- Nothing But the Shirt on Your Back
- Universities of Britain: cosying up to crypto is a bad look
- How to make a living in the cult of meritocracy
- Spotify: Drake-oil salesmen
- Oh, the digital humanity
- Building a blockchain Britain in Bloxwich, because ...?
- Sports are not markets, predictions ain't investment
- Spot the difference, Steinhoff edition
- Larry Robbins, a cautionary tale
- The node to serfdom
- Carney is down with the crypto kids
- Samsonite: inventory, excess baggage, and unresolved questions
- It might be a long wait for “the equivalent alternative to ICOs”
- Don't blame it on the sunshine
- In corporate America, brands develop you
- One in ten dollars of US housing were anonymous
- Should AT&T worry more about its debt?
- Who cares if Elon is incinerating capital?
- Let’s not try make 'crypto chicks' a thing
- Tokens all the way down
And the award for best long-term growth in living standards goes to...
A whopper of a post on why crypto fiat is not what it seems. TL;DR — there is an economic cost in expanding the central bank balance sheet to everyone, which is what crypto fiat is really all about.
Any legislative measures offering regulatory and tax relief to green bonds demand clearer rules on what constitute such assets if gaming is to be avoided. But such measures will also enrich the nascent green industry.
Random variation in American financial supervision reveals important insights into the dangers of “forbearance”.
An American central banker should know better.
Oh and he also wants paper money to stop being accepted at par value all the time.