Dispute over turbine: Germany's leader Scholz is preparing for the winter

"The chancellor Scholz does not inspect the serviced turbomachine for the gas pipeline in order to punish Putin. It's about chancellor's image in Germany.

So why turbine at all? The answer can be found in a letter from East German mayors to the federal government as well as in the most recent interview by Gerhard Schröder. Schröder, like the mayors, act as if there really is a problem that could be solved by putting Nord Stream 2 into operation. Schröder, who is fighting on the Russian side in the ongoing economic war, does not even shy away from claiming that the Kremlin has made no political announcement to curb the flow of gas. Rather, it is a "technical and bureaucratic problem" on both sides. In doing so, he is only pursuing one purpose - to increase social pressure on the federal government and his successor, Olaf Scholz.

Scholz is addressing a message to the Germans, not to Putin

That's why the chancellor went to Mülheim. Not to Putin, but to show the Germans: look, this impeccably maintained turbine is not the fault. The Russians would just have to let it into the country. 

Not only does the country's economic prospects depend on this, but also the chancellor's political ones.

For this reason, Scholz constantly emphasizes how much and, above all, how early - namely before the sanctions on Russia - he began preparing for the impending gas shortage. Scholz obviously prepares for all eventualities here. If it hits Germany as badly as feared or even worse, it should at least not have been due to the Chancellor's lack of foresight. If things go smoothly, everyone should know who is to thank for it.

Scholz referred to everything that has already happened or will happen soon - the ordering of liquid gas and the construction of terminals, the legally prescribed filling of the gas storage facilities, which were absurdly largely left to Russia at the time of Angela Merkel, coal-fired power plants that have started up again and savings. Seen in this way, the chancellor's turbine appearance was also a first attempt to break out of the doomsday spiral of the past few weeks. 

 

In the necessary effort to make them aware of the seriousness of the situation, the federal government has scared many people. 

 

"We can do it," Scholz didn't say in Mülheim. But he would like the Germans to believe it."

Kokia yra kriptovaliutų prigimtis?

„Po daugelio metų grasinimų paduoti Coinbase į teismą dėl neįregistruotų vertybinių popierių įtraukimo į biržos sąrašus, dabar sklando gandai, kad Vertybinių popierių ir biržų komisija (SEC) pradėjo tyrimą dėl šios bendrovės ir kitų biržų. Jei jis bus atliktas, SEC gali padaryti rimtą klaidą.

 

    Skeptikai stebisi, kodėl „Coinbase“ tiesiog neužregistruoja parduodamų žetonų SEC. Tai nėra taip paprasta.

 

Nuo pat savo atsiradimo kriptovaliuta suklaidino reguliuotojus, nes ji nepanaši į jokias tradicines finansines priemones.

 

Kaip ir įprasti pinigai, kriptovaliuta gali būti naudojama atsiskaityti už įprastas prekes. „Bitcoin“ yra vienas iš pavyzdžių, kuriame auga tūkstančiai prekybininkų, kurie priima mokėjimus tiesiogiai per valiutos „Lightning Network“.

 

    Kai kurios populiariausios kriptovaliutos gali būti siunčiamos į programėlę ir naudojamos QR kodui generuoti, kuris priimamas 20 nacionalinių tinklų, tokių kaip Petco, Chipotle, Office Depot ir Regal Cinemas.

 

Praėjusią savaitę naudojau kriptovaliutų žetonus, kuriuos SEC anksčiau tvirtino esant neregistruotais vertybiniais popieriais, kad nusipirkčiau ledų kūgį ir burito.

 

    Tačiau čia viskas susipainioja. Atrodo, kad kai kurie kriptovaliutų žetonai veikia, kaip nuosavybės vertybiniai popieriai, iš kurių tikitės pelno.

 

Valdymo žetonai kriptovaliutų biržose, leidžiantys vartotojams balsuoti dėl protokolo veikimo pakeitimų, pasidalins savo pelnu su jumis.

 

Tačiau tam tikra prasme pelno pasidalijimo žetonai visai nepanašūs į nuosavybės vertybinius popierius. Tradicinės įmonių struktūros – direktorių valdybos, vadovai, net įmonės – nėra kitoje sandorio dalyje. Nėra žmonių, kurie galėtų pateikti ar pasirašyti tokių projektų finansines ataskaitas.

 

    Žetonų įvairovė yra dar didesnė. Kai kurie yra panašūs į tuos, kuriuos galite gauti iš Chuck E. Cheese, norėdami žaisti vaizdo žaidimus. Jie dažnai būna žetonų, naudojamų duomenims saugoti, pavidalu. Įsivaizduokite, kad kiekvieną kartą, kai įrašote dokumentą debesyje, jums reikia prieigos rakto.

 

Mokėjimas už duomenų saugojimą yra vienas iš populiariausių kriptovaliutų naudojimo būdų.

 

    Kriptovaliutą taip sunku suskirstyti į kategorijas, nes daugelis jos variantų ištrina ribas tarp tradicinių pinigų, akcijų ir prekių kategorijų. Dauguma jų yra visko po truputį. Kai kurie žetonai gali būti naudojami duomenims saugoti ir būti naudojami kaip mokėjimo arba investicijų forma – visa tai tuo pačiu metu. Tikslas priklauso nuo vartotojo pageidavimų.

 

    Net jei kriptovaliutų kūrėjai norėjo registruoti savo projektus SEC, kaip reikalaujama iš tradicinių viešųjų įmonių, jie negalėjo. Jie neturi valdybos, generalinio direktoriaus ar finansų direktoriaus, kad pateiktų reikalingus dokumentus komisijai. Jie taip pat neturi įgaliojimo balsuoti už akcijas paštu, kurį komisija vis dar reikalauja, kad įmonės pateiktų akcininkams.

 

    Apsvarstykite kitą kriptovaliutų aspektą, kuris šokiruotų 1933 m. Vertybinių popierių įstatymo rengėjus. Įsivaizduokite, jei bankas ar vertybinių popierių birža būtų valdoma autonominio atvirojo kodo kompiuterio, kuris imtų indėlius ir apdorotų paskolas. Kartais kodą pakeičia keli šimtai anoniminių koduotojų visame pasaulyje, kurie bendradarbiauja internetu, kad jis veiktų sklandžiai.

 

    Tai ne koks nors mokslinės fantastikos filmas. Tokiu būdu kiekvieną dieną įnešama ir paskolinama milijardai dolerių. Šių „decentralizuoto finansavimo“ kūrėjų bendros rinkos kapitalizacijos pakaktų, kad jie būtų 18-as pagal dydį bankas JAV.

 

    Žetonai, atstovaujantys šiuose autonominiuose kompiuterių bankuose ir biržose, yra keletas SEC tyrimų ir reguliavimo tyrimų objektų. Jie taip pat yra tie patys žetonai, kuriais praėjusią savaitę pirkau ledus ir burito.

 

    SEC pozicija, kad dauguma žetonų yra vertybiniai popieriai ir turi būti registruojami arba priverstinai vykdomi, yra neprotinga. Tai taip pat yra būdas, kuris naudingas sukčiams ir piktnaudžiaujantiems kriptovaliutų erdve.

 

    Jei SEC vietoj to sukurtų reguliavimo režimą, pritaikytą kriptovaliutų investuotojų poreikiams, kaip prašė SEC komisarė Hester Peirce, galėtume geriau atskirti teisėtus kriptovaliutų projektus nuo sukčiavimo. Atsakovai SEC ieškiniuose dabar gali pasinaudoti miglotu kriptovaliutų pobūdžiu savo naudai. Kai bylos iškeliamos prieš teisėtas įmones, pvz., Coinbase, tai yra gerai; kai kalbama apie netikrus projektus, kurie vagia kriptovaliutą, tai ne. Dėl to, kad kriptovaliutų žetonai keičiasi, bus sudėtinga taikyti reguliuojamo saugumo apibrėžimą.

 

    Naujovėms reikia persvarstyti federalinį vertybinių popierių įstatymą. SEC 10 metų pavėlavo į žaidimą dėl finansinių ataskaitų pateikimo elektroniniu būdu. Panašiai atsiliko ir leidimas generaliniams direktoriams dalytis įmonės informacija socialiniuose tinkluose. Ji neturėtų daryti tos pačios klaidos su kriptovaliuta.

    ---

    Ponas Verretas yra Antonino Scalia teisės mokyklos teisės docentas ir buvęs SEC Investuotojų konsultacinio komiteto narys." [1]

1.  The SEC's Cryptocurrency Confusion
Verret, J W. 
Wall Street Journal, Eastern edition; New York, N.Y. [New York, N.Y]. 03 Aug 2022: A.13.

 

What is the nature of crypto?

"After years of threatening to sue Coinbase for listing unregistered securities, the Securities and Exchange Commission is now rumored to have launched an investigation into the company and other exchanges. If it proceeds, the SEC may be on track to make a serious mistake.

Skeptics wonder why Coinbase doesn't simply register the tokens it sells with the SEC. It's not that simple. Since its inception, cryptocurrency has confounded regulators because it is unlike any traditional financial instrument. Like regular money, crypto can be used to pay for ordinary goods. Bitcoin is one example, which has a growing base of thousands of merchants who accept payments directly over the currency's Lightning Network.

Some leading cryptocurrencies can be sent to an app and then used to generate a QR code, which is accepted in 20 national chains like Petco, Chipotle, Office Depot and Regal Cinemas. Last week I used crypto tokens that the SEC has previously alleged were unregistered securities to buy an ice-cream cone and a burrito.

But here's where things get confusing. Some crytpo tokens appear to function as a type of equity, from which you expect profit. Governance tokens in crypto exchanges, which allow users to vote on changes to how the protocol operates, will share their profit with you. But in a way, profit-sharing tokens aren't like equity securities at all. The traditional corporate structures -- boards of directors, executives, even companies -- aren't present on the other end of the transaction. There's no one who could file or sign the financial statements for such projects.

There's even more diversity among tokens. Some are like those you might get from a Chuck E. Cheese to play videogames. These often take the form of tokens used to store data. Imagine if every time you saved a document to the cloud, you needed a token to do so. Payment for data storage is one of the more popular uses of crypto tokens.

Cryptocurrency is so difficult to categorize because many of its variants blur the lines between traditional categories of money, stock and commodities. Most are a bit of each. Some tokens can be used to store data and serve as a form of payment or an investment -- all at the same time. The purpose depends on the user's preference.

Even if cryptocurrency developers wanted to register their projects with the SEC, as traditional public companies are required to, they couldn't. They don't have a board, CEO or CFO to file the requisite paperwork with the commission. Nor do they have proxy voting of shares by mail, which the commission still requires companies provide to shareholders.

Consider another facet of crypto that would shock the drafters of the 1933 Securities Act. Imagine if a bank or stock exchange were run by an autonomous, open-source computer code that took deposits and processed loans. Occasionally the code is modified by a few hundred anonymous coders around the world, who collaborate over the internet to keep it running smoothly.

This isn't some science-fiction movie. Billions of dollars are deposited and loaned out in this way each day. The combined market capitalization of these "decentralized finance" developers would be enough to make them the 18th-largest bank in the U.S.

Tokens that represent an interest in these autonomous computer banks and exchanges are some of the targets of the SEC's investigations and regulatory inquiries. They are also the same tokens I used to buy my ice cream and burrito last week.

The SEC's position -- that most tokens are securities and must register or face enforcement -- is obtuse. It's also an approach that works to the benefit of the scammers and hucksters who have abused the crypto space.

If the SEC were instead to build a regulatory regime tailored to the needs of crypto investors, as SEC Commissioner Hester Peirce has requested, we would be better able to separate the legitimate crypto projects from the scams. Defendants in SEC actions can now use the nebulous character of crypto tokens to their advantage. When cases are brought against legitimate enterprises, such as Coinbase, that's a good thing; when brought against fake projects that steal crypto, it isn't. The morphable character of crypto tokens will confound cookie-cutter application of the regulated security definition.

Innovations require a rethinking of federal securities law. The SEC was 10 years late to the game on delivering financial statements electronically. It was similarly behind the curve in allowing CEOs to share company information over social media. It shouldn't make the same mistake with crypto.

---

Mr. Verret is an associate professor of law at Antonin Scalia Law School and a former member of the SEC's Investor Advisory Committee.” [1]

1.  The SEC's Cryptocurrency Confusion
Verret, J W. 
Wall Street Journal, Eastern edition; New York, N.Y. [New York, N.Y]. 03 Aug 2022: A.13.

U.S. News: Deal Marks Big Shift in Drug Costs .

Top of Form

Bottom of Form

"A deal between Senate Democrats has revived legislation to significantly expand government regulation of prescription-drug prices and limit the out-of-pocket costs of Medicare seniors who use expensive medicines.

If the bill becomes law, Medicare would gain the authority to negotiate how much it pays for certain prescription drugs and force drugmakers to provide a rebate if they raise the prices of their medicines above the inflation rate.

The legislation, part of a climate, tax and healthcare package agreed to by holdout Sen. Joe Manchin (D., W.Va.) and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.), would also cap out-of-pocket drug costs for Medicare beneficiaries at $2,000 a year.

Among the drugs that could face price negotiation are blood thinner Eliquis from Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. and Pfizer Inc., Johnson & Johnson's Darzalex multiple-myeloma therapy and Novo Nordisk A/S's diabetes and weight-loss treatment Ozempic, according to an analysis by SVB Securities.

The provisions would inflict a relatively modest financial hit on the pharmaceutical industry, analysts say, because only a small basket of medicines that have been on the market for many years and lack competition will be eligible for direct negotiation each year.

Government price negotiation and the inflation rebate would reduce U.S. drug spending by $202.5 billion over a decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The U.S. is projected to spend $380.4 billion on prescription drugs this year, excluding those used in hospitals and outpatient clinics, and $567.1 billion in 2030, according to Medicare actuaries.

For the first time, however, the provisions would give the federal government a say in determining drug prices in Medicare, including the Part D drug-benefit program, which currently forbids it and represents a third of total pharmaceutical spending.

Lawmakers have for years threatened to take action in response to polls showing that prescription-drug prices are among the biggest concerns of voters. Yet virtually all such efforts have stalled. If Congress succeeds this time, it will be a watershed, said Brian Abrahams, a biotech analyst at RBC Capital Markets.

"The biggest element that's been underappreciated is Congress's ability to push through any drug-pricing legislation," said Dr. Abrahams. "It's not a done deal, but it's moving closer and closer to reality."

Several industry executives said, while discussing quarterly financial results last week, that they supported the lowering of patients' costs but opposed government price negotiation.

The executives said the law would depress research investments. Many also said the legislation won't prompt true negotiation, because the government will have power to levy an excise tax on sales of drugs on which manufacturers refuse to negotiate.

"In reality, it is not price negotiation because they are forcing their will by implementing a 95% tax," Pfizer Chief Executive Albert Bourla said.

The bill would redesign key features of Medicare Part D by capping how much seniors spend in copays and coinsurance at $2,000 annually, compared with potentially unlimited cost-sharing currently. Seniors also would no longer have to pay 5% of their drug's total cost after their out-of-pocket spending exceeds a certain threshold, which is $7,050 this year.

An estimated 1.4 million people with Medicare had out-of-pocket spending higher than $2,000 in 2020, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.” [1]

1.  U.S. News: Deal Marks Big Shift in Drug Costs
Walker, Joseph. Wall Street Journal, Eastern edition; New York, N.Y. [New York, N.Y]. 01 Aug 2022: A.4.