At least in the US, "impeachable offense" is whatever the legislature will vote 2-to-1 for (which was revealed during the first Trump impeachment, and underscored why the second was such a farce. If 2/3 of the senate wouldn't convict a president stabbing a class of orphans on the capital steps, it doesn't really matter if its "legally" impeachable). Dunno if its as loosely defined in Argentina.
Having an executive do crazy things all the time is unstable. Systems tend to evolve towards a stable state. A dictator with absolute power, an impeached executive, or a dictator removed by populace uprising are the likely outcomes of nonsensical positions.
I guess we'll see how long it takes here. So far I don't see massive general strikes anytime soon. Given how spread out the US is, you need to get a good chunk of the population to turn out and we're not close yet.
The problem is that the demagogues will just convince many people that it wasn't really their fault, that this is the fault of the previous administration and they're just trying to "clean it up". That will likely work for a while. They don't have to convince everyone, just enough people to ensure that protests can't reach a critical mass.
Interesting that official site [1] doesn't even use the word "coin". Yes, it of course has all the disclaimers that it's not an investment. Also that it "is not political and has nothing to do with any political campaign". In case anyone got the wrong impression.
First you need to have a cult-like following among your base and a partisan Supreme Court who owes you favors. Only then can you enrich yourself and your pals by abusing your position of power to promote meme-coins.
It’s interesting. I remember hearing something I agree with from one of Bloomberg’s podcasts (either Moneystuff or Odd Lots) that the ambiguous regulatory regime for crypto actually lead to the state we’re in.
Summarizing, but what they generally said is that the actual “disruptive” attempts at technology from crypto (ICOs / DeFi) were selectively but heavily punished. Take XRP for an example of that.
What wasn’t / isn’t punished is meme coins because they fail the Howey test and there’s not really anything that a body which regulates investments can do against something screaming “we are not an investment.”
ICOs were being used by VCs to do rug pulls. Everyone buying at the ICO lost everything.
DeFi promised absolutely insane interest rates, built on a house of cards. When the cards collapsed, everyone who invested in them lost everything.
The issue isn't that they've selectively enforced things, it's that regulation is slow moving, and they can't keep up with the rate of new scam technology that comes out of crypto.
To be honest, I don't see a significant difference between meme coins and ICOs. In a lot of the cases, the person who creates the meme coin is the one who reaps the most profit during rug pulls. Some meme coins have been around for such a long time that they're mostly used for pump/dump, but a lot of them are effectively ICOs under a different name.
Some were, but then again Ethereum was an ICO as was XRP.
Again with DeFi, some were just Ponzi schemes (see SBFs infamous box token comments) but it also gave us Uniswap and Compound. These at least allow you to take directional bets on crypto so you can make money on its downfall.
> and they can't keep up with the rate of new scam technology that comes out of crypto.
There’s really been no innovation in scams recently. Just highly promote a smart contract token you can buy early on then dump it.
> but a lot of them are effectively ICOs under a different name.
They explicitly cannot promise to do anything economically productive with the offering because that fails the Howey test.
Seems like the news headlines should read "President makes a mistake that benefits crypto grifters, but luckily for the grifters the only blame seems to be attributed to the president because of a single tweet."
I imagine taking the inflation rate (that was growing exponentially) from nearly 300% yearly to less than 3% monthly in less than a year isn't likely to be wildly popular to all the non-crypto grifters.
Seems like a story without legs unless the opposition actually shows he benefited.
Also, it seems like the BBC totally massacred the definition of a rug pull.
>Some people online have accused Milei of what is known as a "rug pull" - where promoters of a cryptocurrency draw in buyers, only to stop trading activity and make off with the money
It doesn't have anything to do with a trading freeze, and I don't think that happened here.
I'm Argentinian and this is really unlikely. Political parties representing more than 1/2 of the members of the local equivalent of the "house of representatives" (first stage to make this happen) have already said they wouldn't vote for this. Like in the USA; each individual legislator can vote against their block; but the amount of these cases would be unprecedented (and then it also needs to be approved by 2/3 of the senate)
This is the source, it's in Spanish though. They ask for a thorough investigation; but are very dismissive of the case for an impeachment. This is a political party that roughly has 30% of the seats; the president's own political party has also about 30%; https://www.clarin.com/politica/escandalo-cripto-pro-pide-in...
More context. Other parties already said that impeachment is irresponsible at this stage. There are procedures to be done before considering that and the aim of the other powers (congress and justice) right now is to correct whatever is wrong with the executive's decision-making procedures. Obviously this would erode the executive's power as a result.
- the average person in Argentina has no clue how to buy crypto
- the link was available once, for only 2 hours
- to even think about buying it, you need some requirements such as a specific kind of wallet, previous interactions with certain crypto associated with that kind of wallet, have it linked to two sources, have your identity verified with the DNI (or other type of ID), and just then you could buy it.
Once applied all these filters, the amount of people that got to buy this is ridiculously small for the opposites to say that he scammed the country.
Take this with a grain of salt, since I'm far from being an expert on this topic.
Millei was reckless, but this is hardly ground for impeachment of an legally elected president.
But this is the usual playbook from the left, manufactured outrage and opportunism.
After WW2 the Dutch government decided to replace the old currency with a new one. No crypto involved.
It was done to wipe out all the cash profits people had made during the war. If you couldn't explain the source of your money adequately it was POOF gone.
It was spectacularly successful.
> After WW2 the Dutch government decided to replace the old currency with a new one. It was done to wipe out all the cash profits people had made during the war. If you couldn't explain the source of your money adequately it was POOF gone. It was spectacularly successful.
Would you link a source? I am unable to easily find anything online that substantiates your claim.
It's a bit blunt summary. I will write a loose explanation based on a Dutch history TV programme's blog post, this event is called the "Lieftinck Tenner". [1]
A few weeks after the new post-war government was installed, all hundred currency notes were declared invalid, out of the blue. All hundreds could be taken to the bank, where they were put on a blocked account for an indefinite period. Anyone who could not prove that they obtained the money in a honest way, their money would be taken and they would also be put on trial for black market trading. It was a rare case of the burden of proof being reversed in NL.
The confiscation of the hundreds was only just the beginning. The next step was that all Dutch paper money was invalidated in one swoop on 26 September 1945. At the same time, all bank accounts were frozen. Everyone was given a week to bring their money to the bank. Everything was registered, including foreign currency holdings, life insurance contracts and recently concluded mortgages. Only the coins remained outside this purification. Salaries were not paid that week as not to disrupt the system; the following week the pay packets were doubled.
For a week, from 26 September to 2 October, everyone had to survive on exactly the same amount: the famous "Lieftinck Tenner". For a short while, there is total economic equality in the Netherlands. It was not a tenner by the way, it was five notes of one guilder (1) and two of one rijksdaalder (2,50). It was a conscious decision not to pay out the money in one banknote, but in different denominations because no one else would have change.
Lieftinck, the economic minister at the time, explained: “Money purification is not only necessary to track down black market profits and to hit those who have made black market profits, but also because, after five years of German extortion, we are as destitute as no one could imagine. Limiting the circulation of money must prevent disloyal elements from stealing all the available goods from the market due to their excess of money, whereby people with small fixed incomes will be duped.”
From 3 October 1945, the money that has been frozen was gradually unblocked and replaced by freshly printed banknotes. There are only a few hundred million guilders of new money available, barely enough to pay wages. Lieftinck wants to hold on to the surrendered money for as long as possible, to prevent inflation and to detect the illegal war profits. As long as the monetary balance has not been restored, everyone gets enough money to live on, but it is not much. In retrospect, it is unbelievable how the whole of the Netherlands obediently accepts that Lieftinck keeps the piggy bank locked up indefinitely. The realisation "that it is simply necessary" was so widespread in the country that there was no notable protest against the blockade.
(Also, in order to complete the monetary purification, Lieftinck introduced two drastic wealth taxes: a one-off wealth tax, and a special levy on capital obtained during the war. The latter levy in particular could be quite high: anyone who could not prove how they earned their money during the war was assessed 90% and thus lost almost everything.)
The monetary purification was not completed until 1952, when the last amounts were unblocked. In seven years, Lieftinck had thoroughly reorganised the economy. The monetary balance has been restored and, moreover, the banking system has been unintentionally stimulated enormously. Thanks to the purification measures, for the first time in Dutch history almost everyone has a bank account, which means a huge boost for the Dutch banks.
It is not sure if this move was also succesful in actually punishing the people that made cash profits during the war - there was a huge flight in capital goods of gold, jewelry, land, houses. Another example is a farmer laundering his money by buying a bull for hundred times the real price. Some researchers claim the government might have emphasized dealing with the war profiteers b...
42 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 96.8 ms ] threadJavier Milei backtracks on $4.4B memecoin after 'insiders' pocket $87M
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43072790
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Hayek#Dictatorship_a...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/$Trump
-Steve Bannon
[1] https://gettrumpmemes.com/
Summarizing, but what they generally said is that the actual “disruptive” attempts at technology from crypto (ICOs / DeFi) were selectively but heavily punished. Take XRP for an example of that.
What wasn’t / isn’t punished is meme coins because they fail the Howey test and there’s not really anything that a body which regulates investments can do against something screaming “we are not an investment.”
DeFi promised absolutely insane interest rates, built on a house of cards. When the cards collapsed, everyone who invested in them lost everything.
The issue isn't that they've selectively enforced things, it's that regulation is slow moving, and they can't keep up with the rate of new scam technology that comes out of crypto.
To be honest, I don't see a significant difference between meme coins and ICOs. In a lot of the cases, the person who creates the meme coin is the one who reaps the most profit during rug pulls. Some meme coins have been around for such a long time that they're mostly used for pump/dump, but a lot of them are effectively ICOs under a different name.
Again with DeFi, some were just Ponzi schemes (see SBFs infamous box token comments) but it also gave us Uniswap and Compound. These at least allow you to take directional bets on crypto so you can make money on its downfall.
> and they can't keep up with the rate of new scam technology that comes out of crypto.
There’s really been no innovation in scams recently. Just highly promote a smart contract token you can buy early on then dump it.
> but a lot of them are effectively ICOs under a different name.
They explicitly cannot promise to do anything economically productive with the offering because that fails the Howey test.
I imagine taking the inflation rate (that was growing exponentially) from nearly 300% yearly to less than 3% monthly in less than a year isn't likely to be wildly popular to all the non-crypto grifters.
Also, it seems like the BBC totally massacred the definition of a rug pull.
>Some people online have accused Milei of what is known as a "rug pull" - where promoters of a cryptocurrency draw in buyers, only to stop trading activity and make off with the money
It doesn't have anything to do with a trading freeze, and I don't think that happened here.
This is the source, it's in Spanish though. They ask for a thorough investigation; but are very dismissive of the case for an impeachment. This is a political party that roughly has 30% of the seats; the president's own political party has also about 30%; https://www.clarin.com/politica/escandalo-cripto-pro-pide-in...
- the average person in Argentina has no clue how to buy crypto
- the link was available once, for only 2 hours
- to even think about buying it, you need some requirements such as a specific kind of wallet, previous interactions with certain crypto associated with that kind of wallet, have it linked to two sources, have your identity verified with the DNI (or other type of ID), and just then you could buy it.
Once applied all these filters, the amount of people that got to buy this is ridiculously small for the opposites to say that he scammed the country.
Take this with a grain of salt, since I'm far from being an expert on this topic.
tl;dr: It was very difficult to get that coin.
It was done to wipe out all the cash profits people had made during the war. If you couldn't explain the source of your money adequately it was POOF gone. It was spectacularly successful.
Would you link a source? I am unable to easily find anything online that substantiates your claim.
A few weeks after the new post-war government was installed, all hundred currency notes were declared invalid, out of the blue. All hundreds could be taken to the bank, where they were put on a blocked account for an indefinite period. Anyone who could not prove that they obtained the money in a honest way, their money would be taken and they would also be put on trial for black market trading. It was a rare case of the burden of proof being reversed in NL.
The confiscation of the hundreds was only just the beginning. The next step was that all Dutch paper money was invalidated in one swoop on 26 September 1945. At the same time, all bank accounts were frozen. Everyone was given a week to bring their money to the bank. Everything was registered, including foreign currency holdings, life insurance contracts and recently concluded mortgages. Only the coins remained outside this purification. Salaries were not paid that week as not to disrupt the system; the following week the pay packets were doubled.
For a week, from 26 September to 2 October, everyone had to survive on exactly the same amount: the famous "Lieftinck Tenner". For a short while, there is total economic equality in the Netherlands. It was not a tenner by the way, it was five notes of one guilder (1) and two of one rijksdaalder (2,50). It was a conscious decision not to pay out the money in one banknote, but in different denominations because no one else would have change.
Lieftinck, the economic minister at the time, explained: “Money purification is not only necessary to track down black market profits and to hit those who have made black market profits, but also because, after five years of German extortion, we are as destitute as no one could imagine. Limiting the circulation of money must prevent disloyal elements from stealing all the available goods from the market due to their excess of money, whereby people with small fixed incomes will be duped.”
From 3 October 1945, the money that has been frozen was gradually unblocked and replaced by freshly printed banknotes. There are only a few hundred million guilders of new money available, barely enough to pay wages. Lieftinck wants to hold on to the surrendered money for as long as possible, to prevent inflation and to detect the illegal war profits. As long as the monetary balance has not been restored, everyone gets enough money to live on, but it is not much. In retrospect, it is unbelievable how the whole of the Netherlands obediently accepts that Lieftinck keeps the piggy bank locked up indefinitely. The realisation "that it is simply necessary" was so widespread in the country that there was no notable protest against the blockade.
(Also, in order to complete the monetary purification, Lieftinck introduced two drastic wealth taxes: a one-off wealth tax, and a special levy on capital obtained during the war. The latter levy in particular could be quite high: anyone who could not prove how they earned their money during the war was assessed 90% and thus lost almost everything.)
The monetary purification was not completed until 1952, when the last amounts were unblocked. In seven years, Lieftinck had thoroughly reorganised the economy. The monetary balance has been restored and, moreover, the banking system has been unintentionally stimulated enormously. Thanks to the purification measures, for the first time in Dutch history almost everyone has a bank account, which means a huge boost for the Dutch banks.
It is not sure if this move was also succesful in actually punishing the people that made cash profits during the war - there was a huge flight in capital goods of gold, jewelry, land, houses. Another example is a farmer laundering his money by buying a bull for hundred times the real price. Some researchers claim the government might have emphasized dealing with the war profiteers b...
Here’s another source confirming that story: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-70250-2_...