Jump to content

Julian_Williams

Gold Member
  • Posts

    5,797
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

Julian_Williams last won the day on August 17 2020

Julian_Williams had the most liked content!

About Julian_Williams

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    drawingandillusion.blogspot.com

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Interests
    Art, Neuroscience
  • Location
    West Wales UK
  • Occupation
    Director of Two Bad Mice Publishers Ltd
  • Country
    UK

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Julian_Williams's Achievements

  1. I seem to remember DS saying Moneygram provided a solution to the "last mile" problem.
  2. but isn't a lot of that stuff patented by Ripple and out of bounds for XLM to simply take over and use?
  3. Daniel Kahneman has just published a new book "Noise". I am not really sure what evolutionary psychology is. There are so many ways of approaching mind sciences and the different camps have developed many factional terms for labelling their schools of thought. I came across "evolutionary archology" today! I lose track. What is clear is that the phylogenic approach to how/why the mind evolved intelligence and then consciousness give us new lines of insight. Peter Godfrey-Smith has written beautiful poetic books following how intelligence developed in the sea more than once, with a particular interest in the "alien" intelligence of octopuses. (Other Minds: The Octopus and the Evolution of Intelligent Life & Metazoa: Animal Minds and the Birth of Consciousness). Best to read them in the order they were written. I recently read a book by an Irish psychiatrist with a beautiful bent for literature (The Rag and Bone Shjop; How we make memories and memories make us Veronica O'Keane). The book itself was really a marriage between psychology and psychiatry, with a strong line for marrying anatomical functionality of the brain science to her work experiences with psychiatric patients. I suppose a latter day Oliver Sacks. She made the very salient point that in the early 20th century psychology and psychiatry were so far apart that they did not communicate with each other at all, hence the two approaches to understand the mind both ended up in fantasy land: The psychologists became Behaviourists who would ostracise any mention/research of consciousness, the psychiatrists got stuck into Freudian psychoanalysis which is simply incompatible with physiology of the subconscious mind. O'Keane represents how understand physiology and mechanics of the brain has brought enlightenment to our approach to psychiatric illness. Illnesses that were labelled "madness" are now explained in terms of brain chemistry, and conversely psychology has embraced and linked "consciousness studies" to brain physiology. Psychiatry and psychology are becoming the same thing studied from different starting points. When we divide Nature (how the brain is wired) and Nurture (how we learn from the environment) we are again studying one thing from two perspectives. And again we have to you look beyond the labelling to discover all learning is about wiring (hard wiring in our formative years that becomes pruned and fixed into our umwelts, soft wiring in our later years which are the progressive building of memories that are utilised and affect our personalities). People talk as if there is a fight between Nature and Nurture, one or the other, and by doing so create hard divisions that inhibit appreciation of the holistic approach. Stanislas Dehearne book ("How we Learn" The one science of Education and the Brain) does a very good job of unpicking this the relationship between wiring and learning. How the mind works is a big interest for me, and this is touching one aspect. Just now there are many fascinating new books providing new insights about how our minds work, and they are arriving thick and fast from may different directions. Things are getting focused and the conflicts between the different approaches are evaporating.
  4. I am sceptical of this deal. I just don't understand any reputable company wanting to partner Stellar/Jed after what happened at MT Gox and Ripple. An outright buy maybe, since they couldn't really stop that, and Jed has a pile of mney. Is it Advent or Stellar that are proposing to buy MoneyGram? How is the partnership between Stellar and Hyperledger/IBM going?
  5. Hugo has many balls to juggle. I like his answers, but as you say perhaps the exchanges will simply keep the tokens and sell them onto the market after they have gained value, rather than give them to their rightful owners. But we are users of the exchanges will note which ones are honest and which are up for quick profits at the expense of their customers? In any event the SGB does eventually get distributed
  6. I do not understand the tech stuff well. I find the commentary on this video interesting. He likes the Songbird thing and thinks it will be very valuable.
  7. I suggest you read Prof Yuval Harari's two books; Sapiens and **** Deus where he puts forward an interesting theory that shared beliefs was the factor that made **** Sapiens so much more powerful than the bigger brained and stronger Neanderthals. Shared belief allowed our species to unite outside family and small tribal (150 people) boundaries with strangers to build "societies". It is the factor that made our species able to work together in huge groups and to believe in kings, our place in society and in the value of paper money. So belief was hard wired into our species. The obverse to this coin is "othering". We find empathy with those we agree with, and in our empathic unity we other societies that do not share our value systems. This propensity to dehumanise people outside our group, outside our shared belief systems, makes us tribal on a huge scale and brings with it intolerance, selfishness and wars. Another book you might enjoy is Moral Tribes by Joshua David Greene. This is a wonderful philosophical analysis of morality, why utilitarianism does not work and how we measure morals in others. How our behaviour is deeply connected to a balance between two competing neural pathways; one which is fast, emotional and humane but prone to other, the second which is slow rational and can be compassionate. I can highly recommend this book. Whilst belief may seem static and obstinate, it is an ephemeral thing that tricks us into believing we know the "truth". Truth is not really a thing, merely a virtual interface for perceiving and keeping us fit in this world. If you want to get metaphysical in your reading about belief I suggest The Case Against Reality: How Evolution Hid the Truth from Our Eyes by Donald Hoffman. But none of these book excuses the crass stupidity and ugly behaviour of BTC and ETH maxis
  8. My guess is that they have two teams. One set of lawyers are attacking Ripple and putting pressure on them to make them fearful, the other are coaxing them to reach a setlement deal. The more Ripple fear SEC the better for the negotiators on SEC's side of the table. I doubt Ripple are very fearful of SEC taking this to Court, but the sooner Ripple get clarity the better for Ripple.
  9. Gensler's speech is to my eyes clear evidence that Gensler is ending the case against Ripple. Gensler is giving some guidance about how to clarify sales in the secondary market, and the obverse of this clarification about "what is a security in the secondary market" is "what is not a security in the secondary market". I would guess utility coins used as currencies in the secondary market are not securities (IE ODL clearance is not a security). I read from this speech that Gensler is admitting the SEC case is flawed by the "Fair Notice" defence and near to settlement The Ripple SEC case was put through by a 3 to 2 vote on the council under the Jay Clayton. Clayton was one of the 3. My guess is that Gensler has sided with Pierce and Roisman (the 2 against taking Ripple to Court). I believe Gensler ghosted the Pierce Roisman letter that supports Ripple's fair notice claims. This is Gensler's way of over-ruling the decisions of the previous administration without overtly supporting Deaton's claims that Clayton's administration was very corrupt. Gensler is setting it up for SEC to work with Congress and other US financial agencies to provide clarity on when Tokens have to be registered as securities, and thus bring the US into line with what has already been happening in other major financial market outside the US. I believe Gensler wants the settlement to happen before Hinman is put on the stand and before SEC are forced by the Court to hand over (incriminating?) SEC internal discovery documents. But this timeline gives Ripple a big stick in the negotiations to give ODL clarity, and Ripple will not settle for anything less. Under my view Ripple are prolonging the negotiations whilst SEC is in a hurry to settle.
  10. It is a well researched and written article, but I disagree with their conclusion: The Howey Test said that the oranges were not the securities, the contracts were. Hinman simply stated that the the "ETH Oranges" sold in the initial ICO were under securities contracts, the "ETH oranges" sold in the more mature decentralised secondary market were not. Hinman was stating the obvious. This was followed by Jay Clayton parading Hinman's unofficial speech on the SEC website and to members of Congress as SEC clarity and "transparency", whilst at the same time Clayton refused to give a transparent answer about whether "XRP oranges" sold in the same way on secondary markets were "securities". Obviously Hinman was right, ETH oranges sold on secondary markets in maturing decentralised ecosystems are not common enterprise with expectation of profits dependent on a centralised seller (in the secondary market the resellers are using the utility of the currency and have no connection, knowledge or interest of what the centralised seller is promising in teh future). XRP oranges sold in secondary markets in the mature XRP ecosystem that has many use cases outside the influence of Ripple are not securities, and Deaton has compiled a long list of such markets. When forced the SEC lawyers have admitted to the judge that these types of (Deaton) sales on the secondary market are not securities (something to do with clause 5), but afterwards reverted to telling the judge all XRP sales, including those in secondary markets "can" be labelled "securities". I guess a pedantic view might be that some of the ETH/XRP oranges sold in secondary markets are securities. Gensler has now weighed in telling us that any tokenised derivative that includes the sale of a real security (bonds?) is itself a security. So how do we distinguish when a token sold in secondary market is a security and when it is not a security? Do we call them all securities or all non securities? Hinman pretty much said all ETH oranges were non securities, and SEC then told the judge all XRP oranges are securities (except they are not always, but we will not give any guidance to the markets on this issue, like we did with ETH oranges) SEC have muddied the waters whilst regulatory authorities in other countries have started to provide clarity by introducing sand boxes and declaring XRP ODL and other specific tokenised transactions non securities. SEC, instead of providing guidance and clarity have chosen dubious winners without guidance or explanation. ...and all this mess is mixed up with obvious corruption inside SEC; IE Hinman's interim faux-pension salary of 1.6 million a year for the time he dropped his job at Simpson Thatcher to work at SEC. Gensler is beginning to show some leadership, but there is no way he can provide clarity. Without clarity "fair notice" is, and will remain" a very good defence. Ripple will now win this case on the fair notice defence, and that is it for the whole industry until after SEC starts to draw clear lines. SEC will be toothless until after they have drawn clear lines, and that will probably requite new suites of regulatory laws from congress similar to those enacted in Japan, UK and Singapore.
  11. crooks are usually incompetent , so Yes, but they also do not want to make a precedent for future cases?
  12. This case was destroyed by the Pierce Roisman letter. I do not think they did that on their own without first discussing it with Gensler. The Warren letter was a gift to Gensler, and many think written by Gensler. The SEC case was a poison chalice passed to him by the corrupt previous admin and he has been wise to distance himself and keep his hands clean. I am sure busy being proactive behind the scenes, but he seems (I am guessing) to use others to present his opinions and set up his moves. There is a new approach and agenda developing in plain sight; regulate the exchanges get Congress to enact new legislation to regulate crypto securities end this case with a draw, and without giving away details of the corruption that was obviously rife in Clayton's admin. (from Gensler's point of view July 27 looks like a critical date to complete settlement but Ripple have an interest in pushing Gensler to the limits of his generosity, which means using the Hinman deposition as a big stick to wring every last drop of blood out of his weak position, but that stick goes after Hinman has been deposed because after that date much of the damage is done. (Ripple have one more stick; the (incriminating?) internal docs)).
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.