The South African Reserve Bank has reportedly decided not to unveil the findings of the initial phase of its central bank digital currency feasibility study. Instead, the central bank said it is currently focused on the second phase of the study and will release a report once it is satisfied with the progress made in […]
Bitcoin News
Blockchain Publishing Company LBRY Announces Shutdown Following Court Judgment and Debts
Facing a judgment from the federal government and encumbered with significant debts, LBRY Inc., the blockchain-based publishing company, has signaled its intent to terminate operations. This announcement, shared via a blog post hosted on Odysee, arrives in the aftermath of a contentious legal battle with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The post marks the end of an era for LBRY, as they bid farewell to their supporters and the digital publishing community.
Debts and Legal Struggles Push LBRY Inc. to Cease Operations, but LBRY Network and Odysee Remain
The latest blog post paints a somber picture of LBRY Inc.’s current situation. Burdened with debts to the SEC, their legal team, and a private debtor, the company has found itself in an untenable position. Their assets, including their flagship platform Odysee, are now set to enter receivership. As a final stroke, all executives, employees, and board members have tendered their resignations.
Though LBRY Inc. faces its sunset, the LBRY network stands on a different footing. Being decentralized and powered by open-source code, its fate is largely in the hands of its users. The company’s post raises concerns about the network’s potential obscurity, emphasizing the need for active participation to keep it alive.
The blog post adds:
The truth is that even writing this post fills us with anxiety. Everything we say is being scrutinized by people with immense resources that aren’t big fans of us, free speech, or any technology that enables dissent. And if we violate another one of the United States’ incredibly clear and easy-to-follow laws, we might end up in jail.
Despite the challenges, LBRY stated that Odysee continues to thrive, serving over 6 million users monthly. As LBRY’s most valuable asset, its future ownership remains uncertain. While the platform’s allegiance to the LBRY network has been strong, it remains to be seen if it will transition away in the future. Moreover, the U.S. securities regulator is intensifying its scrutiny on various crypto and blockchain-related endeavors, ramping up enforcement measures.
The news follows LBRY’s court document filed in September, indicating their intention to challenge the SEC’s recent win in court. In a decision from November 2022, a New Hampshire district court sided with the SEC and found that LBRY had characterized its digital assets as securities or “investment contracts.” Yet, as LBRY begins to phase out its operations, it seems this planned appeal has been shelved.
How do you feel about LBRY throwing in the towel this week? Dive into the discussion and let us know your views on the matter in the comments below.
SEC Charges Crypto Investment Adviser for Publishing Misleading ‘Hypothetical Performance Projections’
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has charged Titan Global Capital Management for publishing misleading “hypothetical performance projections” regarding its crypto investment product. Titan Global is also accused of violating the marketing rule when it advertised hypothetical performance metrics without taking the required steps.
Improper Use of Hedge Clauses
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) said on Aug. 21 that it had charged a New York-based fintech investment adviser, Titan Global Capital Management, for publishing misleading information regarding its crypto investment product. In a statement, the securities regulator revealed that Titan Global has also been charged “with multiple compliance failures” which culminated in the release of “misleading disclosures about custody of clients’ crypto assets.”
According to the SEC, the same compliance failures are also believed to have led to the use of improper “hedge clauses” in client agreements. They also resulted in the illegal use of client signatures and “the failure to adopt policies concerning crypto asset trading by employees.”
Meanwhile, in its order, the U.S. securities regulator highlighted its concerns with the investment adviser’s misleading advertisements.
“The order alleges that Titan’s advertisements were misleading because they failed to include material information, for example, that the hypothetical performance projections assumed that the strategy’s performance in its first three weeks would continue for an entire year,” the SEC said.
A Warning to Investment Advisers
In addition, Titan Global is also accused of violating the marketing rule by advertising hypothetical performance metrics without taking the required steps. The SEC said the fintech adviser’s alleged violations were committed between Aug. 2021 and October 2022.
Commenting on the SEC’s decision against the fintech investment adviser, Osman Nawaz, the Chief of Enforcement’s Complex Financial Instruments Unit, said:
Titan’s advertisements and disclosures painted a misleading picture of certain of its strategies for investors. This action serves as a warning for all advisers to ensure compliance.
The Commission also revealed that Titan Global had cooperated with the investigation and consented to the entry of an SEC order. Titan Global subsequently agreed to a cease-and-desist order, a disgorgement fee of 2,454, and a civil penalty of 0,000 which will be distributed to affected clients.
What are your thoughts on this story? Let us know what you think in the comments section below.
Bitcoin Proponents Accuse the New York Times of Publishing One-Sided ‘Hit Piece’ on Bitcoin Mining
After the New York Times was accused of writing favorable pieces about disgraced FTX co-founder Sam Bankman-Fried and inviting him to speak at the news outlet’s Dealbook Summit, it is once again being criticized for publishing a “hit piece” about bitcoin mining. The article’s authors claim that bitcoin mining is harmful to the environment, while the editorial also alleges that one of the authors went to great lengths to investigate the story. However, bitcoin proponents disagree with the article’s premise and maintain that the Times reporter did not use current data. They also argue that the story was one-sided, with practically zero opposing viewpoints.
Bitcoiners Respond to NYT Article About Bitcoin Mining — ‘Sometimes Clicks Are More Important Than the Truth’
The New York Times (NYT) is getting berated on social media after several well-known bitcoin proponents claimed that the publication published a one-sided article to promote propaganda. This is not the first time the Times has been accused of lacking journalistic integrity and being a mouthpiece for the establishment. In mid-November 2022, the publication was accused of writing a “puff piece” about former FTX CEO Sam Bankman-Fried (SBF) and inviting him to speak at the company’s Dealbook Summit event. On April 10, NYT reporter Gabriel Dance published an editorial titled “The Real-World Costs of the Digital Race for Bitcoin.”
In his editorial, Dance focuses on bitcoin mining in the United States and claims that 85% of U.S.-based miners use fossil fuels for energy. The report also discusses the state of Texas and the 34 bitcoin mines located in the region. Although Dance misspells the name of one of the Texas Bitdeer bitcoin mines, his findings suggest that bitcoin mining is environmentally unfriendly and “in some areas, this has led prices to surge.” However, despite the author’s claims, some bitcoin enthusiasts have denounced the article as propaganda. CEO and co-founder of the Satoshi Act Fund, Dennis Porter, was among those who criticized the Times article.
“The NYT hit piece dropped and it’s everything we expected. Sad to see the NYT attack bitcoin mining despite the incredible outreach by our community to engage and share the other side of the story,” Porter said in a tweet. “Sometimes clicks are more important than the truth.” In another tweet, Porter emphasized that the “NYT couldn’t even take the time to fact-check the town where bitcoin mining is taking place. “It’s Rockdale, Texas, not Rockland. These are not serious people,” he added.
Alex Gladstein, chief strategy officer of the Human Rights Foundation, also criticized the NYT article for not mentioning the benefits of bitcoin.“The new NYT piece on mining is packed w/ misinfo, but the most staggering thing is that it doesn’t attempt to describe to the reader what bitcoin actually does worldwide,” Gladstein tweeted. “This is intentional. If you don’t understand bitcoin’s value, then of course you think it’s a waste of energy.” Others have found fault with the NYT’s and Dance’s methodology and data. For instance, bitcoin supporter Troy Cross opined that the methodologies of climate activist Daniel Batten and the NYT are “starkly different.”
Climate Activist Claims Emission Levels Quoted in the NYT Are Overstated on Average by 81.7%
Batten is an environmental, social, and governance (ESG) analyst, climate tech investor and well-known for his research on the environmental impact of bitcoin mining. After the NYT article was published, Batten also discredited the research done by the newspaper and the author. Batten asserts that the NYT article overstates the use of fossil fuels by a great deal and he argues that people “should have zero trust in the NYTimes article on bitcoin.” The researcher further claims that the emission levels quoted in the NYT article are “overstated on average by 81.7%.”
Batten also published a Twitter thread that picked apart the NYT article and argued that the editorial was full of “unsupported assertions.” The ESG analyst explained that the article did not cite researchers who spent thousands of hours understanding the technology. Moreover, the NYT data is not current and Batten declares that “bitcoin [mining] no longer uses mostly fossil fuel.” Batten also concludes that the Times article has no objective reference to previous bitcoin mining reports or how “bitcoin mining makes renewable operators economically viable.”
What is your opinion on the New York Times’ coverage of bitcoin mining and its environmental impact? Do you believe that the article was one-sided, or do you think that it accurately portrayed the issue at hand? Share your thoughts in the comments section below.
Can the Bitcoin Lightning Network Revolutionise Online Publishing?
Although the Lightning Network is most often touted as a way to reduce transaction burden on the main Bitcoin blockchain, various other use cases are becoming apparent as more people experiment with it.
One of the most potentially revolutionary is the ability to make incredibly small payments for online content. This could have a massive impact on the way content creators monetise their work and, if the largest names in publishing get on board, could be massive for Bitcoin adoption generally.
Is Lightning Network Poised to Strike Online Publishing?
It is no secret that the internet has had a detrimental effect on the quality of journalism. Where advertising revenue is king, sensationalism pays the bills. Some once-highly-respected publications have tried to avoid the temptation to rely too heavily on such “click-bait” tactics by using subscription services.
![](https://www.newsbtc.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/bitcoin-lightning-network.jpg)
Lightning Network could provide a massive opportunity for online publishing.
However, the problem with these membership schemes is that many readers don’t want to pay for a whole month’s access to a publication just to read a single article. This poses an interesting opportunity for Bitcoin’s second layer payments network, Lightning Network.
Since Lightning payments are cheap and fast, they could easily be used to provide pay-per-view services at publications both large and small – a use case highlighted in a post last September on crypto portfolio application Crypto Millionaire’s blog.
The author of the piece, titled “I sent letters to top newspapers asking for Lightning Network micropayments. Here are their responses so far”, claims to have done just that. In a letter addressed to “Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, New York Times, and many other”, they outline the above argument that many people wanting to read articles behind pay walls would be happy to pay for them. However, the current subscription model does not cater to the occasional reader:
“I’m not going to pay to dollars a month for a subscription… I would be way more likely to pay a few cents for a particular article I’m interested in.”
I sent letters to top newspapers asking for Lightning Network micropayments. Here are their responses so far: https://t.co/3iVukE7L4t … CoinGatecom #Bitcoin #Crypto #Ethereum #Litecoin #Ripple #EOS pic.twitter.com/4ghSL62gRW
— Crypto Millionaire App (@eagletwitt3r) April 3, 2019
The solution proposed is for publications to implement Lightning Network micro-payments for content. The author of the letter argues that publications implementing LN payments for content would:
“… get a lot more revenue, a lot of hype from the crypto and millennial communities and, most importantly, look cool and like keeping up with the times.”
Old subscription models could even be retained for those wishing to pay the full monthly fee and enjoy unlimited content. Meanwhile, a lot more casual readers would be contributing to the publication’s overall profitability. This increased revenue could then be spent on quality investigative journalism, rather than perpetually budget-cutting to keep costs down and relying more heavily on click-bait-style content.
In last year’s piece, a few of the publications responded. The Washington and Wall Street Journal stated that the suggestion was being forwarded to the relevant departments. Meanwhile, the Financial Times were rather more positive:
“You have a good point in suggesting Lightning Network micro-payments in which customers can use if they want to read an interesting article on ft.com. We take onboard your suggestion and hopefully one of the things that our marketing teams would consider.”
Bitcoin Micro-Payments at Major Publications Could Seriously Drive Adoption
It’s been six months since the publications were contacted and unfortunately there is still no sign of Bitcoin Lightning Network micro-payments at any major news publication. This feels like the beginnings of a missed opportunity for both the publications and Bitcoin.
Although initial uptake might be limited, if visitors to a pay-walled article realised that there was a way to pay for a single article, many of the keenest readers would likely choose to explore it. Not only could such a payment model serve to increase the quality of journalism across the board but it could be a serious boon for Bitcoin adoption too.
That said, it is still early days for Lightning Network. The size of the network and the value it’s capable of transferring have been growing at a rapid pace, however, it still might be moving a little too quickly to have the Wall Street Journal announce Lightning micro-payments right now. The network is still very much in its infancy. That said, when the network has matured, integrating Bitcoin micro-payments with leading publications is surely the perfect way to both reinvigorate a struggling industry and promote BTC adoption.
Related Reading: Jack Dorsey Tweets Support for Lightning Network Use on Twitter
Featured Image from Shutterstock.
The post Can the Bitcoin Lightning Network Revolutionise Online Publishing? appeared first on NewsBTC.
Film Publishing Rights Firm Fintage House Now Accepts Crypto for Rights Transactions
n Netherlands-based publishing rights management firm Fintage House has partnered with blockchain-based platform TaTaTu to accept crypto for rights transactionsn
CryptScout #BitFeed RSS – Bitcoin and Cryptocurrency News 24/7