Dr. Craig Taswell @CT333

This is why banks oppose stablecoin yield. If stablecoins pay interest, deposits leave banks. That means less leverage, less lending, and less profit. Blocking yield is solely about protecting the banking model.

Milk Road @milkroaddaily

7 months ago

Stablecoins are better than banks. But this part of CLARITY ACT sets rules around when stablecoin yield is allowed. It prohibits digital asset service providers from paying interest/yield when the only condition is holding a stablecoin. But it does not apply to rewards that are

31 45 212 105K 31

85 254 1K 80K 120

View Details

The Wolf Of All Streets @scottmelker

7 months ago

“As the Senate Banking Committee prepares to mark up a crypto market structure bill, Congress should remember that the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank was not an accident – it was a preview. That failure exposed how crypto-linked deposits, digital-speed bank runs and opaque markets can overwhelm regulators before risks are visible.” This framing is deeply misleading. The collapse of Silicon Valley Bank was not a “preview” of crypto risk – it was a textbook example of traditional banking failure. SVB didn’t fail because regulators couldn’t see the risks. The risks were obvious, documented, and measurable – massive exposure to long-duration Treasuries, unhedged interest-rate risk, and extreme deposit concentration. When rates rose, the losses were already locked in. That isn’t opacity. That’s incompetence. Labeling this a “digital-speed bank run” is a convenient distraction. Speed didn’t cause the collapse – fragility did. Fractional reserve banking has always been vulnerable to runs because banks borrow short and lend long while holding only a fraction of deposits in reserve. That structural weakness existed long before smartphones or crypto. Technology didn’t create it – it exposed it. Every major banking panic in history happened without crypto, without mobile apps, and without real-time settlement. The mechanism is unchanged. Confidence breaks, withdrawals follow, leverage is exposed. Blaming the clock instead of the structure avoids the real issue. The reference to “crypto-linked deposits” is equally disingenuous. SVB was overwhelmingly a tech and venture capital bank. Crypto exposure was marginal and immaterial to its balance sheet. And Signature Bank – repeatedly cited to support this narrative – didn’t collapse at all. It was solvent, met capital requirements, and was operating normally until regulators shut it down on a Sunday to send a message. That was a policy decision, not a market failure. Conflating offshore frauds like FTX with regulated U.S. banks that failed due to duration risk and regulatory blind spots is not serious analysis. It’s narrative construction designed to justify a predetermined policy outcome. If Congress actually wants to prevent future crises, the focus should be on interest-rate risk management, deposit concentration, regulatory failure, and the inherent instability of fractional reserve banking. Scapegoating crypto avoids those hard conversations – and ensures the same mistakes get repeated. SVB wasn’t a warning about crypto. It was a warning about how fragile the legacy banking system still is – and how quickly that reality gets rewritten when it becomes politically inconvenient. Lest we forget, the anti-crypto army is alive and well - and gaining renewed momentum.

The Wolf Of All Streets @scottmelker

7 months ago

93 164 990 59K 17

23 33 187 25K 9

View Details

The Wolf Of All Streets @scottmelker

7 months ago

Shame on you @SenBlumenthal. Blaming crypto for the SVB and Signature collapses is either ignorant or willfully dishonest. Those banks "failed" because of massive interest-rate risk, duration mismatches, and bad balance-sheet management - not Bitcoin, not Ethereum, not “contagion.” Rewriting history to score political points doesn’t make the financial system safer. It just exposes how unserious this argument is. foxnews.com/opinion/sen-ri…

93 164 990 59K 17

View Details

James Lavish @jameslavish

7 months ago

Most people have never heard of the Cantillon Effect. But once you understand it, you’ll see the world of investing differently. What is it? In the early 1700s, Richard Cantillon noticed a simple pattern: When new money enters an economy, it doesn’t reach everyone at once. And whoever gets it first benefits the most. Here’s how it works today: New liquidity enters through the Fed and through bank lending. Both follow a similar pattern: → Markets and large balance sheets get first access → Large corporations and well-connected borrowers tap cheap credit next, they invest and expand at today’s prices → Asset prices tend to rise as new liquidity chases finite assets → Consumer prices often follow → Wages rise last, usually after purchasing power has already declined Fed data shows how lopsided the playing field is: - The top 10% hold nearly 90% of equities. - The bottom 50% holds about 1%. It’s a simple but powerful monetary transmission. Understanding this won’t change the system. But it might change how you think about where to store your savings. For those of you who don't know, I write all about topics like this every week in The Informationist. Last week, we dove deep on this one. Link in bio if you want to read the full explanation.

252 3K 8K 661K 5K

View Details

Wale @Wale

9 months ago

Can yall watch this and stream belly right after .. we creeping up them charts wit HIPHOP in real time

127 3K 9K 224K 863

View Details

Dr. Craig Taswell @CT333

9 months ago

@Wale 🔥

0 0 0 738 0

View Details

Nayib Bukele @nayibbukele

a year ago

Feel that? That’s the system splitting at the seams.

1K 5K 43K 1.9M 775

View Details

Dr. Craig Taswell @CT333

a year ago

@BasedMikeLee @RepThomasMassie Fort Knox

0 0 1 18 0

View Details

Dr. Craig Taswell @CT333

2 years ago

@WhatisMoneyShow @DrJackKruse @Breedlove22 Amazing! What do we need to do to get a round table with you, uncle Jack, and Chris Sullivan?

1 0 2 572 0

View Details

Jae Hyung Woo @jaehyungwoo

2 years ago

(11/n) Would appreciate any discussion or feedback! My special thanks to the co-authors @VincentCostaPhd , @CT333 , @k_rothenhoefer , @BrunoAverbeck , @ali_r_soltani who have made this work possible

1 1 6 346 0

View Details

Jae Hyung Woo @jaehyungwoo

2 years ago

Excited to finally share this preprint on bioRxiv! Here we uncover a novel role of amygdala in reinforcement learning (RL), within the framework of arbitration between competing models of the environment: doi.org/10.1101/2024.0… (1/n)