Beware of Centralized Power…

Like this one ….











Government Bans Bitcoin
✊ 😂 😅 😂 😅 😂 ✊

















Veritas… Something LinkedIn doesn’t like !

Your Account has been permanently Restricted!

In a Society that changes, molds the Truth as it suits best some…

People will never be Free !!!

DECENTRALIZATION IS FREEDOM OF CHOICE !!!



Just because I didn’t gave them my ID or Passport to be on the site !!!

A social media site needs an ID from the users ¿?!¿?

The Power of CENTRALIZATION huh ¿!?

The funny thing is… I even became friends with a lot of people on the site, and with a few even, we discovered to have common goals and interests, that made us walk together on the road of creation and envisioning new paths that many would benefit…

LinkedIn is a professional site… hmmm…

Well, I happend to be a PROFESSIONAL BITCOIN MINER SINCE ANCIENT TIMES !!!

With a deep and high regard for Privacy…

What’s wrong in that ?!?

Does that make me… Less Professional ?!?

THEN I PROPOSE TO VOTE THAT ALL BITCOIN TALK ON YOUR SITE TO BE RESTRICTED…

AS YOU DON’T HAVE ALSO THE ID OR PASS OF SATOSHI NAKAMOTO !!!

🤫 🙂 😉 😂 🥴 🤫


Made with  💚  by Free Spirit

✌ & 💚




With 💚

Beware of CBDC’s People !!!


CBDC Research & Pilots around the world


StableCoins vs. CBDC’s

The Potential Orwellian Horror of Central Bank Digital Currencies

As citizens around the world are confronted with the severe curtailment of political, economic and cultural freedoms associated with COVID-19 risk mitigation strategies (e.g., lockdowns, mandatory vaccinations and/or vaccine passports), new risks to economic freedom and prosperity are quickly emerging which citizens must be aware of and remain vigilant about.

One of these risks which is developing with rapid pace are Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs). According to a Bank of International Settlements (BIS) 2021 survey:

  • 86% of central banks are actively researching the potential for CBDCs;
  • 60% were experimenting with CBDC associated technology; and
  • 14% were deploying CBDC pilot projects.

The development of CBDCs potentially represents one of the largest changes to modern banking and finance (as well as the global financial system) in decades, even though, as noted by the BIS, the concept was proposed by American economist, James Tobin, in 1987.

Current Structure of Currency

As noted by the International Monetary Fund in 2021, economies around the world currently operate under a “dual monetary system” comprising of:

  • Publicly-issued currency by central banks in the form of physical cash (coins or banknotes) and central bank reserves which constitute legal tender (i.e., form of currency or money which are legally recognised as a means of payment to settle financial obligations such as debts, taxes, contracts, legal fines or damages); and
  • Privately-issued currency by private commercial banks, telecom companies and specialised private payment providers – that is, digital forms of legal tender that are issued and held by non-government financial institutions (e.g., bank deposits or balances held in payment systems such as Paypal or Alipay).

An important distinction of this dual system is that physical cash and central bank reserves are the liabilities of central banks, whereas privately-issued currency is the liabilities of private sector payment providers.

Definition of CBDCs

CBDCs are digital or virtual forms of physical cash represented through an electronic record or digital token that is issued and regulated by a country’s central monetary authority (i.e., its central bank) via a centralised ledger.

CBDCs are centralised, which stand in stark contrast to privately-issued cryptocurrencies (such as Bitcoin) which are decentralised and unregulated.

CBDCs are not uniform and central banks have an immense range of legal, technical, operational and administrative design options to achieve their stated public policy objectives. Importantly, the policy intent of CBDCs will be neither uniform across jurisdictions nor static in time. Instead, they will tend to be a function of a country’s economic, political and social context.

Thus, in assessing whether a proposed CBDC will, in net terms, improve or impair the function of a monetary system and broader economy, each CBDC will require individualised scrutiny and assessment.


NatWest, one of Britain’s largest lenders, is set to appear in court in London to respond to charges that it failed to properly scrutinise a gold-dealing client that deposited £365m ($502m) with the bank—£264m of it in cash.

Last year global banks were hit with $10.4bn in fines for money-laundering violations, an increase of more than 80% on 2019, according to Fenergo, a compliance-software firm. In January Capital One, an American bank, was fined $390m for failing to report thousands of fishy transactions. Danske Bank is still dealing with the fallout of a scandal that erupted in 2018. Over $200bn of potentially dirty money was washed through the Danish lender’s Estonian branch while executives missed or ignored a sea of red flags.


Digital privacy – including financial privacy – is readily available via encrypted communication, and peer-to-peer value transfer solutions. However, the latter quality can scarcely be expected to be implemented in CBDCs by governments eager to control their population.


The continued efforts of central banks to position CBDCs as advancement from analog systems via labels such as ‘Digital Dollar’, requires us to point out the obvious: fiat currencies have been predominantly digitally native for decades, and are stored and moved as bytes. A meaningful departure from the current state of banking technology would necessarily have to include the creation of digital bearer instruments which would not depend on the use of middlemen.

However, this would effectively void the need for demand deposit accounts (“checking accounts”) entirely, as the technical limits of bytes are based in physics. In simple terms: any user would be able to move bytes labelled as fiat currency entry from a yield-bearing state to the recipients yield-bearing account.

With that the ability of financial service providers to extract fees from the movement of bytes would vanish, after all users tend to not put stamps on their emails. This, somewhat obvious conclusion, even made it into several CBDC research papers, and promptly caused the commissioning central banks to halt any development of a CBDC, realizing that fees for payments today comprise on average 30% of commercial bank revenues, these institutions would largely seize to exist.


DO NOT LISTEN for anyone’s opinion on this matter !!!

Opinions are a dime a bucket anyway !!!

Not even mine !!!

DO ALWAYS YOUR OWN DILIGENCE AND RESEARCH !!!

And when the time will come… You shall know the best choice to make for you and future generations to come !!!

It’s actually more about them than us !!!

But we will pave the way for them…

Let’s not make it and Dystopical Orwellian one people !!!

IMHO (In My Honest Opinion) CBDC’s are nothing more than “1984” v 2.0 !!!

But who am I ?¿ but just a leaf in the wind…

Here below are some links that could be a great place to start making your own Research and due diligence !!!

Sharing is caring they say, so here you are people :


https://hackernoon.com/cbdcs-the-folly-of-digital-fiat


https://cointelegraph.com/news/central-bank-digital-currencies-are-dead-in-the-water


https://www.adamseconomics.com/post/the-potential-orwellian-horror-of-central-bank-digital-currencies


https://news.bitcoin.com/why-the-rise-of-the-cbdc-is-bad-for-your-privacy/


https://restoreprivacy.com/cbdc-central-bank-digital-currency-privacy-implications/


https://bitcoinmagazine.com/markets/england-cbdc-propel-bitcoin


https://hackernoon.com/the-problem-that-is-government-money-bn443tts


https://blog.aryze.io/cbdcs-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/


https://www.bis.org/publ/work880.htm


https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2021/04/12/the-war-against-money-laundering-is-being-lost


To be always Updated !!!



Made with 💚 by Free Spirit

✌ & 💚


No, Governments Can’t do a Better Job Developing Crypto

No, Governments Can’t do a Better Job Developing Crypto

Would a state-backed cryptocurrency be better than its decentralized counterpart?

International media has already rolled out their opinions on the matter. It’s a YES-IT-CAN.

The opinions find their inspirations in comments made by Christine Lagarde last week. The head of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) said that a government-backed cryptocurrency would eliminate the issues of trust that have clogged the decentralized cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin.

New York Times reacted to the IMF chief’s remarks, calling it “a hopeful sign for digital tokens,” while predicting it could “have a chilling effect on existing, nongovernmental tokens.”

The Guardian offered its editorial space to a long-time Bitcoin critic and economist Nouriel Roubini to further his plan. He outright called cryptocurrencies worthless when compared to central bank digital currencies (CBDC).“If a CBDC were to be issued, it would immediately displace cryptocurrencies, which are not scalable, cheap, secure, or [actually] decentralized,” Roubini claimed.

The comments mentioned above appear at a time when the cryptocurrency market cap has plunged by more than 70 percent since its all-time high. 

It has allowed critics to jump to the conclusion that decentralized digital currencies, mainly Bitcoin and Ethereum, have no intrinsic value, that they are highly speculative unlike central-bank issued fiat money.

Yet, critics have ignored the whys and whats that prompted the launch of decentralized assets at the first place.

They have been unable to respond to how Federal Reserve stimulus programmes, secret bailouts, and money production have destroyed the value of the US Dollar.

Their focus has turned more towards proving Bitcoin as a sugar-coated false promise of a financial revolution while ignoring the very bads of the existing financial system.

Economy believes that an asset has value when it checks scarcity and utility.

The US Dollar lacks scarcity, for its supply is governed by a centralized body called Federal Reserve. There is no check on how many dollars would get printed, allowing insiders to manipulate a greenback-backed market on their whims.

Bitcoin, on the other hand, has a set cap of 21 million tokens. Its supply is governed by mathematical algorithms, meaning no corrupt human involvement would be able to topple it.

As far as the use-cases are concerned, Bitcoin has been constantly looked at for its potential of becoming a store-of-value asset like Gold, while being constantly considered for settling cross-border payments despite its price volatility.

The critics then say that bitcoin has no intrinsic value.

But even gold and paper money suffers from the same stigma.

According to the World Council, only 15 percent of the global Gold supply is used in industrial applications. The rest goes into making bars, bullions, and jewelry – mainly because people trust they have value.

Trust is the Only Factor

The launch of Bitcoin was a response to a global financial crisis in which – let’s accept it – banks had f***ed up the economy.

The digital currency – more or less – follows the philosophy of the Austrian Monetary Theory.

According to it, money can be sound only when its supply is limited. It believes that money should not be controlled by the state.

These facts are missing from the reports and opinion pieces of anti-Bitcoin economists.

The Federal Reserve and central bankers believe that only they have the right to print money.

Bitcoin is only a beginning towards breaking the myth.

As long as the central banks do not innovate and protect people against currency inflation – as evident in the case of Zimbabwe and Venezuela – there is no chance they would be able to outrun crypto.

People need to trust their banks, but mainstream media and economists are avoiding a broader discussion.

The next financial crisis should bring more evidence to the theory. No rush.


Shared with 💚 by Free Spirit

✌ & 💚




With 💚