Claim: Cryptocurrencies and blockchains allow for publishing content without a centralized authority. No single point controls what is and is not published. This means that a blockchain will not have any political agendas or special interests which might skew content or restrict it completely.
Category: Use cases (could create new category called Political censorship)
Argument/Evidence: I agree with Justin Caldwell from Toshi Times and Ivan on Tech. Ivan says if Jordan Peterson does not get a decentralized Patreon-like service, it will fail again since all centralized platforms need to use PayPal and/or banks that has a middleman and they care about what other people say. These centralized platforms reject people who have a bad reputation for having opinions that are far right or left.
Ivan says there is a smart contract on Ethereum and one can create a blockchain based and decentralized platform with subscription feature so that a certain amount of crypto can be paid to an author or content creator once a month.
This could also help content creators like Andreas Antonopoulos who is a big proponent of Bitcoin (writer of Masterin Bitcoin, etc.). He is still not able to accept bitcoin as sponsorship regularly since he says Patreon works better because it’s more consistent and he needs consistency for his employees.
Another blockchain startup, LIPS, that’s trying to prevent/protect from the above happening for women, artists, and their IP.
Argument/Evidence: A republican senator from Georgia turned himself into officials because he lied about stolen computer equipment at his campaign offices, which was being used for crypto mining as well as non campaign related business, his investment company.
Williams had said servers with a value of $300,000, which had been used to mine unnamed cryptocurrencies, had disappeared from his office premises, local daily news outlet reported Dec. 20. He was eventually accused of lying to policemen and investigators and filing a false insurance claim concerning the case.
Status: unconfirmed (case still pending. waiting for evidence from prosecutors)
The senator is known for her criticism of cryptocurrencies, having repeatedly expressed concerns that cryptocurrency consumers could be hurt by scam initial coin offerings (ICOs) while also stating that crypto is “easy to steal.”
Speaking at a Senate Banking Committee hearing in October, Warren asserted that “the challenge is how to nurture productive aspects of crypto with protecting consumers.” The Senator also outlined that American consumers are falling victim to cryptocurrency scammers.
Back in October, we reported that Warren had commented negatively on crypto, expressing her belief that digital currencies are too easily stolen, and that initial coin offerings lead many small investors into scams. In February, Senator Warren outlined a lack of sufficient crypto regulation following the SEC’s decision to consider certain currencies to be securities, noting that companies had raised “over $4 billion” in unregistered ICOs.
“When companies don’t register their tokens as securities, they can hide information and the SEC does not have the information it needs, to monitor this market.” she said in a video posted earlier in February.
Arg/Obv: Paragon is a cryptocurrency that targets the cannabis payment market, kinda similar to Potcoin, plus they have a coworking space division. Source: https://paragoncoin.com/
Arg/Eval: Paragon raise $70millions usd during the 2017 ICO boom, alot of action been show in marketing, not much on the dev side, all their dev team is in Ukraine. I work with Ukranian too so is no problem, but when they are not reachable through their LinkedIn profil that kinda raise a flag.
Arg/Act: The bullish momentum (SEC settlement) could explain the move a bit, but to have those kinds of extreme move you need some market manipulation. The price already comeback to the previous level which make the case for market manipulation on low volume confirmed.
Argument/Evidence: There are conflicting reports about the fees (or lack thereof) related to transacting with yet-to-be-created or named stablecoin. The article from Finance Magnets above clearly states that "users and retail shops will not be charged a fee on the cryptocurrency transactions, including transferring funds between their smartphones and bank accounts or sending funds to other users or the shops’ corporate bank accounts. They later confirm the lack of fees by adding that “in return for providing the service for free, the banks would benefit by collecting more data on consumer spending patterns.”
However, the reporting on this by Cointelegraph, Asia.Nikkei. and others, state some variation of “retail shops using the currency will be charged fees significantly lower than for credit card services.”
From what I gather, purchases by consumers will be free. And coin-to-coin and coin-to-fiat transactions will be free for consumers and retailers, but retailers will pay a fee to in order to accept payment via the new coin. Although the coin won’t launch until March of this year, and changes in the fee details may take place by then, as it stands now, this claim is rejected.
Hey Bruno, this reads more like an analysis for a prospective investor. That’s valuable work but I don’t think it’s a valid TruStory claim.
“Paragon’s price increases by 7000% after an SEC settlement” is a claim you can support. It’d be tough to attribute the meteroric rise to just that activity, but until we have more intel (which we can always go back to add that later), this seems valid for TruStory.
I agree. The claim “Crazy speculative (DLH +7000%) move on Paragon” would get Flagged for ambiguous. Your suggested updated claim “Paragon’s price increases by 7000% after an SEC settlement” is better and a validatable claim.
Argument/Evidence: “It takes between seven and 14 Megajoules (MJ) of energy to create a US dollar’s worth of cryptocurrency, more than the energy required to physically mine for a dollar’s worth of copper or gold, say Max Krause and Thabet Tolaymat, from America’s Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education, in a paper published in the journal Nature Sustainability.”
Argument/Evidence: It’s important to understand true blockchain technology requires that there be complementary implementation of both features within an open-source framework. This is because a cryptographically secure environment spread across various computer systems (laptops, desktops, etc.) must use some mechanism for infrastructure maintenance. The only program that currently incentivizes such maintenance is the cryptographically secure token model.