever future lays in store has not occurred, it has yet to be experienced, day-by-day or month to month.

Well within my expectations is a scenario in which markets continue to fall, or drift lower for 6 to 12 months before the pattern of events changes. High recent correlations between equities and Bitcoin, and continued falls in bond prices, could combine to make this a period of portfolio stagnation or decline.

Yet there is nothing to be done but understand this possible future – and all the others beside – that lay outside of our knowledge, and continue to invest. These times have occurred before. The highs of early 2018 were not reached again until more than a year following.

In fact, such times of extended downdrafts should be expected to happen more frequently as the portfolio grows in size, and its performance becomes dominated by the performance of existing assets.

The fact that the portfolio spent considerable time below its target this month reinforced the need for patience and realism in the later stages of the journey to financial independence.

Through these times, consciousness of the limits of control and action is required. For the moment, a figurative room in one’s mind to lay hidden and relax – amidst the gusts and tumult of market turmoil – is something to both seek and rejoice in when found.

The full post, links and full charts can be seen here.

Disclaimer

The specific portfolio allocation and approach described has been determined solely based on my personal circumstances, objectives, assessments and risk tolerances. It is not personal financial advice, or recommendation to invest in any particular investment product, security or asset, and investors considering these issues should undertake their own detailed research or seek professional advice.


KNOWING ABOUT THIS MINTING REALLY GOT ME EXCITED AKIRAGAL IS DOING IT.

The time is almost upon us, as the AkiraGal NFT drop is happening May 27. The wait is almost over and we could not be more excited to get things going. But before that, we’ll create a step-by-step guide on how to participate in the AkiraGal mint, so everyone has a chance to get into this unique collection.

Step 1: Create an account on an Exchange

The first step is to get a bridge into the crypto economy. Here is where the concept of an onramp is introduced, which basically is a service that will take your local currency and give you the chance of exchanging it for a crypto coin.

The most common type of onramp are crypto exchanges that can provide this service quickly. If this is your first time buying crypto it’s better to rely on the major ones, as they are beginner friendly and provide customer support. These are:

  • Coinbase
  • Binance
  • FTX
  • Kraken
  • Huobi

There are also peer-to-peer exchanges that can be a little faster to create an account for, such as:

  • Local Bitcoins (there are more crypto assets than just BTC in the platform)
  • Paxos

Step 2: Get Ether

Ether, or ETH by its ticker, is the native crypto currency of the Ethereum blockchain. It’s used to pay for all transactions that are processed by the nodes on the network. It’s necessary to pay for the fees when minting an NFT, transferring a token, or even when selling the NFT. Basically, any action on Ethereum requires ETH.

Now that you have an account on a crypto exchange, just select a payment method of your choice and buy some Ether. Major exchanges like Binance and Coinbase offer the option of using a converter that immediately exchanges the currency and Ether for its current price. That way you can avoid thinking about creating a buy order, or more complicated operations.

Step 3: Create Wallet

Now that you have some Ether, you need a wallet that is able to interact with smart contracts, also known as a Dapp connector. It’s basically a bridge between the user and the smart contracts on the blockchain, and from it users can create and sign transactions.

The most common on Ethereum is MetaMask:

  1. Got to their website: https://metamask.io/
  2. Click on ‘Download.’
  3. Add the MetaMask extension to your browser.
  4. Open it and select ‘Create new Wallet.’
  5. Follow the menus and make sure you write down the seed phrase in a secure location.

Now you have your own crypto wallet that is able to connect with the Ethereum network and allows you to use any smart contract on the blockchain.

Step 4: Send ETH to your crypto wallet

Next you need to fund your wallet with the Ether you bought from the exchange. Go to your account in the exchange you chose, and select the withdrawal option. Now open your MetaMask, you’ll see a string of alphanumeric characters above the ‘Account 1’ label:

That is your wallet’s address. Basically it’s the piece of information you give to anyone trying to send crypto tokens to you over Ethereum. Now, you’re going to send Ether to it to make sure you have enough to pay for fees.

Input your wallet address on the exchange and approve the operation. After a while, usually 10 minutes, the network will confirm the transfer.

Step 5: Connect your crypto wallet on our AkiraGal dapp

Now comes the fun part. With your MetaMask wallet open, go to the AkiraGal portal and connect the wallet to the Dapp. The site will automatically open a request on your MetaMask to approve the connection. No funds need to be transferred at this stage, you’re just connecting your crypto wallet to the Dapp.

This is important to mint the AkiraGals, and also so the Dapp knows where to send your NFTs. Once you have them, you’ll be able to see them by using your crypto wallet address.

Step 6: Make sure they have sufficient gas fee and minting fee

We said before that Ether is how you pay for transactions over Ethereum. That means you need to have enough ETH in your MetaMask crypto wallet to pay for said fees. The prices change all the time, but if you want to get an idea you can use ETH Gas Station to see the current prices. Use the site as a reference and plan accordingly to have enough ETH to pay for fees.

Now you have all the tools necessary to take part in the AkiraGal NFT minting event. Remember that on May 27, minting will begin for all those who connect their wallet to the Dapp. Don’t miss your chance to acquire one of the 6,666 exquisite and deadly agents fated to help you write history in a dystopian world.


Bitcoin Cash Meetup by #BCH Bangalore. We're excited to share the new venue to accommodate the additional RSVPs. https://www.meetup.com/In_Crypto_We_Trust/events/mnrkqsydchbbc/ #Crypto #Ethereum #Bitcoin

No text found