I miss the days when new coins at least attempted to pretend they contain some sort of financial innovation. There was at least a possibility of something of substance there.
Now it's all celebrity endorsement, hype and lies.
And having the US prez jump on that bandwagon and ride it while in office is just mind-boggling.
cmurf · 1h ago
Isn't this culture day to day centered on celebrity endorsements, hype and lies?
Seems like what's happening is unsurprising. A nation of spectators, not citizens.
bgwalter · 6h ago
Interesting. I thought you could do this in the open:
Is the Sovereign Bitcoin Fund bailout scam still on the table or is Bitcoin doing well enough so that it isn't needed any longer?
antifa · 2h ago
Imagine if it was possible for the wrong person to walk into Fort Knox then suddenly all the gold was teleported to a random location.
immibis · 3h ago
IIRC this was an available bet on Polymarket, where bitcoiners kept insisting it already happened, ever since the executive order was issued, but that's crypto folks for you. (I didn't look up how and whether that resolved)
revel · 5h ago
I was a big enough believer in crypto to literally start a company in this space only to leave it completely disenchanted and deeply pessimistic about the direction of the industry. I felt that there were many real legal and regulatory challenges that governments just didn't want to deal with. No government wants to enable money laundering, black markets, corruption and terrorism; or so I thought!
Now we're in a situation that's so much worse than I ever imagined -- Trump coins are vehicles for naked bribery and corruption with a sprinkle of encryption on top. I was worried about black markets, Trump has literally been using his office to grant access to top holders of his scam coin.
This is a big lesson for everyone about why some degree of regulation is necessary.
viksit · 4h ago
+1 to this - exactly the same experience. I started a company in the space because I believe that the decentralized technology and its ability to have world impact is truly amazing.
But after spending ~2y in the space, I realized another thing -- the people in this space right now are in it purely for speculation and monetary gains. There's a lot of talk about decade long horizons, but any app that achieves pmf in the short to medium term has to cater to the speculators or die.
We chose not to go down the path of launching a coin or doing speculative stuff, even though the demand for it was intense. We hit some PMF around creators, but didn't have the conviction that it would scale without speculation. A year down the line, I believe that was the right pov to have.
cruzcampo · 5h ago
It takes a lot of character to admit you were wrong and see the error of your ways. Congrats!
dylan604 · 4h ago
>No government wants to enable money laundering, black markets, corruption and terrorism; or so I thought!
what ever gave you that thought? There are countries that do this right out in the open. The rest of the countries do it in various shades of gray to not be right out in the open, but still visible for those that can see in higher bit depths of gray than black and white
Sammi · 2h ago
You're not wrong, but your comment lacks so much necessary detail that I find it's just causing noise.
citizenpaul · 52m ago
>No government wants to enable money laundering, black markets, corruption and terrorism; or so I thought!
There's an old saying that goes something like there is crime, there is organized crime and there is government.
csomar · 3h ago
> This is a big lesson for everyone about why some degree of regulation is necessary.
I really wonder how you come up to that conclusion especially that there is more than a degree of regulation. If regulation will not apply for the top anyway, then it's better to remove all regulation.
psyklic · 2h ago
Removing crypto regulation only benefits those at the top and scammers, since it gives them one-sided control of the market with few consequences. Which is exactly what's happening.
ceejayoz · 2h ago
"If we can't stop serial killers, let's legalize murder!"
cmurf · 43m ago
Is that really the lesson?
John Adams told us the Constitution is intended for a moral (or virtuous) people.
The point is the law isn't self enforcing. People have to insist upon Constitutional order, not because of faith in it, but because the alternative is tyranny. Not anarchy.
Does this country deserve Constitutional order? The People abandoned it by electing someone virulently and openly opposed to it.
The regulation you seek is utterly meaningless in an autocracy. Or even in a unitary executive theory of Constitutional order.
But even in the case of Trump specifically, among the most untrustworthy liars America has produced, what does Constitutional duty mean to him? What does it mean that he took the oath of office? He said the words but no serious person beleives he took an oath.
People still have no idea what we've done. And what is yet to come.
The POTUS is a psycho. And the replacements aren't good people either.
100 days down, 1369 to go. It's going to get much worse.
instagib · 7h ago
“Under the company’s rules, the Trumps and other World Liberty investors are not allowed to sell their coins on the open market, though the company has said it might eventually lift that restriction if other buyers of the coin agree.”
I have heard this one before.
techterrier · 5h ago
presumably this is what the web 3.0 crowd who backed Trump, including our own hosts, had in mind
faustocarva · 5h ago
Yeah, our host is a big trump supporter
hypeatei · 7h ago
I don't see much references to "the swamp" anymore now that we have a sitting president doing a crypto grift. I thought dark money and mysterious figures pulling the strings is conspiracy worthy but I guess not when it's Trump.
gooseus · 6h ago
Well, he drained the swamp, now he's doing what he does best, paving it over and building a soon-to-be-failed casino.
Say what you will about "the swamp" (not a big fan myself), but as a metaphor it kinda works since a swamp may be noxious and filled with unsavory swamp creatures... but it's still an ecosystem where competition and co-evolution amongst these swamp species in response to external environmental changes would still be expected.
binary132 · 6h ago
It’s simple, see. I can’t believe nobody has explained this to you yet. Your swamp creatures bad, my swamp creatures good.
LadyCailin · 6h ago
Republicans straight up lie, but their base is too ignorant to see that. Not to mention the propaganda machine that is Fox News brainwashing them.
OR they aren’t ignorant, and are fully aware of things, and instead are scum.
dfxm12 · 6h ago
No one is this ignorant, but if Republicans keep killing education, we'll get there one day.
soco · 6h ago
Or, the conspiracies have been proven true, but it's not with those who the conspiracy-lovers would have expected. Not woke, not Soros, but Trump and his gang were running the exact racket. So I suppose now suddenly the racket is good, doublethink by the book.
vlachen · 53m ago
I feel like the amount of projection from this group of people will be the source of behavioral and political psychology books for generations.
"If you're doing something legally or morally wrong, create opponents to accuse of the same things before what you're doing comes out."
dfxm12 · 6h ago
Every accusation is an admission with these folks.
VeejayRampay · 6h ago
anyone from europe recognizes this immediately as some form of thieving monarchy, it really is ludicrous that is still possible in 2025
mmastrac · 6h ago
As long as you have the Enemy you can run the Grift. Tale as old as money, at least.
bediger4000 · 7h ago
This article is soft peddling corruption, and it confirms that Trump takes bribes via his cryptocurrency operation.
alistairSH · 6h ago
That this is even remotely surprising to anybody is the only surprising thing about it. He took bribes via his hotel last time. He takes massive donations from Bezos and Zuck and others to his inauguration fund or presidential library or whatever other slush funds he can use to skirt anti-bribery regulations.
dashundchen · 6h ago
Let's not forget the MBS overriding the advice of the Saudi investment board to give $2 billion dollars to Trump's son in law, Jared Kushner. Funds with hefty fees that have barely been invested.
His son is currently on a tour of eastern europe presenting his crypto 'opportunity' to 'investors'
conception · 7h ago
I mean, he took bribes last time via his hotel operation. This just is an upgrade.
TechDebtDevin · 6h ago
I prefer the term, "alternative funding mechsnism" ;)
Thats all Truth Social was. By buying the public stock you could in a way funnel money to Trump that did conflict with campaign finance laws/limits.
People arent buying Truth Social stock because they think its actually worth 5 billion dollars.
maeln · 5h ago
> People arent buying Truth Social stock because they think its actually worth 5 billion dollars.
Well, if you see it as the private presidential corruption fund, it might well be worth well over 5 billion tbf.
ChainOfFools · 5h ago
The fact that Bitcoin (and kin) turbocharges corruption, and its success is a direct result of doing so on a wide scale (the whole point is to undermine state power by dwpriving it of control over currency) is proof to the armchair economist Bitcoin supporters that it is "sound money" and things like facilitating a market for circulation of child porn at one end and open political grift at the other, are welcomed as signs that the *experiment" is working as intended in their winner-corrupts-all bitcoin maximalist worldview.
Its called kleptocurrency for good reason.
Those who support it on philosophical grounds will destruction on everyone else for the sake of their own gain, and should be viewed with all possible hostility as they constitute an intentional community of public enemies in the plainest possible sense.
tphyahoo2 · 3h ago
Furious words and threats won't stop bitcoin.
Neither will bans and prohibitions, unless you are willing to go full north korea with cameras everywhere and computers locked down. And you'll probably fail with that.
You're beating your fists against an ocean.
Touch some grass.
whyage · 6h ago
What can be done to stop this flagrant grift?
dboreham · 6h ago
Develop USA2.0 with various bugs fixed: no presidential pardon, supreme court reform, term limits, FBI removed from executive branch, etc.
voidfunc · 6h ago
Gonna need a Civil War 2.0 first.
Loughla · 5h ago
You joke about these things but I'm afraid that's where we're heading.
Trump will close off as much opposition as he can in the next two years. Then spend a year convincing people that term limits aren't required by the constitution. By then we'll have had so many scandals and constitutional crisis events that just get ignored that it will happen.
Am I being overdramatic? Because this feels different. It feels openly hostile.
voidfunc · 4h ago
I wasn't joking.
cmurf · 27m ago
No. That isn't enough.
The only way to avoid another Trump is to not elect one.
The solution liberals recoil against for some reason, is disassociation. We should have threatened our Trumper friends and family with permanent disassociation before the 2024 election.
Most would persist unpersuaded. And they're likely lost for our lifetime anyway. Perhaps enough would have taken the social cue of ridicule and ostracizing as serious enough to not vote for a psychopath.
The farther back the more effective it would have been.
Instead we keep thinking they can be persuaded with reason, despite all evidence they've abandoned rationality.
You can't legislate the outcome you want. What you want comes from virtue. And America is out of virtue. People voted for a rapist, a felon, and vile insurrectionist.
Near as I can tell we don't deserve Constitutional order and therefore we are losing it.
yalogin · 6h ago
The amount of corruption and incompetence ignored by his base is staggering. This is all because they don’t like immigration?
whatever1 · 5h ago
No, the current system does not work for most of the people hence the "just nuke it" option sounds like a rational one.
Canadian elections show that people can change their mind overnight, but unfortunately some of the changes that happened in the US institutions and the global relations will take decades to reverse (if ever).
rchaud · 3h ago
The Canadian elections are structurally different though. Not everybody changed their mind, the Conservatives won more seats than before. What happened was that Bloc Quebecois and NDP voters broke ranks to vote in a Liberal MP for their riding, to block what seemed like a surefire supermajority for the Conservatives. This is possible when you don't have a 2-party system with deeply calcified divisions.
timeon · 5h ago
> sounds like a rational one.
But history has showed (with NSDAP and others) that it is not.
danans · 3h ago
> But history ...
You see, you lost a good chunk of voters there.
Many are just voting for their candidate to hurt other people whom they don't like.
geremiiah · 5h ago
> the current system does not work for most of the people
Bullshit. America is the richest country on earth. Your unemployment is remarkably low. Your disposable income is relatively high. And all the issues you complain about, like housing, are worse outside the US than in the US.
Moreover, a lot of the MAGA people are NOT working class struggling families. There are a lot of middle class middle aged low digit millionaires who are certainly not hurting for anything, but for some reason really love Trump.
adiabatichottub · 4h ago
It's not just simply economic. I'd say it's more like there are many groups of people who do not feel represented by their government. Some of these groups are quite opposed to each other. Add to that politics and media that have become intentionally divisive and you get a society where everybody is mad about or scared of something.
whatever1 · 4h ago
How do you explain the majority of 18-25 yo who voted for Trump?
Also from polling the ones who did not vote were also leaning towards Trump. So participation was not the issue.
NickC25 · 4h ago
Because if you look at the entire history of presidents with the notable exception of Barack Obama, every president has been a geriatric white dude. They've been conditioned to believe that geriatric white dudes are the only ones capable of holding the office. So, when compared with the younger black/indian woman, the natural choice was to select the old white (orange) guy.
mikestew · 3h ago
Because if you look at the entire history of presidents with the notable exception of Barack Obama, every president has been a geriatric white dude.
That’s not even true within my lifetime, let alone historically. People freaked the fuck out because Reagan was going to be all of 70 when he took office in 1982. That’s nothing compared to the fossils that they’re propping up in front of a microphone these days. 70 year olds in Congress these days are nicknamed “The Kid”.
dragonwriter · 4h ago
> Because if you look at the entire history of presidents with the notable exception of Barack Obama, every president has been a geriatric white dude.
That's only true for an incredibly expansive definition of geriatric: Teddy Roosevelt was 42, Kennedy 43, Obama and Grant 46, etc. By a commom conventional standard of "geriatric” in general use (65+), only Buchanan, Harrison, Reagan, Trump, and Biden qualify at the start of their first term, and only 16 total would at the end of their last term.
> So, when compared with the younger black/indian woman
Harris was closer to (but still older than) both the mean and median age at start of term for a President than Trump was (even if you compared her in 2024 to Trump when elected in 2016). Gender and age, sure, but the whole geriatric thing as a long-term bias evident across the whole list of Presidents is unjustified (there's probably a decent argument that the current electorate has a geriatric bias, but its not a long-term historical one.)
NickC25 · 4h ago
> There are a lot of middle class middle aged low digit millionaires who are certainly not hurting for anything, but for some reason really love Trump.
They love him because he's as degenerate as they are, and makes it cool to be white. Or so I'm told.
Not that I believe any of that, just going by what Trump supporters tell me.
lenerdenator · 5h ago
They're not getting ahead, so... they're burning it down.
dlachausse · 5h ago
You can’t see why average Americans would want a change from many of the Biden Administration’s policies? It has nothing to do with racism, xenophobia, or transphobia. A lot of the policies were just objectively bad for average everyday Americans.
disgruntledphd2 · 5h ago
Can you give some examples of policies that were bad for ordinary, everyday Americans?
shwaj · 4h ago
Many people disagree with the Covid response.
Many people look at the Bidens’ relationship with Ukraine and wonder whether the war could have been avoided, and we wouldn’t have to hear stories about “we sent $X billions, but Zelenskyy says he received only $0.5X billions” which could have been spent here, not to mention millions of lives spared (the latter doesn’t affect ordinary Americans directly, but there you go).
Edit: it’s abundantly clear that Trump is also highly corrupt. A big part of the problem is that many are only to see the other side’s corruption (not to mention the felt need to pick a side)
hypeatei · 4h ago
> Many people disagree with the Covid response.
Who was president in 2020? Who did the first round of stimulus?
shwaj · 3h ago
People who disagree with the Covid response may have been voting for RFK as much as Trump.
disgruntledphd2 · 4h ago
> Many people disagree with the Covid response.
I think that's fair, Covid was completely insane. Personally the part of the US response I disliked the most was the closing of schools. Like, in Ireland the pubs were closed for basically 2 years, but we kept the schools open for most of it, which I think was the right call. Difficult situation though, and the vaccine mandates were crazy (particularly given how ineffective they were in preventing transmission).
> Many people look at the Bidens’ relationship with Ukraine and wonder whether the war could have been avoided,
I really don't see that. Like, Russia basically invaded as soon as (like that week) Nordstream 2 was finished (which unlike Nordstream 1 didn't pass through Ukraine). I think it's arguable that the US didn't need to be as involved (although if they hadn't been, then the EU-US break would have happened much, much sooner).
> which could have been spent here,
Like, for the avoidance of doubt, sending old weapons to Ukraine doesn't actually cost the US as much as they claimed. Ye'd have had to decommission them anyway. (This is a surprisingly large pattern in US aid to other countries).
> A big part of the problem is that many are only to see the other side’s corruption
Yeah, that's fair.
kashunstva · 2h ago
> the vaccine mandates were crazy (particularly given how ineffective they were in preventing transmission)
The data are known to show that the primary effect was in reducing the risk of hospitalization, severe disease, and mortality. Why, then should the lack of effect on transmission be the end-point that determines the appropriateness of mass immunization?
Capricorn2481 · 4h ago
That's all well and good, but that money would never be spent here. That's not how our budget works. It's our defense budget, determined ahead of time, and America's defense budget is huge
The idea that Biden was taking food out of our mouths to send to Ukraine was pushed by the very people that approved that budget because it was easy to do. And Americans know this, they really do, they just forget it because they've had this narrative yelled at them so many times.
And even given that, we were very shrewd. We sent old weapons that were going to be decommissioned, so I would hardly say we sent a bunch of money to Ukraine. More like we goosed our weapon production.
shwaj · 3h ago
It’s true that the large majority of aid came in the form of weapons that the military industrial complex wanted to replace anyway. However, there has still been many billions of “cash” sent, totaling over $40 billion. That’s nothing to sneeze at. For example, from two years ago:
https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-us-aid-ukraine-money-e...
ahmeneeroe-v2 · 3h ago
Honestly, no. Biden was a really terrible president by any metric except for "isTrump? yes/no". To be fair though, he excelled on that one pretty consistently throughout his term
kashunstva · 2h ago
> Biden was a really terrible president by any metric except for "isTrump? yes/no"
It’s not solely Trump’s identity that makes that distinction; it’s the haphazard, uninformed, and ruinous adventures in poor decision-making in economics and otherwise that characterize the difference. Biden was ineffective and a poor choice, but utterly benign in comparison to his mendacious, unskilled successor.
alabastervlog · 4h ago
The closest I've seen to a convincing explanation of this came from a recent Some More News episode. The host argued that, while Democrats at the Federal level have pretty fucking clearly been far better for normal Americans this century (and longer, but let's consider the last 25ish years) with things like the CFPB and ACA and bringing down fentanyl overdose death rates (to say nothing of economic performance under Democrats versus Republicans, going back quite a bit farther than this century), they have simply not done enough, and the perception is still, by death through a thousand cuts, that things are getting worse.
Long hold times and phone-tree mazes for help with the dozen bills that showed up due to one night in the hospital (despite insurance and all that!), housing costs shooting up year over year, inflation (people genuinely don't understand that "inflation is down" doesn't mean "prices dropped", which, after the giant covid price spike, is what they actually wanted to happen). More visible homelessness. Scam call attempts 2-3 times a day, and your Grandma and thousands of other grandmas and grandpas and fathers and mothers lost a ton of money to them, and nobody in power seems to give half a fuck. The neoliberal trade changes in the '90s were supposed to come with mountains of support to the demographics likely to be harmed by them, and that never meaningfully materialized, and people remember that and families still feel the pain from it. It may seem silly, but: tip prompts for take-out. It's some bigger things, and a whole lot of little things like that.
Add the cultivated, perceived, not-backed-by-data problems Republicans propagandize, to those very real ones above. Sky-high and worsening crime, "invasions" at the border bringing in fentanyl and such (it's mostly Americans doing it, in fact, for the obvious reason that they have a much easier time crossing the border Mex-to-US while carrying drugs when the crossing itself isn't illegal, so it's far less risky) and trans athletes, all that junk.
This left a good chunk of the electorate eager for someone promising to upend the system, when the two options presented to-date had been "we'll fix everything (but actually it'll get worse)" and "we'll fix everything (but actually it'll still get worse—just more-slowly)".
Fertile ground for a fascist conman.
There are other aspects to it, of course. Conspiratorial thinking (QAnon and friends) twisted, as it usually is when it hits politics, into "these openly-grifting elites are on my side and will stop the secretly-grifting elites I've been assured are the problem!" is a pretty big one, thanks to the feed-algo right-wing-radicalization pipeline giving that nonsense a ton of oxygen. A non-trivial set of folks really are just racist as hell. But the above is the most-plausible explanation I've seen for the "things are bad and getting worse" voters.
lenerdenator · 4h ago
It's not just Biden, it's everything since about, eh, 1970.
It's a complex web of alienations.
baby_souffle · 5h ago
> This is all because they don’t like immigration?
You could spend an entire college semester discussing how and why.
Immigration is the current scapegoat for the effects of a hollowed out middle class, though.
txcwg002 · 5h ago
It's not new and it's far more broad than that. The staggering government corruption and incompetence has been ignored for decades. You can't just pretend that this is suddenly new and one sided if you want to solve the problem.
ujkhsjkdhf234 · 5h ago
This both sides thing is so naive. One side is far more corrupt than the other.
txcwg002 · 5h ago
It's naive and dismissive of the corruption to think it's not both sides. You're literally only seeing half the picture.
hypeatei · 4h ago
I think it's naive not to see the "both sides" card get pulled anytime there is a criticism of the right. All the "centrists" come out to hold water for conservatives when their policies are clearly and specifically failing.
ujkhsjkdhf234 · 5h ago
I didn't say there wasn't corruption on both side, I said one side is far more corrupt than the other.
dlachausse · 5h ago
This just isn’t true, it is easy to find blatant corruption tied to politicians at all levels from both parties. Look at California, New York, Chicago, and Baltimore, look at the Biden family, the Clintons, Nancy Pelosi, Letitia James, the Democrats are just as corrupt, the mainstream media just reports on it less.
mexicocitinluez · 3h ago
hahahha you just named a bunch of people with no criminal charges. That's it?
hahaha
ujkhsjkdhf234 · 3h ago
I don't agree with them but tons of known corrupt Republicans have not been criminally charged. That means nothing.
mexicocitinluez · 5m ago
yea, you're missing the point.
rattling off a bunch of people who haven't been criminally charged in response to a party whose leader quite literally HAS been charged with fraud is the point.
how many indictments were passed down during the Obama admin vs Trump admin vs Bush admin and so on. Republican admins are notorious for being criminals.
nine_zeros · 5h ago
> This is all because they don’t like immigration?
To win the libs, women, colored, foreigners, woke, dei - as long as they can satisfy their general hatred for "others" they are ok with collapsing America.
A elite that fights social welfare as socialism, while at the same time removing the middle class and handing the lower classes infinite competition. Nobody cares about who the elite pretends to care for, nobody cares about corruption, they want to see that house burn down, like theirs was torched. The sounds of humanism the enemy makes, are irrelevant, as the sound of compassion made while doing nothing.
dlachausse · 5h ago
How did you feel about the Biden family’s blatant corruption? Do you really think that Hunter Biden was an amazing artist and brilliant corporate energy sector lawyer that is just falling on hard times now like the rest of us? It’s a weird coincidence that he can’t sell his paintings anymore now that his Dad isn’t politically relevant anymore.
Joe’s brother has also made a lot of money off of questionable government contracts.
everdrive · 5h ago
This is important, and most partisans will get caught up in a discussion about whose corruption was worse. The bigger issue in my mind is that no one wants to police their own side, which leads to absurd flip-flopping hypocrisy every time the other party gains power. "Less bad" corruption is still a very bad thing, whoever you believe to be the more corrupt. But our current political system doesn't seem to have a way to wrestle with this.
alabastervlog · 3h ago
IDK, I think actual democratic voters tend to be far more on the "hammer the button even more enthusiastically" side of the "ah, but if you press that button, the Bidens will also be investigated!" meme-cartoon.
Like, yes, please, investigate all of them.
Republicans sort-of tried with Hunter, but kept balking at public hearings because they knew a bunch of the stuff they were claiming when they went on Fox was made-up, so it better served their propaganda purposes to avoid pursuing it. If there was actually anything to it, I hope and assume they would have gone ahead.
Which brings up the credibility problem with these claims from Republicans: "There's fraud in government! We found tons of it!" cool, that's a crime, where are the indictments? Oh, there aren't any, because you're full of shit. "Massive election fraud!" cool, that's a serious crime, you're in power now, a bunch of your AGs launched high-profile investigations, where are the indictments? You snagged a half-dozen cases, all mundane shit like someone with two houses voting in both states in two different elections because they forgot about it or didn't realize it was illegal? Where is the massive, organized fraud? Oh, you were just lying. Again. (They've been fucking that particular chicken for nearly two damn decades and somehow still have nothing to show for it, the democracy-undermining pricks). Months and months and all those hours of interviews for the Benghazi "investigations", and what? Nothing again. It's tedious. Shit or get off the pot, go after crime but stop lying about it.
sirshmooey · 5h ago
What were their roles in the Biden Administration?
jjtheblunt · 4h ago
Recipients of nepotistic pardons, which is what people find suspicious.
pjc50 · 4h ago
It's now clear that the presidential pardon is just an endorsement for crime, whoever's using it.
jsnider3 · 3h ago
He was pardoned because Biden knows that Trump is going to just make up some excuse to go after his family.
dlachausse · 24m ago
In the case of Hunter Biden he wouldn’t need to make up excuses.
So if Don Junior starts selling finger paintings to Russian oligarchs and Saudi royals you’d be okay with it since he’s not officially part of the administration?
To compare Hunter Biden, a private citizen, making a few paintings, to the actual president of the country grifting with crypto to the tune of billions, is rather something. Especially after watching the 2 billion dollar bailout that Jared Kushner got from the Saudis during the first term.
dlachausse · 5h ago
Jared Kushner is just as much a “private citizen” as Hunter Biden is.
Hunter Biden blatantly and corruptly sold his father’s influence. There’s even evidence that Joe got his “10% for the big guy” on these dealings. It’s a massive disgusting scandal.
For the record I can’t stand when either side pulls this crap. The whole narrative that my side’s politicians are less corrupt than yours needs to end. They’re dividing us into tribes and playing us for fools while the political class robs us blind.
NickC25 · 4h ago
Hunter Biden, as far as I know, didn't hold an official title within his father's administration. Jared Kushner, on the other hand, did hold an official title within Donald Trump's first administration.
Hunter Biden, as far as the country has been made aware, never requested an TS-SCI clearance, as Jared Kushner did. Jared Kushner was given one via overrule from the 45th administration when the FBI and CIA said there's no way in hell he should be given access to any state secrets due to his background.
For the record, fuck Hunter Biden for anything he might have done. But don't equate selling access to demanding the highest levels of access to our nation's most closely held secrets.
dlachausse · 28m ago
Why can’t we just agree that both are really, really bad? The amount of mental gymnastics that each side does to justify such blatant corruption is astounding.
alt227 · 2h ago
> The whole narrative that my side’s politicians are less corrupt than yours needs to end.
> Jared Kushner is just as much a “private citizen” as Hunter Biden is.
Feel free to start the ball rolling
dlachausse · 39m ago
All corruption and law breaking should be investigated and prosecuted as appropriate. I don’t care what side they are on. Our entire political class is full of corruption. For the record I’m also not a fan of the Trump meme coins, Jared Kushner’s actions, or various Republican politicians at all levels that are blatantly corrupt.
WinstonSmith84 · 5h ago
as a "crypto" enthusiast, this is sad to see that he is making this industry looking really bad - obviously he doesn't care, money is money. In the future, maybe even now, we are going to have those associating crypto to Trump ..
The lack of regulations in crypto make these scams legals without any fear of any repercussion
angusturner · 5h ago
The thing is though, once you regulate crypto then what’s the point? You are left with a highly inefficient/expensive and immutable database.
Bitcoin solves (or attempts to solve) for exchange in absence of trust and regulation. But this is a stupid thing to solve for, because without trust and regulation you can’t even have a functioning society.
angusturner · 5h ago
I would actually say that scams and financial crimes seem to be the only concrete use case of the technology at the moment.
(Unless you count speculation/gambling).
WinstonSmith84 · 4h ago
> scams and financial crimes seem to be the only concrete use case of the technology
the technology is showing transactions on a public ledger literally (unlike tradfi), nobody is hiding anything (until we go to Monero and similar, but that's different). What's however happening, and we come back to the first point, is the lack of "rules" so that in effect financial "crime" is legal.
alistairSH · 3h ago
the technology is showing transactions on a public ledger literally
There's a public ledger I can visit to see who's bribing Trump this week?
echelon · 5h ago
I'm 99% against crypto and think it's mostly a tool for wasting limited human innovation capital, enabling fraud, terrorist financing, ponzi scheme gambling, and pump and dump rug pulling.
There are a few areas where I find crypto interesting or useful:
- The existing banking and payments industry is too Christian / Mormon. It extra-judicially regulates anything it views as "vices". This industry is supposed to be dumb payment rails with hooks for FinCEN to stop crime. It's not supposed to be your pastor. If anything, business integration with regular payment rails would help them be better regulated.
- "Stablecoins" or whatever the hell they're called seem like a wickedly efficient way to move money between businesses and countries without paying large fees or having to wait for clearance. Ideally they can even cut Visa and the fintech monopolies out of the equation. This is more of a B2B rather than consumer / individual application, and it seems genuinely useful. It also seems compatible with the existing FinCEN / FINRA / AML regulations. If you look at it long enough, it doesn't even feel like crypto. Just a new type of efficiency.
The latter may make the former a non-issue, especially if the existing fintech industry receives more competition from upstarts that don't have to pay the legacy gateways and their frictionful fees.
disgruntledphd2 · 5h ago
> "Stablecoins" or whatever the hell they're called seem like a wickedly efficient way to move money between businesses and countries without paying large fees or having to wait for clearance. Ideally they can even cut Visa and the fintech monopolies out of the equation. This is more of a B2B rather than consumer / individual application, and it seems genuinely useful. It also seems compatible with the existing FinCEN / FINRA / AML regulations.
Yeah, these seem like a really good (potentially the only one) use case for crypto. Note that these are really just replicating dollar (and potentially euro) dominance for a new age, and whoever ends up winning here will probably be the new Visa/Mastercard (with all of the problems that entails).
immibis · 3h ago
Illegal Internet stuff in general is an application of Bitcoin. That includes money laundering, drugs, porn (in communist places like Texas), etc.
Apparently before Bitcoin was Liberty Reserve, which was a centralized database.
sigwinch · 5h ago
Some people believe Trump is accidentally advancing things by revealing what needs to be banned. Money in politics, transactional diplomacy with aggressive states, powers of the Executive incautiously delegated by Congress, etc. Cryptocurrency is now on that list. Maybe we should call for a halt until we figure out what’s going on.
TrapLord_Rhodo · 5h ago
The creation of the trump coin is a signal to the crypto community that the SEC will stop going after crypto companies. I have read alot of people who ended up going into crypto and some even getting lucrative investment from Andreeson horowitz, lightspeed, etc etc. And then one day, they get a letter in the mail saying they are now a Politically Exposed Entity (PEE). Then all of their banks drop them, they can't get credit and they can't get loans. The SEC put out a letter saying "Come work with us", and when the founders tried, they would become a PEE instantly. There was no recourse with the SEC, and many smart people ended up completely losing their lives. The only way they could get back to 'real' life, was by trying to go into a different industry and 'avoid the eye' which was, who knows?
Now, as the trump + melania coin acting as a grift, instead of "alternative funding mechanism". I mean, you could already 'donate' directly to the president, and even get a tax writeoff for it. Atleast this way you'll have to pay capital gains. You could already pay $1m to get a audience with the president, how is this any different? Hunter Biden made multi-million dollar deals, and got paid 50k a month for a being on various boards... despite being a known drugie.
the "Top 200 holders" get a dinner with the president. Not saying it's better or worse, just saying it's pretty much the same thing that every president has had access to.
It's not that i entirely believe all of this, but i would like to provide some counter weight to all the comments that are all just parroting "Grift".
ordinaryradical · 5h ago
Shouting over and over again, “This is normal” doesn’t make something morally acceptable.
If any of this is (arguably) normal we should tear down the systems that support these norms. They are bad norms. The solution is never, “Welp, people are corrupt, what can you do?” You start making changes in the legal system. Because if you don’t you’re giving the country away as though there were no other course of action.
ceejayoz · 5h ago
> I mean, you could already 'donate' directly to the president, and even get a tax writeoff for it.
What? Campaign donations are not tax exempt.
> Hunter Biden made multi-million dollar deals, and got paid 50k a month for a being on various boards... despite being a known drugie.
Musk is also a "known druggie"; his ketamine habit is self-admitted, and he smoked pot on Rogan. (Briefly risking his contracts, even!)
> the "Top 200 holders" get a dinner with the president. Not saying it's better or worse, just saying it's pretty much the same thing that every president has had access to.
Not in the slightest. There are legal limits on how much money you can give the President.
TrapLord_Rhodo · 5h ago
donations to affiliated NGOs (non-governmental organizations) are tax-deductible.
>Musk is also a "known druggie"; his ketamine habit is self-admitted, and he smoked pot on Rogan. (Briefly risking his contracts, even!)
Taking a microdose of ket under medical supervision, and taking a hit of weed which is legal in alot of states is not the same "Smoking crack every 15 minutes" as hunter said he did.
>Not in the slightest. There are legal limits on how much money you can give the President.
You aren't giving any money to the president here. It's a way for the president to provide utility to the coin. The coin has a vesting schedule, locking the coins so they can't be sold by the insiders.
ceejayoz · 5h ago
> donations to affiliated NGOs (non-governmental organizations) are tax-deductible
Only if they're tax exempt NGOs. Which affiliated NGO do you propose?
> Taking a microdose of ket under medical supervision, and taking a hit of weed which is legal in alot of states is not the same "Smoking crack every 15 minutes" as hunter said he did.
(I'm… pretty doubtful Musk is actually microdosing.)
> You aren't giving any money to the president here.
Per the article: "A Trump business entity owns 60 percent of World Liberty, according to the company’s website, and is entitled to 75 percent of certain revenue from coin sales, which could be converted into cash."
alt227 · 1h ago
"druggie" - lol
m00dy · 6h ago
Finally, we have a president who truly understands the value that crypto can bring. We will bank the unbanked, Mr. President, not just in the U.S., but across the entire planet.
Now it's all celebrity endorsement, hype and lies.
And having the US prez jump on that bandwagon and ride it while in office is just mind-boggling.
Seems like what's happening is unsurprising. A nation of spectators, not citizens.
https://www.theverge.com/news/646426/a-1-million-per-head-di...
Is the Sovereign Bitcoin Fund bailout scam still on the table or is Bitcoin doing well enough so that it isn't needed any longer?
Now we're in a situation that's so much worse than I ever imagined -- Trump coins are vehicles for naked bribery and corruption with a sprinkle of encryption on top. I was worried about black markets, Trump has literally been using his office to grant access to top holders of his scam coin.
This is a big lesson for everyone about why some degree of regulation is necessary.
But after spending ~2y in the space, I realized another thing -- the people in this space right now are in it purely for speculation and monetary gains. There's a lot of talk about decade long horizons, but any app that achieves pmf in the short to medium term has to cater to the speculators or die.
We chose not to go down the path of launching a coin or doing speculative stuff, even though the demand for it was intense. We hit some PMF around creators, but didn't have the conviction that it would scale without speculation. A year down the line, I believe that was the right pov to have.
what ever gave you that thought? There are countries that do this right out in the open. The rest of the countries do it in various shades of gray to not be right out in the open, but still visible for those that can see in higher bit depths of gray than black and white
There's an old saying that goes something like there is crime, there is organized crime and there is government.
I really wonder how you come up to that conclusion especially that there is more than a degree of regulation. If regulation will not apply for the top anyway, then it's better to remove all regulation.
John Adams told us the Constitution is intended for a moral (or virtuous) people.
The point is the law isn't self enforcing. People have to insist upon Constitutional order, not because of faith in it, but because the alternative is tyranny. Not anarchy.
Does this country deserve Constitutional order? The People abandoned it by electing someone virulently and openly opposed to it.
The regulation you seek is utterly meaningless in an autocracy. Or even in a unitary executive theory of Constitutional order.
But even in the case of Trump specifically, among the most untrustworthy liars America has produced, what does Constitutional duty mean to him? What does it mean that he took the oath of office? He said the words but no serious person beleives he took an oath.
People still have no idea what we've done. And what is yet to come.
The POTUS is a psycho. And the replacements aren't good people either.
100 days down, 1369 to go. It's going to get much worse.
I have heard this one before.
Say what you will about "the swamp" (not a big fan myself), but as a metaphor it kinda works since a swamp may be noxious and filled with unsavory swamp creatures... but it's still an ecosystem where competition and co-evolution amongst these swamp species in response to external environmental changes would still be expected.
OR they aren’t ignorant, and are fully aware of things, and instead are scum.
"If you're doing something legally or morally wrong, create opponents to accuse of the same things before what you're doing comes out."
https://www.reuters.com/world/kushner-has-discussed-us-saudi...
These corrupt assholes don't even try to hide it.
Thats all Truth Social was. By buying the public stock you could in a way funnel money to Trump that did conflict with campaign finance laws/limits.
People arent buying Truth Social stock because they think its actually worth 5 billion dollars.
Well, if you see it as the private presidential corruption fund, it might well be worth well over 5 billion tbf.
Its called kleptocurrency for good reason.
Those who support it on philosophical grounds will destruction on everyone else for the sake of their own gain, and should be viewed with all possible hostility as they constitute an intentional community of public enemies in the plainest possible sense.
Neither will bans and prohibitions, unless you are willing to go full north korea with cameras everywhere and computers locked down. And you'll probably fail with that.
You're beating your fists against an ocean.
Touch some grass.
Trump will close off as much opposition as he can in the next two years. Then spend a year convincing people that term limits aren't required by the constitution. By then we'll have had so many scandals and constitutional crisis events that just get ignored that it will happen.
Am I being overdramatic? Because this feels different. It feels openly hostile.
The only way to avoid another Trump is to not elect one.
The solution liberals recoil against for some reason, is disassociation. We should have threatened our Trumper friends and family with permanent disassociation before the 2024 election.
Most would persist unpersuaded. And they're likely lost for our lifetime anyway. Perhaps enough would have taken the social cue of ridicule and ostracizing as serious enough to not vote for a psychopath.
The farther back the more effective it would have been.
Instead we keep thinking they can be persuaded with reason, despite all evidence they've abandoned rationality.
You can't legislate the outcome you want. What you want comes from virtue. And America is out of virtue. People voted for a rapist, a felon, and vile insurrectionist.
Near as I can tell we don't deserve Constitutional order and therefore we are losing it.
Canadian elections show that people can change their mind overnight, but unfortunately some of the changes that happened in the US institutions and the global relations will take decades to reverse (if ever).
But history has showed (with NSDAP and others) that it is not.
You see, you lost a good chunk of voters there.
Many are just voting for their candidate to hurt other people whom they don't like.
Bullshit. America is the richest country on earth. Your unemployment is remarkably low. Your disposable income is relatively high. And all the issues you complain about, like housing, are worse outside the US than in the US.
Moreover, a lot of the MAGA people are NOT working class struggling families. There are a lot of middle class middle aged low digit millionaires who are certainly not hurting for anything, but for some reason really love Trump.
Also from polling the ones who did not vote were also leaning towards Trump. So participation was not the issue.
That’s not even true within my lifetime, let alone historically. People freaked the fuck out because Reagan was going to be all of 70 when he took office in 1982. That’s nothing compared to the fossils that they’re propping up in front of a microphone these days. 70 year olds in Congress these days are nicknamed “The Kid”.
That's only true for an incredibly expansive definition of geriatric: Teddy Roosevelt was 42, Kennedy 43, Obama and Grant 46, etc. By a commom conventional standard of "geriatric” in general use (65+), only Buchanan, Harrison, Reagan, Trump, and Biden qualify at the start of their first term, and only 16 total would at the end of their last term.
> So, when compared with the younger black/indian woman
Harris was closer to (but still older than) both the mean and median age at start of term for a President than Trump was (even if you compared her in 2024 to Trump when elected in 2016). Gender and age, sure, but the whole geriatric thing as a long-term bias evident across the whole list of Presidents is unjustified (there's probably a decent argument that the current electorate has a geriatric bias, but its not a long-term historical one.)
They love him because he's as degenerate as they are, and makes it cool to be white. Or so I'm told.
Not that I believe any of that, just going by what Trump supporters tell me.
Many people look at the Bidens’ relationship with Ukraine and wonder whether the war could have been avoided, and we wouldn’t have to hear stories about “we sent $X billions, but Zelenskyy says he received only $0.5X billions” which could have been spent here, not to mention millions of lives spared (the latter doesn’t affect ordinary Americans directly, but there you go).
Edit: it’s abundantly clear that Trump is also highly corrupt. A big part of the problem is that many are only to see the other side’s corruption (not to mention the felt need to pick a side)
Who was president in 2020? Who did the first round of stimulus?
I think that's fair, Covid was completely insane. Personally the part of the US response I disliked the most was the closing of schools. Like, in Ireland the pubs were closed for basically 2 years, but we kept the schools open for most of it, which I think was the right call. Difficult situation though, and the vaccine mandates were crazy (particularly given how ineffective they were in preventing transmission).
> Many people look at the Bidens’ relationship with Ukraine and wonder whether the war could have been avoided,
I really don't see that. Like, Russia basically invaded as soon as (like that week) Nordstream 2 was finished (which unlike Nordstream 1 didn't pass through Ukraine). I think it's arguable that the US didn't need to be as involved (although if they hadn't been, then the EU-US break would have happened much, much sooner).
> which could have been spent here,
Like, for the avoidance of doubt, sending old weapons to Ukraine doesn't actually cost the US as much as they claimed. Ye'd have had to decommission them anyway. (This is a surprisingly large pattern in US aid to other countries).
> A big part of the problem is that many are only to see the other side’s corruption
Yeah, that's fair.
The data are known to show that the primary effect was in reducing the risk of hospitalization, severe disease, and mortality. Why, then should the lack of effect on transmission be the end-point that determines the appropriateness of mass immunization?
The idea that Biden was taking food out of our mouths to send to Ukraine was pushed by the very people that approved that budget because it was easy to do. And Americans know this, they really do, they just forget it because they've had this narrative yelled at them so many times.
And even given that, we were very shrewd. We sent old weapons that were going to be decommissioned, so I would hardly say we sent a bunch of money to Ukraine. More like we goosed our weapon production.
It’s not solely Trump’s identity that makes that distinction; it’s the haphazard, uninformed, and ruinous adventures in poor decision-making in economics and otherwise that characterize the difference. Biden was ineffective and a poor choice, but utterly benign in comparison to his mendacious, unskilled successor.
Long hold times and phone-tree mazes for help with the dozen bills that showed up due to one night in the hospital (despite insurance and all that!), housing costs shooting up year over year, inflation (people genuinely don't understand that "inflation is down" doesn't mean "prices dropped", which, after the giant covid price spike, is what they actually wanted to happen). More visible homelessness. Scam call attempts 2-3 times a day, and your Grandma and thousands of other grandmas and grandpas and fathers and mothers lost a ton of money to them, and nobody in power seems to give half a fuck. The neoliberal trade changes in the '90s were supposed to come with mountains of support to the demographics likely to be harmed by them, and that never meaningfully materialized, and people remember that and families still feel the pain from it. It may seem silly, but: tip prompts for take-out. It's some bigger things, and a whole lot of little things like that.
Add the cultivated, perceived, not-backed-by-data problems Republicans propagandize, to those very real ones above. Sky-high and worsening crime, "invasions" at the border bringing in fentanyl and such (it's mostly Americans doing it, in fact, for the obvious reason that they have a much easier time crossing the border Mex-to-US while carrying drugs when the crossing itself isn't illegal, so it's far less risky) and trans athletes, all that junk.
This left a good chunk of the electorate eager for someone promising to upend the system, when the two options presented to-date had been "we'll fix everything (but actually it'll get worse)" and "we'll fix everything (but actually it'll still get worse—just more-slowly)".
Fertile ground for a fascist conman.
There are other aspects to it, of course. Conspiratorial thinking (QAnon and friends) twisted, as it usually is when it hits politics, into "these openly-grifting elites are on my side and will stop the secretly-grifting elites I've been assured are the problem!" is a pretty big one, thanks to the feed-algo right-wing-radicalization pipeline giving that nonsense a ton of oxygen. A non-trivial set of folks really are just racist as hell. But the above is the most-plausible explanation I've seen for the "things are bad and getting worse" voters.
It's a complex web of alienations.
You could spend an entire college semester discussing how and why. Immigration is the current scapegoat for the effects of a hollowed out middle class, though.
hahaha
rattling off a bunch of people who haven't been criminally charged in response to a party whose leader quite literally HAS been charged with fraud is the point.
how many indictments were passed down during the Obama admin vs Trump admin vs Bush admin and so on. Republican admins are notorious for being criminals.
To win the libs, women, colored, foreigners, woke, dei - as long as they can satisfy their general hatred for "others" they are ok with collapsing America.
A elite that fights social welfare as socialism, while at the same time removing the middle class and handing the lower classes infinite competition. Nobody cares about who the elite pretends to care for, nobody cares about corruption, they want to see that house burn down, like theirs was torched. The sounds of humanism the enemy makes, are irrelevant, as the sound of compassion made while doing nothing.
Joe’s brother has also made a lot of money off of questionable government contracts.
Like, yes, please, investigate all of them.
Republicans sort-of tried with Hunter, but kept balking at public hearings because they knew a bunch of the stuff they were claiming when they went on Fox was made-up, so it better served their propaganda purposes to avoid pursuing it. If there was actually anything to it, I hope and assume they would have gone ahead.
Which brings up the credibility problem with these claims from Republicans: "There's fraud in government! We found tons of it!" cool, that's a crime, where are the indictments? Oh, there aren't any, because you're full of shit. "Massive election fraud!" cool, that's a serious crime, you're in power now, a bunch of your AGs launched high-profile investigations, where are the indictments? You snagged a half-dozen cases, all mundane shit like someone with two houses voting in both states in two different elections because they forgot about it or didn't realize it was illegal? Where is the massive, organized fraud? Oh, you were just lying. Again. (They've been fucking that particular chicken for nearly two damn decades and somehow still have nothing to show for it, the democracy-undermining pricks). Months and months and all those hours of interviews for the Benghazi "investigations", and what? Nothing again. It's tedious. Shit or get off the pot, go after crime but stop lying about it.
He was convicted of several crimes…
https://www.justice.gov/archives/sco-weiss/pr/robert-hunter-...
Hunter Biden blatantly and corruptly sold his father’s influence. There’s even evidence that Joe got his “10% for the big guy” on these dealings. It’s a massive disgusting scandal.
For the record I can’t stand when either side pulls this crap. The whole narrative that my side’s politicians are less corrupt than yours needs to end. They’re dividing us into tribes and playing us for fools while the political class robs us blind.
Hunter Biden, as far as the country has been made aware, never requested an TS-SCI clearance, as Jared Kushner did. Jared Kushner was given one via overrule from the 45th administration when the FBI and CIA said there's no way in hell he should be given access to any state secrets due to his background.
For the record, fuck Hunter Biden for anything he might have done. But don't equate selling access to demanding the highest levels of access to our nation's most closely held secrets.
> Jared Kushner is just as much a “private citizen” as Hunter Biden is.
Feel free to start the ball rolling
The lack of regulations in crypto make these scams legals without any fear of any repercussion
Bitcoin solves (or attempts to solve) for exchange in absence of trust and regulation. But this is a stupid thing to solve for, because without trust and regulation you can’t even have a functioning society.
(Unless you count speculation/gambling).
the technology is showing transactions on a public ledger literally (unlike tradfi), nobody is hiding anything (until we go to Monero and similar, but that's different). What's however happening, and we come back to the first point, is the lack of "rules" so that in effect financial "crime" is legal.
There's a public ledger I can visit to see who's bribing Trump this week?
There are a few areas where I find crypto interesting or useful:
- The existing banking and payments industry is too Christian / Mormon. It extra-judicially regulates anything it views as "vices". This industry is supposed to be dumb payment rails with hooks for FinCEN to stop crime. It's not supposed to be your pastor. If anything, business integration with regular payment rails would help them be better regulated.
- "Stablecoins" or whatever the hell they're called seem like a wickedly efficient way to move money between businesses and countries without paying large fees or having to wait for clearance. Ideally they can even cut Visa and the fintech monopolies out of the equation. This is more of a B2B rather than consumer / individual application, and it seems genuinely useful. It also seems compatible with the existing FinCEN / FINRA / AML regulations. If you look at it long enough, it doesn't even feel like crypto. Just a new type of efficiency.
The latter may make the former a non-issue, especially if the existing fintech industry receives more competition from upstarts that don't have to pay the legacy gateways and their frictionful fees.
Yeah, these seem like a really good (potentially the only one) use case for crypto. Note that these are really just replicating dollar (and potentially euro) dominance for a new age, and whoever ends up winning here will probably be the new Visa/Mastercard (with all of the problems that entails).
Apparently before Bitcoin was Liberty Reserve, which was a centralized database.
Now, as the trump + melania coin acting as a grift, instead of "alternative funding mechanism". I mean, you could already 'donate' directly to the president, and even get a tax writeoff for it. Atleast this way you'll have to pay capital gains. You could already pay $1m to get a audience with the president, how is this any different? Hunter Biden made multi-million dollar deals, and got paid 50k a month for a being on various boards... despite being a known drugie.
the "Top 200 holders" get a dinner with the president. Not saying it's better or worse, just saying it's pretty much the same thing that every president has had access to.
It's not that i entirely believe all of this, but i would like to provide some counter weight to all the comments that are all just parroting "Grift".
If any of this is (arguably) normal we should tear down the systems that support these norms. They are bad norms. The solution is never, “Welp, people are corrupt, what can you do?” You start making changes in the legal system. Because if you don’t you’re giving the country away as though there were no other course of action.
What? Campaign donations are not tax exempt.
> Hunter Biden made multi-million dollar deals, and got paid 50k a month for a being on various boards... despite being a known drugie.
Musk is also a "known druggie"; his ketamine habit is self-admitted, and he smoked pot on Rogan. (Briefly risking his contracts, even!)
> the "Top 200 holders" get a dinner with the president. Not saying it's better or worse, just saying it's pretty much the same thing that every president has had access to.
Not in the slightest. There are legal limits on how much money you can give the President.
>Musk is also a "known druggie"; his ketamine habit is self-admitted, and he smoked pot on Rogan. (Briefly risking his contracts, even!)
Taking a microdose of ket under medical supervision, and taking a hit of weed which is legal in alot of states is not the same "Smoking crack every 15 minutes" as hunter said he did.
>Not in the slightest. There are legal limits on how much money you can give the President.
You aren't giving any money to the president here. It's a way for the president to provide utility to the coin. The coin has a vesting schedule, locking the coins so they can't be sold by the insiders.
Only if they're tax exempt NGOs. Which affiliated NGO do you propose?
> Taking a microdose of ket under medical supervision, and taking a hit of weed which is legal in alot of states is not the same "Smoking crack every 15 minutes" as hunter said he did.
(I'm… pretty doubtful Musk is actually microdosing.)
The Feds consider both crack cocaine and marijuana as a Schedule I drug; per the DEA, "no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse". https://www.dea.gov/drug-information/drug-scheduling
> You aren't giving any money to the president here.
Per the article: "A Trump business entity owns 60 percent of World Liberty, according to the company’s website, and is entitled to 75 percent of certain revenue from coin sales, which could be converted into cash."