Trade Secrets
A trade secret is a companyâs process or practice that is not public information, which provides an economic benefit or advantage to the company or holder of the trade secret. Trade secrets must be actively protected by the company and are typically the result of a companyâs research and development. Examples of trade secrets could be a design, pattern, recipe, formula, or proprietary process. Trade secrets are used to create a business model that differentiates the companyâs offerings to its customers by providing a competitive advantage.
lol, how can they pay if it collapses.
All there will be left is the army.
It is probably the most obvious Ponzi scheme I have ever seen. They donât even attempt to hide it in any way. These people who seem to be willing to fight to the death to defend bitcoinâs honor only add to the spectacle.
And yet you keep going on about how you hate transaction fees. Well guess what: if you hate transaction fees cryptocurrency is not for you.
I donât like waiting to access my own money like half the world doesnât.
Ok? Bitcoin isnât a solution here because the delay in processing has nothing to do with having the ability to process a transaction instantly. The processing is instant but the bank holds the money as âpendingâ for a period of time to protect against errors and/or fraud, ensuring that if a transaction needs to be canceled it can be effortlessly reversed. And if bitcoin wants to see any meaningful use it will have to incorporate similar protection, which means similar delays.
âBecause it isâ is not a response.
What else do you want me to say? You clearly donât understand what âSEC approvalâ means and how incredibly low a bar it is.
What are you talking about? Look at Bitcoins marketcap.
Market cap =/= backing. Please learn what âbackingâ means in a financial context.
Also, bitcoinâs supposed market cap is almost certainly not real. Multiplying the number of bitcoins in existence by the price of one bitcoin doesnât account for lost bitcoins in inaccessible wallets (like a lot of the early bitcoins, before they became valuable enough to care about) or for the very likely fact that there isnât enough demand for bitcoin to cash out all of those coins at their current price.
Only thing real are blow-off tops.
The point of public blockchains is that they are decentralized networks. This makes your example completely silly. Itâs more like Microsoft watching the internet and then trying to sell everyone their âbetterâ MSN.
That makes zero sense. We already have centralised electronic payment and banking systems. A blockchain makes some horrible trade offs for the sole purpose of decentralized trustles consensus. They get zero advantage in imitating such a system if they donât want the decentralized trustles consensus part.
I guess I didnât explain it well enough. Never mind.
Yeah I somehow have a hart time imagining the companies that still run their banking software on mainframes with a core of cobol and five generations of java layers on top to suddenly take over the crypto space.
This companies like a lot of people here donât get crypto. The banks will adapt crypto, but it will probably be new companies that slowly replace the old ones and they will not run their own crypto network, because that would be completely pointless, they will use the existing ones. See strike.me for an example.
Searching :
bitcoin market cap
Returned:
US$1 trillion
Bitcoin hits US$1 trillion market capitalization as it notches new record. Bitcoin hit a market capitalization of US$1 trillion as it rose to yet another record high on Friday, countering analyst warnings that it is an âeconomic side showâ and a poor hedge against a fall in stock prices. ~ Feb. 19, 2021
### Bitcoin hits US$1 trillion market capitalization as it notches âŠ
globalnews.ca âș news âș bitcoin-market-capitalization
â
Searching :
bitcoin total assets
Returned:
You canât say that about really any other asset in the world." Bitcoinâs market capitalizationâthe total value of all bitcoin tokens in existenceâhas climbed above $700 billion, up from under $200 billion this time last year. ~ Feb. 7, 2021
â
Downloads
Strike is currently available in the US only.
â
Searching:
total assets
Returned:
Total assets refers to the total amount of assets owned by a person or entity. Assets are items of economic value, which are expended over time to yield a benefit for the owner. If the owner is a business, these assets are usually recorded in the accounting records and appear in the balance sheet of the business. ~ May 15, 2017
â
What is the formula for total assets?
What Are Total Assets? The basic accounting equation states that assets = liabilities + stockholdersâ equity. In the accounting industry, assets are defined as anything that a business owns, has value, and can be converted to cash. ~ Nov. 11, 2015
Search for: What is the formula for total assets?
â
What does total asset value mean?
Total Asset Value means the sum of (without duplication) (a) the aggregate Value of all of Borrowerâs Real Property; plus (b) the amount of any cash and cash equivalents, excluding tenant security and other restricted deposits of the Borrower, less the Net Unrestricted Cash Amount (but only in the case of a calculation âŠ
Search for: What does total asset value mean?
â
Where is total assets in balance sheet?
Assets are on the top, and below them are the companyâs liabilities and shareholdersâ equity. It is also clear that this balance sheet is in balance where the value of the assets equals the combined value of the liabilities and shareholdersâ equity. ~ Feb. 20, 2021
### Reading the Balance Sheet - Investopedia
www.investopedia.com âș articles
Search for: Where is total assets in balance sheet?
Heh, this is fantastic:
If only he had seen this thread, he would not have fallen for that Ponzi
Will he now pay their employees in bitcoin too? I wonder how would that work when its actually spent later by employee, when the value of Bitcoin would crash. Would they just HODL to it and not pay rent, not pay for food?
And even if he does lose on bitcoin heâs obscenely rich and wonât notice the losses. Elon Musk could literally take out 100 billion dollars in cash, light it on fire just to see it burn, and not suffer even the slightest impact.
Thatâs a waste.
At least,
if heâs going to light on fire,
use the fire to make more useful things with it.
It could also be enough fire for everyoneâŠ
Rich people do not like to share.
Whether they like it or not,
they have to share with others in this solar system and the ones nearby.
If they share that they donât share and like to not share by not liking to share,
then, itâs their own business,
and, someone or something might hold them responsible for what they are doing, and might hold them responsible for what they have done, and for what they intend to do.
They can also hold them responsible for what they have and have not, dependingâŠ
Also,
I can understand why rich people donât like to share when they are harassed and attacked from parties who try to steal their intellectual property and extort from them with lawyers who also do worse than not like to share.
They might like or even need to keep secrets from parties attacking them if those parties already proved to wish to indict them on false charges for life so as to justify their dislike for sharing,
even though they were sharing hatred which is a vice.
So, yes, hide from criminal trying to steal from you (also when rich or poor),
or, rather,
if not having to spend more than incomes,
towards security against those attackers or criminals,
then maybe show them a bit more,
but make sure that the incomes and assets are secured without being greedy,
which greed should not be based on fear, but which greed rather is a vice.
Also,
the way people attack communication to try to coerce into displeasure by spreading propaganda of dislike against them to try to justify to generate more money to help people more,
just cannot work,
once they already have too much money.
They can only have more than too much to help others.
In fact,
in systems where the accumulation of money to unequal level is not allowed,
due to some other system trying to control them with money,
that extra money is rather an hindrance than the rich people being damaged from the poor.
In other words, the rich have to give to the poor, to equal the system.
It doesnât hold hearings to arrest the poor and prosecute them for being a common nuisance, because the rich, out of their good heart,
saw it fit to punish them for what they didnât have,
since they could not have it,
and should submit to be indicted as criminal for being poor and not be able to afford a lawyer.
So, also, I wouldnât recommend living there is the system tried to do that to you.
Not only is that system bad, but it would also be international crime for me to subject people or my family to be living there or be subjected to this fraud of misrepresentation of fact, and other psychotic behavior.
That is not in good contact with reality.
â
I would do more than share if I would be rich.
I even can do share more information and intangible assets such as intellectual property about riches and of riches when I do have enough money for the first time in my life compared to the other previous 52 years in which I never did have enough because I was never given enough without being sought to be justified to be forfeited from me by twisting the truth with the same psychotic systems from the same attackers against ballistic defense treaties, which,
they will never be able to get away with it,
since they already caused the 9-11.
Youâll also notice how they try to control the scheduling from those courts,
so as to divert and attack time.
That is why one has to include the analysis of time into equations to get enough force.
Thatâs not going to happen any time soon. Governments donât want to miss out on their capital gains tax revenue. They will do all they can to maintain their monopoly, or the monopoly of their favored private banking cartel.
You also need trade secret that,
whether they like it or not,
they cannot share,
and,
when someone does publish the info under NDA,
they are liable.
There are also clauses for non-competition,
since, indictments for life are a form of competition,
albeit from a monopoly.
Things are not based on likes and dislikes.
Facts are based on facts, whether those facts include likes and dislikes.
If someone based their facts on likes and dislikes,
he is also liable, whether a judge or not,
if those facts which were based on likes and dislikes,
omitted other factors related to those facts.
It creates disconnects from reality intended to disconnect from reality in psychological warfare, to seek to justify attacks against moral rights and intellectual property with communication gap.