- cypherpunks@lists.ogf.org

Today there are more than a hundred anarchists fighting in Ukraine
by professor rat 01 Jun '23

01 Jun '23

From Pramen Прамень30.05.202330.05.2023 For many years the anarchist movement in Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine has participated in major political events with varying degrees of success. Maidan in Ukraine, protests against slavery and 2020 in Belarus, actions in Russia – wherever the struggle against authoritarianism began, anarchists were at the forefront. The same situation developed when Russia began its full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Many comrades from various parts of the former Soviet Union took up arms to fight against Putin’s inhumane regime. Today there are more than a hundred anarchists and anti-fascists fighting in Ukraine . . . " https://mail.yahoo.com/d/compose/6093490815?.intl=au&.lang=en-AU Reposts for crypto-munitions over nuclear weapons

1 0

Austro-libertarian morons are rewiring nationalist fascism using Btc
by professor rat 01 Jun '23

01 Jun '23

Those who don't recall the violent fascist history of 1934 Vienna, Austria and 1973 Santiago, Chile may be forced to repeat it. Bitcoin fanatics in El Salvador are celebrating repeating the violent fascist history of Austro-libertarianism. They want Satoshi and San Salvador to join Mises Vienna and Hayek's Santiago. In a time of dawning cryptoanarchism giving mouth-to-arse resuscitation to to the nation state - or any state - looks like suicide. So please don't interrupt our enemies ( Ohai Semich ) while they're making fatal errors. Thank youse.

1 0

[ot][spam][crazy][log] nvc blips and bubbles
by Undescribed Horrific Abuse, One Victim & Survivor of Many 01 Jun '23

01 Jun '23

maybe i can use my pressure balances to make steps on nonviolent communication and a language model bot ideas include “talking nice” and “learning ai” and “moving concepts near those of people who care”

1 3

Moral Hazard – It's Not Just For Insurance Anymore - Financial Services - United States
by Gunnar Larson 01 Jun '23

01 Jun '23

It's an overlooked driver of new product introduction failures. Somewhere between 50% and 90% of new consumer products launches fail, depending on the methodology. Regardless of the weighting given to revenue and profit targets, growth, and other determinants to arrive at the number, the rate of new product introduction failure in consumer products is unacceptably high. It's not hard to find notable examples of new product introduction failures: Pepsi's Frito-Lay Lemonade Kellogg's Jolly Rancher Pop-Tarts; Pepsi's Tropicana Essential Pro-Biotics; and Kraft Heinz's Frosted Salad Dressing. Perhaps some of these products weren't designed to last forever, but they involve costly changes to formulas and features that go into new product development (NPD) launches, and downstream activities like packaging, marketing, and sell-in. Line extensions, while less expensive, also involve costs in these areas. When sales fall short, there are rightly questions about why, and who might be held accountable. Typical explanations include the inherent difficulty in getting innovation right, ideation that fails to reflect the right set of market, customer, and consumer insights, failure to live up to the brand promise, and sub-optimal launch strategies. Moral hazard is an often overlooked root cause of poor new product development performance. It occurs when the incentives and responsibilities for launching new products are not aligned with accountabilities. In our experience, there are three main drivers of moral hazard: Incentives that over-emphasize the quantity of NPD projects vs. profit or probability of success Sidelining finance and gaming financial hurdles Ignoring R&D and engineering capacity constraints and overloading innovation pipelines Let's unpack each of these. 1. Incentives tied to quantity of new products In the drive to hit ambitious top-down growth targets, companies often use innovation as a plug whether or not there's an innovation pipeline in place to realistically deliver those numbers. This can lead to lots of hastily conceived projects. This approach has an array of shortcomings: The forecast accuracy of NPD is not measured. In our experience, there is generally a 50% drop in forecast revenue between the time a product is approved to go into the NPD pipeline (generally 6-18 months before launch) and the final demand plan forecast (about two months before launch). After launch, most products underperform even these lowered demand forecasts. Limited downside for high failure rates. In many companies the hit rate of new products is not measured and is seldom utilized as a KPI. Those responsible for innovation are often appraised according to the amount of overall innovation activity and do not experience a downside when this activity falls short of forecast results. Marketing/Sales talent mix and focus skewed toward "glamorous" new product introduction versus more technical drivers of value. The skills and activities oriented to new product launches (e.g., consumer/customer/marketing research, customer negotiation, product positioning, promotion strategy and tactics) are often prioritized over other, perhaps more tedious, drivers of value such as price-pack architecture, off-invoice deductions, or auditing in-store merchandizing. But the latter activities are often more critical than new products in driving brand performance. 2. Sidelining finance and gaming financial hurdles In many companies, the finance team is not given adequate chance to act as a check-and-balance in the NPD process. Key contributors to this issue include: A minimal role for the chief financial officer (or head of FP&A). The chief marketing, growth, or innovation officer is often responsible for what goes into and comes out of the innovation pipeline, with limited opportunity for the CFO to challenge the underlying assumptions and soundness of business cases. Lack of rigor in business cases. To get into the NPD pipeline, a concept typically needs to meet certain thresholds based on forecast financial performance. These thresholds could be minimum volumes, revenue or margin dollars, or some target return on investment. Too often, rather than discard ideas that do not meet these thresholds, teams work to match their assumptions to these minimums, not because they believe they can hit these targets, but to ensure their favored project gets developed and launched. Stage gates are not effective. It can be difficult to spot teams who are gaming financial hurdles, as many NPD processes have very low standards of proof to support business-case assumptions, particularly earlier in the innovation funnel – and overly rosy assumptions prevail all too often and do not undergo sufficient financial scrutiny. 3. Lack of prioritization/ignoring R&D and engineering capacity constraints Overloading the pipeline is a common culprit when innovation fails. Oftentimes companies load too many projects into the pipeline, leading to bottlenecks, delays, and poorly executed projects. This leads to products missing their forecast launch windows (a critical failure in the eyes of retail customers with specific shelf-reset windows), poorly developed products that don't deliver the benefits they were intended to, and higher product costs that drive profitability lower than expected or lead to pricing at higher rates than initially conceived. In AlixPartners' experience there are remedies for each of these drivers of moral hazard: Re-orient incentives. Define a clear, measurable financial definition of success (our recommendation: the percentage of new product introductions that meet their forecasted profit targets), enforce materiality thresholds, build KPIs around the hit rate of new products, and ensure that the individuals and teams that have responsibility for conceiving and approving new product launches are accountable for the results. Increase financial rigor early in the NPD process. Including the CFO or other senior finance executives in the process from the outset enhances the fidelity of financial commitments. Minimum standards of proof to support business case assumptions (e.g., requiring evidence from prior launches) can provide the basis for meaningful debates and drive better NPD decisions. Ruthlessly prioritize NPD projects. Measure the capacity of available R&D, engineering, testing, and manufacturing resources. Force-rank innovation projects by importance and do not exceed the number of available R&D and engineering hours. Ensure focus on the most material and highest-potential projects and maximize the chances they will be developed on-time and on-quality. Successful innovation is inherently difficult and risky – and critical to success. Addressing the often misunderstood moral hazard issues incumbent to many current NPD processes can greatly improve the odds of launching new products that provide meaningful, incremental lift to both revenues and profits. https://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/financial-services/1323792/moral-hazard…

1 0

What Every Multinational Company Should Know About … Anti-Corruption - White Collar Crime, Anti-Corruption & Fraud - United States
by Gunnar Larson 01 Jun '23

01 Jun '23

What about the $100M Coinbase compliance deal? We stil are not getting any answers from NY-DFS on this and it would appear that the Superintendent is an attorney, formerly of a firm who represents Coinbase. xNY.io has dreams of being a New York State digital asset exchange show horse. We have a whole conflicts folder and everything... ---- What Areas Present Anti-Corruption Risks for My Company? Ineffective oversight of third parties interacting with government officials is a major driver of anti-corruption enforcement actions. Companies that employ consultants, agents, and distributors; that rely on a distribution or franchise model; or that maintain non-U.S. joint ventures are at especially high risk, especially if they engage third parties to obtain government permits, licenses, or otherwise have frequent contact with government officials. The presence of many State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs) in China and developing countries raises FCPA concerns, as even SOEs operating as ordinary commercial entities trigger FCPA requirements, as every employee is treated as a government official under the FCPA. In the M&A space, the DOJ and SEC have been aggressively asserting claims against acquiring companies, often using theories of successor liability, for pre-merger conduct of their targets that violated the FCPA. The DOJ and SEC have emphasized the need to conduct regular anti-corruption compliance risk assessments, particularly after events that could significantly impact business operations such as the global COVID-19 pandemic, entrance into new markets, or a corporate acquisition. Such events generally introduce new, expanded, or revised internal controls; increased governmental interactions; new employees; unique jurisdictional requirements; or new business partners and third-party relationships, each of which may present novel or heightened anti-corruption risks. Global cooperation and coordination between U.S. and foreign enforcement agencies has increased appreciably, with countries often sharing information (as well as simultaneously imposing fines and penalties). https://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/white-collar-crime-anti-corruption--fra…

1 0

Wall Street Banks Are Using AI to Rewire the World of Finance
by Gunnar Larson 01 Jun '23

01 Jun '23

Deutsche Bank AG (DBK) is using artificial intelligence to scan wealthy client portfolios. ING Group NV (INGA) is screening for potential defaulters. Morgan Stanley (MS) says its bankers are “experimenting” in a “safe and contained environment.” Meanwhile, JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) is hoovering up talent, advertising for more AI roles than any of its rivals. Wall Street Banks Are Using AI to Rewire the World of Finance https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2023-05-31/jpmorgan-s-push-into-fin…

1 0

Goldman Flags 25% Drop in Trading Revenue as Job Cuts Loom
by Gunnar Larson 01 Jun '23

01 Jun '23

Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (GS)is warning investors of a sharp slowdown in its investment bank from the bumper gains a year ago, as the bank hunkers down in the face of an “extraordinarily challenging” economic backdrop. Goldman Flags 25% Drop in Trading Revenue as Job Cuts Loom https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-06-01/goldman-says-more-job-cu…

1 0

Jamie Dimon’s Deposition in Epstein Case Reveals Email Stating that Dimon Was to Be Treated to “Heavy Snacks” at Epstein’s Home
by Gunnar Larson 01 Jun '23

01 Jun '23

https://wallstreetonparade.com/2023/06/jamie-dimons-deposition-in-epstein-c… By Pam Martens and Russ Martens: June 1, 2023 ~ Jeffrey Epstein (left); Jamie Dimon (right). Jeffrey Epstein (left); Jamie Dimon (right). After much delay and legal protests by JPMorgan Chase, its Chairman and CEO, Jamie Dimon, was forced by a Manhattan federal court to testify under oath in a deposition about what he personally knew about the bank’s long-term customer relationship with child sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein. (Epstein died in a Manhattan jail on August 10, 2019. His death was ruled a suicide by the medical examiner.) The deposition was held last Friday, May 26, at the offices of JPMorgan Chase in Manhattan. In a surprise move, opposing counsels agreed yesterday to release the transcript of the deposition, with some segments marked as sensitive and redacted. The deposition arose as a result of two lawsuits being heard by Judge Jed Rakoff in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. One lawsuit is on behalf of an alleged sexual assault victim of Epstein, Jane Doe 1. The other lawsuit was brought by the Attorney General’s office for the U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI) where Epstein maintained a secluded compound on a private island he owned. According to Dimon’s version of events, he lived a cloistered existence in a corner office on the 48th floor of 270 Park Avenue where even the executives who directly reported to him and worked only “a couple hundred feet” away from his office, never shared with Dimon the bank’s many years of internal investigations about Epstein’s massive cash withdrawals from his accounts at the bank, that sometimes averaged more than $20,000 to $40,000 a month, or its investigations of Epstein’s sex trafficking of underage girls. According to the lawsuits, Epstein had accounts at the bank from 1998 to 2013, at times amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars. According to Dimon, even the former Director of the Division of Enforcement at the Securities and Exchange Commission, Stephen Cutler, who became General Counsel at JPMorgan Chase in February of 2007, worked in the office next door to Dimon and reported to Dimon, didn’t share his numerous objections with Dimon to keeping the Epstein accounts at the bank. An email was introduced by opposing counsel during the deposition, showing that as far back as 2011, Cutler had written in an email referring to Epstein that “This is not an honorable person in any way. He should not be a client.” According to the deposition transcript, it was two executives who worked on the 48th floor with Dimon, Jes Staley and Mary Erdoes, who decided to retain Epstein as a client after his Florida indictment, arrest, jail term and after multiple internal investigations of his large cash withdrawals from his JPMorgan Chase accounts. Despite dozens of news articles about Epstein being indicted in Florida for soliciting sex with a minor in 2006; despite bestselling author, James Patterson’s 2016 book, “Filthy Rich,” covering Epstein’s sexual assaults on young girls; notwithstanding Julie Brown’s blockbuster series on Epstein’s crimes against young women in the Miami Herald in 2018, which caused a viral media storm, Dimon’s under-oath position in the deposition was this: “I don’t recall knowing anything about Jeffrey Epstein until the stories broke sometime in 2019. And I was surprised that I didn’t even — had never even heard of the guy, pretty much, and how involved he was with so many people.” That testimony came despite Dimon stating during the deposition that he read the following newspapers: the New York Times, the Financial Times, the Washington Post, and the Wall Street Journal. Another serious challenge to Dimon’s efforts to distance himself from any knowledge of Epstein or involvement with him came toward the end of the deposition when well-known lawyer, David Boies, of law firm Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, introduced an email directly referring to an Epstein meeting with Dimon. (Boies is one of the lawyers representing the Jane Doe 1 victim of Epstein in her lawsuit against the bank.) The exchange went as follows: Boies: “On February 26, 2010, Lesley Groff writes Mr. Epstein on the subject of, Jes [Staley] and Jamie. ‘Shall I have Lynn prepare heavy snacks for your evening appointments with [redacted], Jes Staley and Jamie Dimon? Or is this to be a nice, sit-down dinner at 9 p.m.?’ And Mr. Epstein replies, ‘Snacks.’ “ Dimon responds: “I have never had an appointment with Jeff Epstein. I’ve never met Jeff Epstein. I never knew Jeff Epstein. I never went to Jeff Epstein’s house. I never had a meal with Jeff Epstein. I have no idea what they’re referring to here.” The overall thrust of the U.S. Virgin Islands case against the bank is presented in its second amended complaint as follows: “…based on documents reviewed and interviews conducted by the Government, JP Morgan knowingly facilitated, sustained, and concealed the human trafficking network operated by Jeffrey Epstein from his home and base in the Virgin Islands, and financially benefitted from this participation, directly or indirectly, by failing to comply with federal banking regulations, [redacted]. JP Morgan facilitated and concealed wire and cash transactions that raised suspicion of—and were in fact part of—a criminal enterprise whose currency was the sexual servitude of dozens of women and girls in and beyond the Virgin Islands. Human trafficking was the principal business of the accounts Epstein maintained at JP Morgan. “Upon information and belief, JP Morgan turned a blind eye to evidence of human trafficking over more than a decade because of Epstein’s own financial footprint, and because of the deals and clients that Epstein brought and promised to bring to the bank. These decisions were advocated and approved at the senior levels of JP Morgan, including by the former chief executive of its asset management division and investment bank, whose inappropriate relationship with Epstein should have been evident to the bank.” The second amended complaint by the U.S. Virgin Islands also adds a Fifth Count, charging JPMorgan Chase with obstruction. It reads in part: “By providing financing for Epstein’s sex trafficking organization from at least 2000 through about August 2013, and concealing its actions thereafter, JP Morgan obstructed, interfered with, and prevented the federal government’s enforcement of the TVPA [Trafficking Victims Protection Act] against Epstein. To the extent that the federal government was able to ultimately charge Epstein with TVPA violations, the filing of these charges was delayed by JP Morgan’s actions. Because of that delay, women and girls in the Virgin Islands were coercively caused to engage in commercial sex acts.” The second amended complaint also incorporates information obtained from a deposition of Mary Erdoes, one of the highest female executives at JPMorgan Chase. Much of the new information is stunning in terms of just how much it alleges that the bank knew about Epstein’s sex trafficking while it displayed a callous disregard for the underage girls being impacted by its failing to take action. It reads in part: “In 2006, a JP Morgan Rapid Response Team noted that Epstein ‘routinely’ made cash withdrawals in amounts from $40,000 to $80,000 several times per month, totaling over $750,000 per year. In addition, Mary Erdoes admitted in her deposition that JP Morgan was aware by 2006 that Epstein was accused of paying cash to have underage girls and young women brought to his home. In the years that followed, JP Morgan employees, including senior executives, emailed internally that Epstein was under investigation or had been sued for trafficking or sexual abuse. This includes an email in 2010 between Mary Erdoes and Jes Staley regarding a federal investigation of Epstein for child trafficking; a 2011 email summarizing a few 2010 news stories connecting Epstein to human trafficking and promising to ‘monitor the accounts and cash usage closely going forward;’ and a 2011 compliance memo noting that ‘[n]umerous articles detail various law enforcement agencies investigating Jeffrey Epstein for allegedly participating in child trafficking and molesting underage girls’ and that ‘Epstein had settled a dozen civil lawsuits out of court from his victims regarding solicitation for an undisclosed amount.’ Internal emails also questioned who Epstein’s clients were, circulating an article regarding whether Epstein was running a Ponzi scheme. “Indeed, Epstein’s behavior was so widely known at JPMorgan that senior executives joked about Epstein’s interest in young girls. In 2008, for example, Mary Erdoes received an email asking her whether Epstein was at an event ‘with miley cyrus.’ In her deposition, Mary Erdoes testified that JP Morgan terminated Epstein as a customer in 2013 after she became aware that the withdrawals were ‘actual cash.’ However, Epstein had made substantial cash withdrawals every year he banked with JP Morgan, including more than $800,000 per year in 2004 and 2005.” There is also this devastating claim in the U.S. Virgin Islands’ complaint: “One internal document [obtained from JPMorgan Chase] describes the account of Epstein’s ‘assistant or young lady he brought over from Prague (or some place like that),’ clearly referring to Jane Doe 1. The document describes charges in New York, Palm Beach, and St. Thomas for lingerie and other sexually explicit material. Elsewhere, JP Morgan describes media reports referring to the fact that Epstein purchased her at age 14. She remained a customer of JP Morgan, and Epstein paid her more than $600,000, from his accounts at JP Morgan, including more than $165,000 after Epstein’s plea.” One of the more curious parts of the deposition on Friday came when Boies asked Dimon the following: “In the entire time that you have been the chief executive officer of the bank, who are the three bank customers whose business with the bank has been most reputationally damaging to the bank?” It should have taken Dimon about 1 second to blurt out the name Bernie Madoff as his biggest regret. JPMorgan Chase and its predecessor bank held the business account for Madoff for decades as he conducted the biggest Ponzi scheme in history. On January 7, 2014, the U.S. Department of Justice charged JPMorgan Chase with two criminal felony charges over the way it handled the Madoff account. The bank admitted to the charges and entered a deferred prosecution agreement. (This would be the first two felony charges, with three more felony charges for rigging foreign exchange, precious metals and Treasury markets to follow over the next six years.) (See our 2014 report: JPMorgan and Madoff Were Facilitating Nesting Dolls-Style Frauds Within Frauds.) But instead of giving Boies the name of Madoff, or any other human customer, Dimon instead named Bear Stearns, an investment bank purchased by JPMorgan Chase in the early days of the financial crisis in 2008. For a stunning look at the totality of the major crimes and charges that have occurred on Dimon’s watch, see JPMorgan Chase’s rap sheet here.

1 0

Cryptocurrency: Bullshit Terms - Gold Backed and Crypto Backed
by grarpamp 31 May '23

31 May '23

Gold Backed <anything> and Crypto Backed <anything> Are words that fraudsters use to describe their diabolical plans to break the "backing" for their own gain, and the loss all you idiots who fell for it. All secondaries that need "backed" are by definition worthless. All primaries that would be "backing" are by definition incapable of standing on their own to serve the market. Develop, harder.

1 0

Cryptocurrency: Fuck The European Union and All Who Apologize For Her
by grarpamp 31 May '23

31 May '23

Fuck The European Union And all who seek to follow in, and have pressure her into, her shoes. Legacy Protectionists, and Sheeple, the lot of them. Time to render the fat from all such mammoths. Prepare the cauldrons, use the larpers and the non-cryptoprivacy coin teams as fuel. "Democratic" countries showing their true colors. “The illusion of freedom will continue as long as it's profitable to continue the illusion. At the point where the illusion becomes too expensive to maintain, they will just take down the scenery, they will pull back the curtains, they will move the tables and chairs out of the way and you will see the brick wall at the back of the theater.” ― Frank Zappa Remember larpers bullish on the MiCa regulation?, France is no exception of upcoming MiCa: Article 68 of MiCA addresses the rules for operating a trading platform for crypto assets. It requires that trading platforms prevent the trading of crypto assets with built-in anonymization unless the holders of the assets and their transaction history can be identified by authorized CASPs. This provision could have far-reaching consequences for individuals, businesses, and communities. Also do not forget about the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), anti-crypto af.

1 0