February 2023 - cypherpunks@lists.ogf.org

Cryptocurrency: Action - Join Digi Currency Trade Alliance - Bleat Args At US Congress
by grarpamp 26 Feb '23

26 Feb '23

Change the script, argue for Freedom, Privacy, Transparent Exchanges, Privacy Coins, DEX, Alternate Currencies... https://joindcta.org/ Stop the SEC attack on crypto - email congress today using our free tool! (self.CryptoCurrency) submitted 5 hours ago by DCTAorg☑️ DCTA Official and call them on Monday... Hi r/cryptocurrency! Many of you know about the Digital Currency Traders Alliance (DCTA) - we are a nonprofit coalition of retail investors, consumers, traders, businesses, and thought leaders in the Digital Currency space focused on ensuring the future of digital currency is equitable and open to all. Our latest project is DCTA’s #StoptheSEC Action Days 2023, aimed at getting cryptocurrency consumers engaged in the national legislative process in order to reign in the SEC. Our goal is to connect consumers with their federal representatives so they can communicate how much the SEC has hurt their investments. As you all know, the SEC continues to refuse to proactively issue regulatory guidance for the sector and instead prefers to set policy through enforcement actions. This doesn’t help consumers - the SEC’s inaction harms us by not tackling bad actors when it is needed and their overreaction after the fact. Take 30 seconds out of your day and contact Congress using our free and easy tool at https://joindcta.org/advocacy/stop-the-sec/. It will directly connect you with your representatives and even includes a sample script for you to use. we (the Digital Currency Traders Alliance) are working with some of the members of the California Legislature on legislation to help reduce scam / fraudulent projects, with a specific focus on pump and dumps, account hacks, and phishing attempts. The legislators we are working with asked us to gather some examples of how you, everyday users, have been impacted or fallen victim to these kinds of scams. We are reaching out to hear your stories and experiences -.thank you in advance for your help. In response to the recent regulatory actions at the state and federal levels aimed at the digital currency sector, the Digital Currency Traders Alliance (DCTA) has launched its Legislative Advocacy Portal, which will allow consumers to track and get updates on crypto legislation at the federal and state level. The Advocacy Portal Automatically tracks who their state and federal representatives are and allows them to automatically send their representatives a letter and a link to the DCTA Legislative Crypto Consumer Handbook, which outlines best practices for protecting consumers when legislators are considering crypto currency regulations. Right now, we have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for retail cryptocurrency consumers to organize and speak up as our government creates the foundation for how the crypto and blockchain sector will be regulated for decades to come. It is imperative that your voice is heard and recognized in the legislative process! Go to https://joindcta.org/ today to let your lawmakers hear from you! The Digital Currency Traders Alliance is looking to expand its team! (self.CryptoCurrency) submitted 5 months ago by DCTAorg☑️ DCTA Official Hey everyone! This post is for those of you that are looking for an opportunity to get involved in the politics of this emerging sector! The Digital Currency Traders Alliance is looking for volunteers/interns (the entire team is all volunteers right now) to help with social media and communications. Some of the duties for the position are as follows: Assist staff with implementing DCTA’s 2022 Strategic Plan Assist with updating and maintaining DCTA’s social media presence, including Reddit Discord Twitter Instagram TikTok. Assist with additional administrative tasks as necessary We are looking to bring on several individuals to assist us. If you feel you can only accomplish part of the listed duties we would still ask that you apply. Skills Needed: Deep knowledge of social media platforms and insight into content that performs best on each platform. Familiarity with crypto/blockchain blogs and resources, including Twitter personalities, crypto subreddits, and Discord channels. Basic knowledge of the cryptocurrency and blockchain sectors. Firm grasp of available tools and platforms in the social media space. An effective communicator, both written and oral. Ability to communicate in a professional manner with press and community contacts. Self-motivated, good organizational skills, detail-oriented, ability to prioritize, multi-task and meet deadlines. Enthusiasm for the mission of DCTA and the consumers we serve. We are looking for applicants who are interested in working hard, but most importantly working hard for a cause that matters and in a place they can really make a difference in the crypto policies shaping our country moving forward. Applicants should support the goals of the Digital Currency Traders Alliance. This position will require 8-12 hours per week and College/University credit is available. Who We Are The Digital Currency Traders Alliance is a nonprofit coalition of retail investors, consumers, traders, businesses, and thought leaders in the Digital Currency space founded by a team of California-based lobbyists and public policy experts. Our mission at DCTA is to ensure that the future of digital currency trading is equitable and open to all by educating policymakers about the digital currency sector, promoting consumer protections, and giving a voice to everyday consumers. We want to ensure that decision-makers have the knowledge that they need to craft and adopt regulations and best practices that appropriately balance growth and innovation with robust consumer protections. For more information or to submit a resume for consideration please email: [nate@joinDCTA.org](mailto:Nate@joinDCTA.org). I know a lot of folks here are pretty anti-regulation/government. But I can’t help but think how some pretty basic regulations could have helped reduce the severity of the recent meltdown and the contagion from Terra > Celsius > other big funds/service providers. Things like mandatory disclosures to users, rules for use of held customer funds, protections for bankruptcy, or deposit insurance a la FDIC. So I did a quick writeup on some of the pros and cons of regulating crypto and look at what that future might look like and what the legislators we’ve been talking to are actually trying to regulate. To be clear: right now U.S. regulators are mainly focused on regulating centralized service providers like Celsius. Most regulators know enough to know that they have little control over what actually happens on-chain, so the current focus is on businesses that provide services off-chain that can be regulated (if they want to operate in a given jurisdiction) Downsides of regulation Increased compliance burden - service providers would have to be licensed and provide more thorough insight into operations and data. This will result in costs passed down to users, and may also prevent smaller players from being able to operate. Restricted services - similar to how Celsius restricted Earn to accredited investors (prior to their meltdown) or how Coinbase/COMP’s fixed APR products were killed last year, we would undoubtedly see restrictions on what services providers can offer in the first place. Stifling innovation - the above two points add up to big burdens for small players that would likely stop many small teams from being able to operate. Upsides of regulation Preventing Bad Actors - team filings and mandatory disclosures (risks, marketing, influencers, token issuance, etc) would make it harder for anonymous teams to manipulate markets and run rug pulls/PnDs. Tax Clarity - it’s hard to imagine worse tax law for crypto than we have now. Letting users make small transactions and taxing mining/staking/airdrops when disposed would eliminate a lot of tax headache. User protections - codifying things like bankruptcy protections, customer service/uptime requirements, user privacy/security standards, etc. The Lummis-Gillibrand RFIA had provisions for this included. Green-lighting innovation - regulatory clarity would give many businesses the confidence needed to expand and invest in U.S. operations. This could help offset the loss from other businesses that are driven away due to regulation. Widespread adoption - not everyone is technical enough to interact with DeFi and manage their wallets safely. Entities like Celsius were a great way to onboard nontechnical users, assuming they were safe and had proper user protections. Check out the full post here: https://joindcta.org/crypto-regulations-pros-cons/ Sure, there are going to be some growing pains, and there’s always the chance that regulators get this wrong and we end up stuck with some bad laws. This is why we want to make it easy for crypto users to track crypto legislation and contact their reps. Legislators absolutely will listen to us if we make enough noise together, and now is the time to make sure our rights as users are codified as the first real crypto laws are written. It's also a great time to let reps know how important this issue is going into midterms. Check out https://joindcta.org/advocacy/ if you want to learn more and make your voice heard. We want to make this a useful resource - are there any pros/cons of regulation we forgot to mention above? What are your biggest concerns as crypto starts to get regulated? Stop the SEC attack on crypto - email congress today using our free tool! by DCTAorg in CryptoCurrency [–]DCTAorg[S] 2 points 5 hours ago we've got a lot of requests over the last few days to do an international Call to Action. We're working on the plan right now! permalink save context full comments (123) report Stop the SEC attack on crypto - email congress today using our free tool! by DCTAorg in CryptoCurrency [–]DCTAorg[S] 4 points 5 hours ago It really does!! permalink save context full comments (123) report Stop the SEC attack on crypto - email congress today using our free tool! by DCTAorg in CryptoCurrency [–]DCTAorg[S] 2 points 5 hours ago Thanks!! permalink save context full comments (123) report Stop the SEC attack on crypto - email congress today using our free tool! by DCTAorg in CryptoCurrency [–]DCTAorg[S] 6 points 5 hours ago Right now it's just the states. But we've got a lot of requests over the last few days to do an international Call to Action. We're working on the plan right now and should be announcing an international version in the next couple weeks. permalink save context full comments (123) report 134 Stop the SEC attack on crypto - email congress today using our free tool! (self.CryptoCurrency) submitted 5 hours ago by DCTAorg to r/CryptoCurrency 123 comments share save hide report AOC criticizes Christian Super Bowl ads, says Jesus would not fund commercials to 'make fascism look benign' by GDPisnotsustainable in politics [–]DCTAorg 1 point 11 days ago Amen!!! As a fully grown pastor’s kid I have been screaming this for years!!! permalink save context full comments (4603) report 12 California lawmakers are looking for stories about common crypto scams (self.CryptoCurrency) submitted 25 days ago by DCTAorg to r/CryptoCurrency 23 comments share save hide report 0 The Digital Currency Traders Alliance is looking to expand its team! (self.CryptoCurrency) submitted 5 months ago by DCTAorg to r/CryptoCurrency 7 comments share save hide report The Government is regulating crypto, make sure your voice is heard! by DCTAorg in CryptoCurrency [–]DCTAorg[S] 2 points 5 months ago Thanks! permalink save context full comments (21) report The Government is regulating crypto, make sure your voice is heard! by DCTAorg in CryptoCurrency [–]DCTAorg[S] 2 points 5 months ago Our executive director did cannabis policy for over 10 years and heard the “our voice doesn't matter" line countless times. You would be shocked at how legislators react when they start regularly hearing from educated constituents on any specific issue. permalink save context full comments (21) report The Government is regulating crypto, make sure your voice is heard! by DCTAorg in CryptoCurrency [–]DCTAorg[S] 3 points 5 months ago One of the biggest frauds of our lifetime is that big money has been able to convince average voters that their voice doesn't matter. Our team have been advocates for over a decade and have successfully taken on corporate interests time and time again. permalink save context full comments (21) report The Government is regulating crypto, make sure your voice is heard! by DCTAorg in CryptoCurrency [–]DCTAorg[S] 3 points 5 months ago The portal is actually free to use! People who want to support our work are also free to do it! permalink save context full comments (21) report 7 The Government is regulating crypto, make sure your voice is heard! (self.CryptoCurrency) submitted 5 months ago by DCTAorg to r/CryptoCurrency 21 comments share save hide report New Bipartisan US Bill Puts CFTC In Charge Of Regulating Bitcoin And Ethereum by jakkkmotivator in CryptoCurrencies [–]DCTAorg 1 point 6 months ago Good, rather the CFTC than the SEC. Same as was proposed in June in the RFIA bill. It looks like the legislative consensus is that most coins that serve the purpose of directly helping a network run through PoS staking or PoW rewards will be commodities under the CFTC's jurisdiction. The problem that this bill still does not address is how to make the distinction between commodity and security for the other 99% of tokens. The RFIA proposed "commodity by default" and then any tokens that granted the following would be considered a security: Voting rights with respect to that entity. Rights to interest, dividend payments, or profits with respect to that entity. A debt or equity interest in that entity. Liquidation rights with respect to that entity. Meaning whatever bill ends up passing, the SEC will probably get jurisdiction over anything DeFi and many of the interesting things being done in the ecosystem, and future legislation will probably not rock that boat. So yeah, great to see continued support for BTC and ETH to be commodities under the CFTC, but still a lot of things for regulators to figure out about the rest of the market and use cases. permalink save context full comments (32) report US Senators propose bill to exclude crypto transactions under $50 from taxes. Another step in the right direction. by partymsl in CryptoCurrency [–]DCTAorg 1 point 6 months ago Yup. Which is one of the many reasons why we desperately need to be talking to legislators and get this changed to "taxed when disposed of, not earned." The Lummis-Gillibrand RFIA proposed back in June would do exactly this, although that bill seems unlikely to pass at this point. permalink save context full comments (589) report Sure centralized platforms and projects might be easier to navigate but this comes at the huge cost of custody. Never forget that. by [deleted] in defi [–]DCTAorg 1 point 7 months ago Generally agreed, but you have to admit that these centralized platforms do play a positive role in crypto adoption. Not everybody is capable of being their own bank, managing their own keys, or using a web3 wallet. If you want to bring these users into the ecosystem, a centralized crypto platform is a great solution. Remember all the posts last year about people who onboarded friends/family to the benefits of crypto via celsius? The problem is that there are no rules on what these platforms can do, and so they generally end up doing shady shit when they think no one is looking. What we need is sensible regulation and protections on these custodial service providers to keep them from doing shady stuff behind the scenes. Things like: requirements on how customer funds can be used bankruptcy protections so users can recover their assets (or deposit insurance) required disclosures for product risks The recently proposed RFIA bill in the senate had clauses for user protections on all the above points, although that bill is currently on hold til 2023 from the looks of it. The future of crypto isn't 100% pure decentralization all the time, it's going to be about integrating blockchain with existing tech and frameworks for a better, more transparent and equitable system. DeFi will always be there for the users that want it, and centralized service providers will be there for those who aren't ready to make that leap yet. permalink save context full comments (28) report 1 Regulation could have prevented some of this… (self.CryptoCurrency) submitted 7 months ago by DCTAorg to r/CryptoCurrency 21 comments share save hide report Celsius lawyers claim users gave up legal rights to their crypto. by Socialinfluencing in CryptoCurrency [–]DCTAorg 5 points 7 months ago Everyone saying "not your keys not your crypto" is ignoring the fact that apps like Celsius help bring crypto adoption to non-technical users by abstracting away complexity. A year ago everyone was onboarding their friends & family through Celsius, and it was generally seen as a big victory for the space. Do you all trust your parents or grandparents to manage their own private keys? Should we just gatekeep out all the non-technical folks? Instead of saying "I told you so" after a centralized platform loses user funds, why don't we instead try to proactively regulate these platforms before something bad happens? For example the RFIA bill that was proposed last month had clauses specifically for: restricting use of deposited customer funds (no yield farming w/ deposits) protecting user deposits in the event of a bankruptcy Celsius can put whatever they want in their ToS, but at the end of the day it all still has to comply with existing laws and be upheld in court. That said, laws specific to crypto are minimal and vague right now which just drives home the point that we need smart regulation and consumer protections in this space to prevent big players from abusing their end-users like this. I know many folks here are probably resistant to regulation in crypto, but now is literally the best time to get involved and make your voice heard to ensure we get proper consumer protections as crypto becomes more mainstream. permalink save context full comments (318) report US Senator Says Too Many Crypto Firms Are Able to Scam Customers — Urges SEC to Regulate by Beyonderr in CryptoCurrency [–]DCTAorg 1 point 7 months ago Regulation was coming long before Luna & Celsius melted down, they just became focal points for the conversation since a lot of people lost a lot of money in a very short timeframe. Many here are generally against regulation, but what's so bad about regulating centralized service providers from making sure they can't do shady things with user funds? Regulation is also how we get things like deposit insurance, customer service standards, and other basic user protections. The recent crypto regulatory framework that was proposed in June literally has clauses that would have prevented exactly what Celsius was doing and might have prevented this whole market-wide implosion. I guess my point is: regulations are coming to crypto, like it or not. If you're concerned regulators will get it wrong, then get involved in the political process, contact your reps about crypto, and make your voice heard. permalink save context full comments (335) report 2 Verification Request: DCTA (self.CryptoCurrencyMeta) submitted 7 months ago by DCTAorg to r/CryptoCurrencyMeta 2 comments share save hide report Yesterday European Commission agreed on a deal for stringent and invasive AML for all crypto services, including linking your onchain wallets to user's KYC details. This drastically destroys user's privacy by Set1Less in CryptoCurrency [–]DCTAorg 1 point 7 months ago I understand the gut reaction to think "this is invasive and an overreach on the EU's part, the government is going to ruin crypto," but this is a pretty positive step. Everyone here wants crypto to go mainstream and help build a better, more equitable financial system - but you don't get there without the blessing of the world's major governments. This ruling gives crypto more formal legitimacy in the EU. P2P transactions and anything purely onchain would be unaffected, so you can always go that route if you're concerned. Much of this info is already easy enough to figure out with chain analysis if you've ever done any KYC with any centralized exchange, this just formalizes the process by making you confirm what they already know. If this sort of news worries you take a step back, look at the bigger picture, and realize that this is actually a big step forward for crypto adoption. permalink save context full comments (851) report [deleted by user] by [deleted] in CryptoCurrency [–]DCTAorg 1 point 8 months ago Do you trust your grandparents to manage their funds on a hardware wallet? What about the friend that regularly has their social media accounts compromised by clicking on phishing links? Not your keys, not your coins is simply not a viable long-term solution for the average user. Hardware wallets are great for the OGs in this space, but if you want wider adoption and crypto to actually be used globally, it needs to have a better user experience for casual users and late adopters. permalink save context full comments (228) report [deleted by user] by [deleted] in CryptoCurrency [–]DCTAorg 1 point 8 months ago You aren't wrong, but how do you realistically expect a newbie to this space to vet every single claim that is thrown at them? The sheer volume of misinformation is astounding, and it takes many users in this space months or years to even have a basic and partial understanding. The whole point of regulation is to pass part of this burden from the end-user up to the regulators and service providers directly, making it easier for users to safely adopt. Of course, no government can really regulate DeFi and DAPPs, so those products will always be available to the technically savvy like you & me. But how many people were using Celsius or other CeFi platforms to casually onboard friends and family to crypto? These centralized platforms can and should be regulated, especially if we ever want crypto to see more widespread use than it currently does. Regardless, regulation is coming, so best be a part of that conversation when it does. permalink save context full comments (228) report [deleted by user] by [deleted] in CryptoCurrency [–]DCTAorg 1 point 8 months ago Many in this space don't want to admit it, but cases like this are why regulation exists, and it isn't the boogeyman many think it is. If we all want crypto to become mainstream and act as the backbone of a new financial system, there must be regulations in place to prevent bad actors and protect the less technical users out there. For example, the recent draft of the Responsible Financial Innovation Act had multiple clauses that would have expressly prohibited what Celsius was doing with user funds, and protections in place for users if/when they go bankrupt. That bill is far from perfect, but the consumer protections are a step in the right direction and the sort of language that we need to reiterate with lawmakers as they begin to draft crypto legislation over the next 1-2 years. Make no mistake, regulation is coming to this space, and it's coming fast. All you can do as an end-user is make your voice heard to ensure that politicians don't mess it up when it does happen. permalink save context full comments (228) report I’m having a hard time making sense of DeFi by imnessal in defi [–]DCTAorg 1 point 8 months ago Speaking to point #2 on regulation: as a grassroots crypto advocacy group, what we've seen in a lot of early discussions with legislators and draft bills is that it's hard for regulators not to accidentally target DeFi as they try to write laws that target CeFi. Almost none of them are trying to target DeFi right now; to /u/Terrorbear's point, most regulators don't care as long as nothing blatantly illegal is going on. But in writing laws that affect money transmission and KYC/AML, it's hard not accidentally target DeFi operators. Right now most politicians are playing catch up from 5 years ago as they struggle to understand the basics of cryptocurrencies and digital assets, and figure out how the hell to classify all this stuff legally. They generally aren't looking at the nuances of DeFi yet, but that will likely come over the next 2-3 years once they've figured out the basics of the industry. Shameless plug: if you're concerned that regulators will get this wrong, check out our website joindcta.org. We're organizing a coalition of crypto users to speak up and make sure our voices are heard as crypto legislation is being drafted around the U.S. permalink save context full comments (39) report view more: next › Another crypto day for the government by ResponsibleResort195 in CryptoMarkets [–]DCTAorg 1 point 8 months ago Literally none of the legislators we've spoken to want to ban crypto (here in the US), they all want to understand and figure out how to stop their constituents from getting scammed and then bring revenue into their jurisdiction. They also largely understand that trying to stop everything that happens on blockchain is impossible, and will just be an endless game of regulatory whack-a-mole that accomplishes nothing. Most legislators are concerned with how private crypto businesses operate within their jurisdiction - the Coinbases and Crypto.coms of the world - and making sure they're compliant and not screwing their customers. At the end of the day regulation is coming to this space, and it really isn't that scary. No one is going to ban anything in the US (again, they really can't and they know it) and most legislators want to stop the obvious BS scams and pump n dumps more than anything else, same as we all want. If you're really concerned about big govt messing this up, then consider getting involved in crypto grassroots advocacy and make sure your voice is heard as the inevitable regs come our way. permalink save context full comments (78) report Ethereum's cofounder Vitalik Buterin says we'll soon use 'soulbound tokens' to verify things like school and employment — all stored in a 'souls' wallet by AptitudeSky in CryptoCurrency [–]DCTAorg 1 point 9 months ago This proposal is both incredibly exciting and incredibly scary at the same time. The futurologist in me is excited by the possibilities here, but the realist in me is worried about the eventual hacks and information leaks from bringing personal information directly onto the blockchain. Things like the Ledger hack a few years back have shown how tying your crypto ID to your real-world ID is usually never a good idea. Imagine if a government was issuing NFT IDs like this and a leak of that magnitude occurred? That said, any new technology will face these problems. SBTs will have lots of growing pains, but the hope is that in 10+ years it will be mature enough (and secure enough) for widespread adoption. Things like ZK proofs will help tremendously in the implementation, but that tech is also in its infancy and years away from practical use in this area. I also have a hard time imagining this could ever be mandatory; moving real-world docs or ID to blockchain would likely have to be opt-in for users that want it and can actually handle it. At the end of the day, this is an early draft of an interesting idea and the sort of thing that does continually push the space forward. It's also the sort of thing that will need to be watched carefully to make sure it cannot be abused and that user privacy is never compromised. permalink save context full comments (1118) report At 4PM EST the Digital Currency Traders Alliance will be hosting an AMA to talk about what we are doing to prevent government overreach and ensure consumer privacy as the government begins to regulate crypto. by jwinterm in CryptoCurrency [–]DCTAorg 1 point 10 months ago Thank you to everyone who attended and for the great discussion on how we can impact the future of crypto regulation. As mentioned, we're just getting started and will have a lot of educational resources and advocacy campaigns coming in the next couple of weeks. To track crypto legislation in your state or contact your representatives go to https://joindcta.org/advocacy/. You can also support us with crypto donations at https://joindcta.org/support/ or sign up for a membership at https://joindcta.org/membership/. If you just want updates on what we're doing you can follow us on twitter or sign up for email updates here. We have an unprecedented opportunity to help write the laws that will govern our future financial system - now is the time to get involved and make your voice heard. permalink save context full comments (21) report 1 Verification Request: [Entity Name] (self.CryptoCurrencyMeta) submitted 11 months ago by DCTAorg to r/CryptoCurrencyMeta 1 comment share save hide report

1 0

Offshore Wind Halt Urged By Native Americans Seeking Sway
by Gunnar Larson 24 Feb '23

24 Feb '23

Offshore Wind Halt Urged By Native Americans Seeking Sway https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-02-23/offshore-wind-halt-urged… The National Congress of American Indians on Thursday called for a moratorium on offshore wind development along US coasts, insisting the Biden administration do a better job protecting tribal interests.

1 0

Larson and Pritzker Will Do What It Takes to Keep Both DeSantis and Trump Out of the White House
by Gunnar Larson 24 Feb '23

24 Feb '23

Larson and Pritzker Will Do What It Takes to Keep Both DeSantis and Trump Out of the White House: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-02-23/pritzker-vows-to-block-g…

1 0

RED FLAGS! Corporate Officers - Directors and Officers - United States
by Gunnar Larson 23 Feb '23

23 Feb '23

As many Cypherpunks can agree, xNY.io has been screaming about red flags out of New York, concerning digital asset innovation at the cross border level. Here is a terrific example of how board directors who have ignored red flags at the United Nations (aka JP Morgan) probably have a solvency issue. Elon Musk said the same thing, before the Twitter LBO about the failing United Nations. Also, Mr. Musk said that the CEO that banks the United Nations hates the SpaceX CEO ... Meanwhile, the Southern District of New York seemingly has never heard of Bank.org and/or the United Nations. https://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/directors-and-officers/1284994/delaware… Until the Delaware Court of Chancery issued its recent decision in In re McDonald's Corp. Stockholder Derivative Litigation1 ("McDonalds"), it was unclear if claims for breach of the fiduciary duty of loyalty premised on a lack of oversight first established by In re Caremark International Inc. Derivative Litigation2 ("Caremark") in 1996, with respect to directors, also applied to corporate officers of Delaware corporations. In McDonalds, the Delaware Court of Chancery pronounced, unequivocally, that "[t]his decision clarifies that corporate officers owe a duty of oversight. The same policies that motivated [the Delaware Court of Chancery in Caremark] to recognize the duty of oversight for directors apply equally, if not to a greater degree, to officers."3 Legal Background and Analysis Under the Caremark test, as later adopted by the Delaware Supreme Court in Stone v. Ritter4, liability to directors for failing to properly discharge their duty of oversight arises under two different "prongs" of the test, where either: "(1) directors utterly failed to implement any reporting or information system or controls; or (2) having implemented such a system or controls, consciously failed to monitor or oversee its operations thus disabling themselves from being informed of risks or problems requiring their attention."5 First Prong: Information System Claims. The court in McDonalds referred to the first prong as an "Information Systems Claim", whereby "the board lacked the requisite information systems and controls".6 To make an Information Systems Claim, the board must have consciously failed to make a good faith effort to establish a board-level information and oversight system designed to provide timely and accurate information and, at a minimum, address "essential and mission-critical" legal compliance.7 The validity of an Information Systems Claim does not depend on whether the oversight system was actually effective, but only whether the system existed and was monitored by the board. Second Prong: Red-Flags Claims. The McDonalds court referred to the second prong as a "Red-Flags Claim", whereby "the board's information systems generated red flags indicating wrongdoing and that the directors failed to respond."8 The basis for liability requires a demonstration that (i) directors consciously disregarded evidence of red flag wrongdoing or misconduct in bad faith, and (ii) that the corporate trauma in question must be sufficiently similar to the red flag misconduct such that the board's bad faith and conscious inaction proximately caused the trauma.9 Must Act in Bad Faith; Exculpation Unavailable. The McDonalds court found that the two prongs of the Caremark test would apply equally to officers and directors, but that the specifics of an officer's duty is context-dependent, as discussed in more detail below. Regardless, under either prong of the Caremark test, directors and officers will only be liable for violations of the duty of oversight if a plaintiff can provide evidence that they acted in bad faith and, therefore, disloyally to the corporation. 10 This requires a showing of scienter, i.e., that the officer consciously failed to make a good faith effort to establish information systems or the officer consciously ignored red flags.11 As a practical matter, this means that Section 102(b)(7) of the Delaware General Corporation Law, which permits a Delaware corporation to include an exculpatory provision in its certificate of incorporation that eliminates the personal liability of a director or officer for breaches of certain fiduciary duties, will not apply to Caremark claims because Section 102(b)(7) specifically excludes bad faith misconduct and breaches of the duty of loyalty. See "Elimination of the Duty of Care in Delaware? Statutory Exculpation of Officers: Recent Amendment to Section 102(b)(7) of the Delaware General Corporation Law". Applicability to Corporate Officers. The Court of Chancery in McDonalds then went on to explain how the situational aspects of a corporate officer's duty of oversight may differ from that of the board of directors in a couple of important ways. For example, although the board has oversight duties regarding the whole corporation because it has "plenary authority" concerning the management of the corporation, a particular officer only has a duty to establish information systems and follow-up on red flags issues that comes within the scope of his or her authority and responsibility (e.g., a chief financial officer would be responsible for creating financial, but not human resources or legal, reporting systems and controls).12 The court then went on to note, however, that if a red flag is sufficiently material, then an officer may have a duty to report upward on such red flag even if it is outside of his her or her area of responsibility.13 From the McDonalds decision, it is unclear which officers of the corporation will be charged with a duty of oversight, i.e., if it will include all corporate officers or just senior officers. Based on language from the McDonalds opinion, a reasonable inference can be drawn that it applies to all corporate officers: "the officers are optimally positioned to identify red flags and either address them or report upward to senior officers [emphasis added] or to the board."14 Section 142(a) of the Delaware General Corporation Law defines the term "officer" as "such officers with such titles and duties as shall be stated in the bylaws or in a resolution of the board of directors." Further, in the matter of In re Walt Disney Co. Derivative Litigation,15 the Delaware Court of Chancery established a bright-line rule whereby officers and directors become fiduciaries only when they are officially installed, and receive "the formal investiture of authority that accompanies such office of directorship." Taken together, the fiduciary duty of oversight would seem to apply only to those corporate officers specified in the bylaws or appointed by board resolution. In the derivative shareholder lawsuit16 at issue in the McDonalds case, the plaintiffs did not allege that the Chief People Officer of McDonalds failed to make a good faith effort to establish information systems (i.e., an Information Systems Claim), and, instead, made a Red-Flags Claim by asserting that the Chief People Officer breached his duty of oversight by consciously ignoring red flags.17 In particular, the complaint cited statements from employees that the human resources function, under the supervision of the Chief People Officer, "turned a blind eye" to complaints about sexual harassment, including coordinated complaints filed by restaurant workers and a ten-city strike. Further, because the Chief People Officer also allegedly engaged in acts of sexual harassment, the court concluded that "it is reasonable to infer that the officer consciously ignored red flags about similar behavior of others."18 Practice Points Regarding Oversight Duties of Corporate Officers In order to minimize exposure to liability for a breach of the duty of oversight by corporate officers, we recommend that management take the following actions: Each corporate officer should identify, at a minimum, the essential and mission-critical compliance with laws or regulatory mandates facing the company that are within the scope of the officer's authority and establish a monitoring systems that timely and accurately brings this information to the officer's attention. There may be heightened risk for a Caremark claim where risk to life or health or the company's obligation to comply with positive laws or regulations are involved. Once the oversight system is in place, the officer should pay attention to any "red flag" issues that may evidence non-compliance, report that information to the officer's superior(s), and take corrective actions, as needed, to address the red flag of non-compliance. Document all of the above actions, as litigation actions involving alleged breach of the duty of oversight are preceded by Section 220 books and records requests under the Delaware General Corporation Law. If this happens, one should be able to produce ample evidence that such officer made good faith efforts to properly execute his or her duty of oversight, including documenting: (i) that an oversight system was established, (ii) that the officer reviewed and discussed compliance issues, and (iii) that the officer followed-up on all red-flag issues, and addressed them, as needed.

1 0

Judge Carter Enjoins New York's New Online Hate Speech Law On First Amendment Grounds - Trials & Appeals & Compensation - United States
by Gunnar Larson 23 Feb '23

23 Feb '23

. . . The potential chilling effect to social media users is exacerbated by the indefiniteness of some of the Hateful Conduct Law's key terms. It is not clear what the terms like "vilify" and "humiliate" mean for the purposes of the law. While it is true that there are readily accessible dictionary definitions of those words, the law does not define what type of "conduct" or "speech" could be encapsulated by them. For example, could a post using the hashtag "BlackLivesMatter" or "BlueLivesMatter" be considered "hateful conduct" under the law? Likewise, could social media posts expressing anti-American views be considered conduct that humiliates or vilifies a group based on national origin? It is not clear from the face of the text, and thus the law does not put social media users on notice of what kinds of speech or content is now the target of government regulation. https://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/trials-amp-appeals-amp-compensation/128…

1 0

ESG Litigation Heats Up In Marketing, Climate Pollution, And DEI - Securities - United States
by Gunnar Larson 23 Feb '23

23 Feb '23

MLK said, Gunnar, duck and run. So interesting that in New York our Civil Rights have been ignored, for fear of historic litigation (as one of the world’s most controversial journalists in litigation investment). But, no, we have chosen to innovate rather than litigate. The United Nations is probably the world's most pervasive fraud in ESG malfeasance, and that is something Bank.org is happy to make history with. With the situation in Chelsea, I also think the FBI CFO's Civil Rights has been abused with an "All Electric Tower" via a $2B windmill project financed by five time felons at JPMORGAN. Who, by the way bank the United Nations. These rights abuses are very well known by the FBI, NYPD, DHS and New York Attorney General. Yet, NY-DFS is the best regulator on the planet to make all this exciting and historic ... "For example, the Securities and Exchange Commission recently created a Climate and ESG Task Force. The Southern District of New York launched a civil rights unit in its criminal division, and the Environmental Protection Agency instituted the Office of Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights." ---------- As more regulatory agencies create ESG-focused task forces, ESG-related enforcement actions and litigation are steadily increasing. Katten attorneys analyze trends and enforcement targets. As more regulatory agencies develop task forces focused on environmental, social, and governance oversight, the potential for ESG-related enforcement actions is steadily increasing. For example, the Securities and Exchange Commission recently created a Climate and ESG Task Force. The Southern District of New York launched a civil rights unit in its criminal division, and the Environmental Protection Agency instituted the Office of Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights. Each newly minted federal regulatory task force will give rise to greater ESG-related enforcement action. But governmental actions are simply one aspect of the ESG landscape that will be very active this year. For example, we also expect increased shareholder derivative lawsuits, consumer protection litigation, suits by environmental advocacy groups, employment discrimination claims—individual and class—and other private action litigation. Green Marketing Green marketing, including promotion of environmentally friendly products or services, is under increased scrutiny. Although consumer goods have long been the target of allegations of false or misleading marketing claims, these claims are on the rise in the green marketing space. As consumers become more interested in the environmental attributes of products and services, they may seek to base purchase decisions on advertised "green" benefits. Although some marketing jargon may seem benign at first glance, companies should be cautious of overstating, misleading, or providing inaccurate environmentally friendly claims that could give rise to litigation. This is understandably challenging in the evolving ESG landscape. For example, consumers have an increased expectation of transparency as it relates to carbon emissions reduction, but this can be achieved directly, by reducing emissions from manufacturing, sourcing, and transport. Or, it can be achieved through the purchase of carbon offsets—carbon reduction credits that represent the impact of beneficial projects somewhere else in the world—which are applied to reduce a company's net emissions. Danone Waters is litigating a consumer protection lawsuit alleging that that the "carbon-neutral" claim on the label of Evian water is false and misleading. The plaintiffs assert that a reasonable consumer would interpret the carbon-neutral label to mean that no carbon dioxide was released in the manufacturing of Evian products—which is most likely unreasonable, given the likelihood that no product production can claim to be totally carbon-free. Danone Waters achieves carbon neutrality by purchasing carbon offsets. However, the plaintiffs have attacked the carbon-offset verification process as unreliable. As consumer expectations around carbon neutrality evolve, companies may have to revise their carbon neutrality claims to maintain customer trust and reduce potential litigation risks. Similarly, words such as "clean," which were once perceived as innocuous green marketing jargon, are also false advertising claims. Currently, a utility company is fighting claims that it deceptively advertises natural gas as a "clean" source of energy, when natural gas combustion emits methane—a greenhouse gas that has been linked to climate change. Because green marketing consumer expectations are evolving, companies should work in concert with legal counsel to remain on par with current market trends. Climate Pollution Companies that pollute continue to be the target of lawsuits brought by environmental advocacy groups and state agencies. In recent years, states and cities brought several lawsuits against oil and gas companies alleging that these companies knowingly made false and misleading statements regarding the extent their products contribute to pollution. An environmental advocacy group recently sued a manufacturing company claiming that its production facility was polluting the Merrimack River in violation of the Clean Water Act. These actions reflect the importance of companies understanding their pollution output and devising a sustainable plan with various stakeholders to reduce that output over time. Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion ESG-related employment discrimination and shareholder derivative lawsuits related to DEI missteps are also increasing. Recently, a proposed class action lawsuit alleged that a social media company's recent layoffs disproportionately affected women. Layoffs under any circumstance are tough, and ripple effects may not be revealed until months or years later. Yet, it is imperative that companies adopt controls to ensure layoffs do not produce an unintentional, disproportionate impact to protected classes. Since 2020, over a dozen corporations have faced shareholder derivative lawsuits based on their allegedly misleading statements about their commitment to diversity and equity. These lawsuits typically allege that the corporation's directors breached their fiduciary duties by failing to ensure the corporation complied with anti-discrimination laws or by authorizing false statements in public materials regarding the corporation's commitment to diversity and inclusion. Although these derivative lawsuits have faced significant legal obstacles and many have been dismissed, shareholders continue to pursue these claims. DEI is no longer solely the responsibility of diversity officers—it is an important ESG risk management function. DEI missteps or failings can lead to costly private litigation, which can be avoided with proper controls. These cases emphasize the importance for corporations to appropriately embed ESG principles into their business operations and adequately reflect their commitment to customers, employees, and other stakeholders. Originally Published by Bloomberg Law

1 0

Treating Dumbfuck Donald as a serious POTUS contender is journalistic malpractice
by professor rat 23 Feb '23

23 Feb '23

>>> if Trump just happened to keel over tomorrow. Would the media still keep hyping him as a 2024 frontrunner? Would it pretend that Trump being deceased wouldn’t stand in the way of his availability as a candidate? That would be absurd beyond the pale. But it’s not much more absurd than pretending that a guy who’s on track to be put on three felony criminal trials and sent to prison before we even get to 2024, is somehow magically going to be available as a 2024 candidate. <<< https://www.palmerreport.com/analysis/this-is-absurd-beyond-the-pale/49034/ NYT lied - people died - That past is not dead - its not even past

1 0

Ohio train derailment: Why Republicans seized on the East Palestine accident - Vox
by professor rat 23 Feb '23

23 Feb '23

Republican POTUS tweeted he was rolling back regulations in 2017 https://twitter.com/NoLieWithBTC/status/1628490355904503833 Reposts not train braking rules designed to stop explosions near communities

1 0

New York Department Of Financial Services Issues Guidance On Virtual Currency Custodial Services - Financial Services - United States
by Gunnar Larson 23 Feb '23

23 Feb '23

In Short The Situation: Following a string of bankruptcies among virtual currency firms, the New York Department of Financial Services has issued guidance on the practices and procedures it expects from certain state-regulated entities providing virtual currency custodial services. The Result: These entities should review their current arrangements regarding customer safeguards in the context of the guidance, including how their customers' assets are segregated and whether they are treated solely as the property of their customers, as well review their due diligence and disclosure procedures with respect to customer assets under custody. Looking Ahead: The guidance is designed to clarify the relationship between a virtual currency custodian and its customers to ensure the latter are better protected in the event of bankruptcy, particularly in situations where ownership of the virtual currency is at issue. New York has long been a first mover in virtual currency, and this guidance may influence future actions at the federal level. New York Department of Financial Services Issues Guidance for Virtual Currency Custodians On January 23, 2023, the New York Department of Financial Services ("NYDFS") issued guidance to certain New York-regulated virtual currency entities on proper disclosure and custody practices. The Guidance on Custodial Structures for Customer Protection in the Event of Insolvency (the "Guidance") applies to entities that provide virtual currency custodial services as either holders of New York's BitLicense or its Limited Purpose Trust Charter. The Guidance sets forth NYDFS's expectations for virtual currency entities ("VCEs") that provide custodial services ("VCE Custodians") on standards and procedures "to better protect customers in the event of an insolvency or similar proceeding ... [by] providing a high level of customer protection with respect to asset custody under the BitLicense." Notably, the Guidance is not a statute or a regulation with the force of law. The Guidance sets forth NYDFS's expectations in four areas: Segregation of and Separate Accounting for Customer Virtual Currency: NYDFS expects that VCE Custodians will hold the virtual currency of customers in either "separate on-chain wallets and internal ledger accounts for each customer" or omnibus wallets containing only customer virtual currency held by the VCE Custodians as agents or trustees. That is, VCE Custodians should not commingle proprietary digital assets with customer assets. If a VCE Custodian holds customer virtual currency in an omnibus wallet-comingling customer assets with other customer assets only-it must uphold appropriate recordkeeping and internal audit trail procedures such that it is able to promptly and accurately identify each customer's beneficial interest. VCE Custodian's Limited Interest in and Use of Customer Virtual Currency: The Guidance restricts a VCE Custodian's interest in the assets under its control, directing VCE Custodians to "structure their custodial arrangements in a manner that preserves the customer's equitable and beneficial interest in the customer's virtual currency." Further, the Guidance advises VCE Custodians to treat all customer assets under their control as solely the property of the customers, and to avoid handling customer assets as if they were the property of the VCE Custodians. NYDFS expects that customer assets will not be used to secure or guarantee an obligation of, or extend credit to, the VCE Custodian or others. Sub-Custody Arrangements: VCE Custodians may enter into sub-custody arrangements with third parties, provided that they conduct appropriate due diligence and obtain prior approval from NYDFS. Customer Disclosure: VCE Custodians must disclose their terms of service to customers, including their procedures for segregating customer assets, what property interest customers will retain, and how the VCE Custodians can use the virtual currencies they hold. VCE Custodians must also obtain customers' acknowledgment of such terms. For VCE Custodians that offer digital asset staking and lending programs, more clarity may be needed on how these disclosure provisions interact, if at all, with NYDFS's expectation that VCE Custodians will not make extensions of credit using customer assets. Significance of the Guidance NYDFS issued the Guidance subsequent to a string of bankruptcies in the virtual currency space. Customer rights have been a central issue in these recent bankruptcies, particularly in regards to whether ownership of customer virtual currency held by a custodian lies with the customer or with the custodian (and therefore the bankruptcy estate). In such situations, one way that some VCE Custodians have attempted to protect customer rights to their assets is to include language in customer agreements permitting the parties to "opt-in" to Article 8 of the Uniform Commercial Code (the "UCC"), which, by electing to treat the VCE Custodian as a "securities intermediary" and the virtual currency as "financial assets" under the UCC, can provide a customer with greater protections in the event of bankruptcy. The Guidance, however, does not mention this option. See UCC, Article 8, Sections 8-103, 8-303. The question of how customer digital assets held by failed VCE Custodians should be treated is still playing out in bankruptcy courts, although a recent ruling in the Celsius Network bankruptcy proceedings indicates that the answer hinges on the nature of the custodial relationship. On January 4, 2023, the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York ruled that customer assets in certain Celsius accounts belonged to the bankruptcy estate, not to Celsius customers, as the customers had "entered a contract which contained unambiguous and clear language regarding transfer of title and ownership of assets" to Celsius. Celsius Network LLC, et al., Case No: 22-10964, Docket No. 1822, at 39 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2023). The Guidance could help to prevent similar future situations by ensuring customers retain equitable and beneficial interest in the virtual currencies stored with VCE Custodians, and by setting an expectation of clear disclosures to customers regarding the property interest maintained by customers in digital assets stored with custodians. Three Key Takeaways NYDFS has taken notice of issues customers face when VCE Custodians file for bankruptcy and, as a result, has provided clarifying guidance to BitLicensees and New York limited purpose trust companies that provide custodial services for customer digital assets. The Guidance lays out customer protections that NYDFS expects VCE Custodians to provide, including procedures for segregation of funds, a clear custodial relationship (as opposed to a debtor-creditor relationship), properly vetted and approved sub-custody arrangements, and appropriate disclosure practices. If a VCE Custodian maintains procedures as outlined in the Guidance, customers may enjoy greater protections in the event of the custodian's insolvency. The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

1 0

The United Nations is using “big numbers and misleading statistics” to convince the world that 700 million people will be displaced in Africa by 2030 because of water scarcity, according to Danish Refugee Council Global Adviser and Senior Analyst Alexander Kjærum.
by Gunnar Larson 23 Feb '23

23 Feb '23

Water.org and the United Nations (working at UNHQ-NY) have been a big part of Bank.org's success ... https://www.devex.com/news/opinion-un-is-wrong-to-say-700-million-will-be-d… Global ViewsData and development Opinion: UN is wrong to say 700 million will be displaced by drought By Alexander Kjærum // 23 February 2023 Environment & Natural ResourcesHumanitarian AidResearchUnited NationsWMO Internally displaced people in Beletweyne, in the Hiraan region of Somalia, wait to receive food and nonfood items donated by AMISOM troops. Photo by: AMISOM “UN predicts 700 million displaced in Africa by 2030 due to water scarcity” — reads a headline from October 2022. The story behind the number tells a concerning story about the aid sector’s use of big numbers and misleading statistics to advance their agendas. In fact, the number has nothing to do with water scarcity, Africa, or a timeline of 2030. Subscribe to Newswire A comprehensive look at the day’s top global development breaking news, analysis, and opinion Subscribe The October headline was based on a recently released report by the United Nations’ World Meteorological Organization, but it had also been used over several years, including by the U.N. secretary general, several other U.N. agencies, in particular the U.N. Convention to Combat Desertification and UNICEF, and the World Bank and numerous NGOs. The number gained momentum in 2022 as it was included in a draft public version of the sixth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, despite the fact that it was clearly stated that the draft should not be cited or quoted. The number first appeared in a UNESCO report from 2009, which states that between 24 million to 700 million could be displaced globally by water-related factors. While the referencing in the UNESCO report is not entirely clear, it appears that the source of the 700 million is a Christian Aid report from 2007. This report states that up to 1 billion could be displaced by 2050 (not 2030), which includes 645 million that would be displaced due to development projects “such as dams and mines.” Combined with an estimated 50 million displaced by natural disasters this becomes approximately 700 million. There is only very basic math behind these numbers — e.g. the 645 million displaced due to development projects is calculated by the assumption that 15 million are displaced every year, multiplied by 43 years to reach 2050. The mere fact that a flagship U.N. report cites a number from a document which clearly says it should not be cited should raise immediate red flags. — In 2012, the 24 million to 700 million range is then referenced in a UNCCD fact sheet, stating that: “With the existing climate change scenario, almost half the world’s population will be living in areas of high water stress by 2030, including between 75 million and 250 million people in Africa. In addition, water scarcity in some arid and semi-arid places will displace between 24 million and 700 million people.” This became the source for a number of future references, but in a synthesized version where nuance and meaning get lost, it becomes “high water stress is estimated to affect about 250 million people on the [African] continent and displace up to 700 million individuals by 2030.“ This should be quite obviously wrong to most people for two reasons: 1) The number of displaced people from a hazard or disaster will always be smaller than the ones who are exposed to that same hazard or disaster. Yet in this scenario of 700 million people displaced, that would represent almost three times as many as the 250 million people actually affected by water stress. 2) The 700 million figure would amount to almost half of Africa’s population in 2030. This example reveals several concerning points about the use of big numbers in the humanitarian and development sector. First, when a number range is provided, the highest number regularly ends up being the one that makes the headlines. We see this in the World Bank Groundswell report for example, where the headlines have also been that climate change could lead to 216 million migrants by 2050 without including the range of 44 million to 216 million. Second, the drive to promote big, concerning numbers seems to dilute common sense. While 700 million displaced in the distant future of 2050 might have made some sense in 2007, how can this figure be used in 2022 for a 2030 projection without looking into what the current status is? Based on calculations on data from the Internal Displacement Monitoring Center, 2.6 million people globally were displaced by drought between 2017 and 2021, so quite far from potentially accumulating to 700 million on the African continent by 2030 as per the October 2022 headline. The loss of common sense is related to the fact that people have a very hard time understanding big numbers, which research confirms. When 700 million is used and quoted without context it ends up meaning simply “many people” to a majority of readers. If the quote had used the equally erroneous wording “half of Africa’s population to be displaced by 2030,” I am sure many readers and researchers would have questioned this prediction. More reading: ► Opinion: Data we trust is a vital weapon as diseases gain ground ► What does the data say about climate development funding? (Pro) ► Opinion: Localization is key to avoid climate data misuse Third, it reveals that many humanitarian and development organizations are publishing big numbers without accurately checking their validity or credibility; presumably more intent on gaining attention and funding for their cause. It exposes the extreme big-number fetish in the sector, when what is needed instead is to promote factual, qualitative knowledge about the issues of concern. This 700 million example reveals a concerning lack of review and fact-check internally in many of the leading U.N. agencies and NGOs that continue to publish and use this number. The mere fact that a flagship U.N. report cites a number from a document which clearly says it should not be cited should raise immediate red flags. There is no good reason to always provide the biggest, worst-case scenario number in any range provided in research. By constantly focusing on the largest value in a range, or the most sensational, humanitarian and development communications risk crying wolf and losing credibility among the public, donors, and internal decision-makers. In turn, as these groups are regularly fed numbers and predictions that are very likely not to be true, they will lose faith in the evidence being provided. This poses a significant risk to advancing more evidence- and data-driven development and humanitarian action in a time when it is needed most. To retain some credibility, humanitarian and development agencies should start by focusing on promoting the most realistic scenario numbers. And these numbers should always come with a clear explanation of the methodology behind them and put them into context. Lastly, the sector should focus less on numbers and more on describing the issues qualitatively, which makes it easier for donors and decision-makers to act on it. Editor’s note: By the time of publication, WMO responded to the author’s queries and have subsequently removed the reference to 700 million displaced people in Africa due to water scarcity by 2030 from the “State of the Climate in Africa 2021” report. The views in this opinion piece do not necessarily reflect the views of the Danish Refugee Council. The views in this opinion piece do not necessarily reflect Devex's editorial views. About the author Alexander Kjærum Alexander Kjærum is a global advisor, senior analyst with the Danish Refugee Council. He is leading the work on enhancing the use of data and analysis for strategic planning, programming, and advocacy. He is also the lead on use of predictive analytics and author on the flagship Global Displacement Forecast report.

1 0