TIme to Use Cash

CBDCs: Trojan Horse For Total Control?

This is a balanced policy view of Central Bank Digital Currencies. There is no doubt that CBDCs are coming, but how they manifest will be full of twists and turns. Even though central banks are generally shepherded by the Bank for International Settlements, each bank is heavily flavored by national interests of individual states.It should be duly noted that gold is not dead, not will it ever be dead, to the global banking system. All Central Banks hold some amount of physical gold but it is not coupled to their national currencies. If it inevitable that gold will eventually be forced into some coupling with new CBDCs.

For instance, it was reported in November, 2022 that Central banks’ gold demand hits record level:

Central banks’ gold purchases rose dramatically in the third quarter of 2022, according to data from the World Gold Council. Total gold acquisitions reached almost 400 tonnes in the last quarter, the WGC said. This takes total gold purchases to 673 tonnes so far in 2022, which already is the highest level of any full year since 1967. “This is the largest single quarter of demand from this sector in our records back to 2000, and almost double the previous record of 241 tonnes in Q3 2018.”

The date 1967 takes us back to the time period of decoupling gold from the U.S. dollar. This is a seismic tell that gold is not dead, nor is it an outdated store of value. ⁃ TN Editor

People like to remark that governments foster innovation, especially during wartime. They also like to ignore the slaughter of millions which is usually part of this process. That is not to mention the innovators we missed out on as a result.

The latest government “innovation,” which follows in a long tradition of stealing ideas from the private sector designed to improve our lives and using them for other means instead, is central bank digital currencies (CBDCs).

Designed not to exist in any physical form whatsoever, CBDCs would give their central bank issuers entirely new powers. Indeed, much of the manoeuvring that was required in 2008-9 to rescue the financial system with taxpayer-funded bailouts would have been so much easier had CBDCs been in existence. But if easier, is that necessarily a good thing for the economy as a whole?

Nigel Farage doesn’t seem to think so. And he has come up with a plan to counter the government’s efforts.

To answer the question, it is important to differentiate between CBDCs and the concept of private, distributed digital currencies, including those such as bitcoin, that are built using distributed-ledger technology (DLT). In some ways they are opposites.

Rather than offer an alternative currency, CBDCs are mostly aimed at making monetary policy easier to implement and, potentially, more powerful.

As monetary officials have repeatedly made clear, they have no interest in replacing their policy discretion with algorithms, blockchains or any other form of private-sector solution. Recently, Pablo Hernández de Cos, the chairman of the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, the regulatory branch of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS, the “central bank of central banks” which is based in that Swiss city), made the following comments with respect to DLT:

DLT could, in principle, allow for cheaper, faster and more customised financial intermediation. But, here again, such benefits must be weighed against the risks if not properly regulated and managed. These include potential threats to banks’ operational resilience, a lack of legal clarity with regard to assets transacted on DLTs, and concerns with regard to anti-money laundering and the financing of terrorism.

Financial system regulators have a bad habit of associating everything that is unregulated with money laundering and terrorism, when in fact the vast bulk of such activity takes place within the incumbent banking and payments system. Such invidious associations should be seen as primarily self-serving rather than anything necessarily in the public interest.

The Bank of England appears to share these sentiments. Earlier this month, the Bank published the following note:

In the traditional financial system, critical financial infrastructure is regulated to deliver an appropriate level of responsibility, accountability, and control. In the future, critical third parties providing material services to the UK financial sector (eg cloud service providers) may also be subject to regulatory requirements. So, there is a question as to what appropriate regulatory oversight of a blockchain could entail, were it to become a more critical piece of infrastructure in the financial system.

Blockchains do not constitute critical financial infrastructure (yet). But they could conceivably become so in the future if cryptoasset activity and its interconnectedness with the wider financial system continue to develop. So, it is important that relevant authorities find legal mechanisms and means of co-ordinated action to ensure that an equivalent regulatory outcome is delivered.

Hence CBDCs, once introduced, are not intended to displace, but to migrate existing, centralised, regulated monetary systems from paper based to wholly digital. There will still be legal tender laws requiring their acceptance for payment, and penalties for counterfeiting or other forms of fraud. Money laundering will still be a crime. And central banks will still control monetary policy. Indeed, their control of monetary power will grow.

As it stands today, while central banks set interest rates and conduct open-market operations (e.g. quantitative easing) these actions only have a direct impact on the reserves of the banking system which, for many years now, have been essentially digital.

Yes, banks do hold some physical cash in reserve, but it is such a tiny portion of their overall balance sheet as to be practically irrelevant.

The broader money supply, including the amount of physical cash in circulation, various types and amounts of bank deposits and credit, fluctuates along with economic activity and liquidity preferences. Thus, when the global financial crisis arrived in 2008, central bankers slashed interest rates and created huge amounts of reserves, but this did not prevent a general contraction in credit. Liquidity preferences spiked, including a desire to hold larger amounts of physical cash.

Given that multiple banks failed or had to be rescued, and that interest rates had declined to essentially zero, holding physical cash seemed an entirely reasonable thing to do. But it did have the effect of limiting central banks’ ability to add further monetary stimulus to their economies.

As one central bank after another began to consider lowering interest rates to outright negative levels, one immediate and obvious complication was that savers would seek to avoid negative rates by reducing their bank deposits in favour of physical cash hoards. Such a run on deposits would not only negate the proposed further stimulus, but would have the counterproductive effect of reducing banks’ normally stable depositor base.

CBDCs expand central bank power, for better or worse

CBDCs provide economic officials with a solution to this perceived problem: once introduced, a purely digital currency cannot be physically withdrawn. No matter if central banks cut interest rates to below zero, even dramatically so, in an effort to get savers to spend more. The digital currency must remain in the banking system. It may circulate more as households and businesses seek to pass the depreciating “hot potato” around, but there is no other option. A bank run on the system as a whole becomes impossible.

CBDCs also give central bankers the de facto power to “tax” deposits, or to supplement them with stimulus cash, as they did during the pandemic. But they would also give them the ability to easily track and trace every transaction, no matter how tiny, and perhaps embed some sort of sales, VAT or transactions tax, depending on the type of transaction involved.

To what extent these new powers would be used or abused is unclear, and a merging of monetary and fiscal policy in this way would no doubt be political, but CBDCs would enable a complete fusion of monetary and fiscal policy, if desired, and would make any form of avoidance or evasion on the part of households or businesses all but impossible outside of direct barter.

The end of financial privacy?

Financial privacy, something that has been eroding for many years, would vanish entirely. That is not to say that there could not be safeguards. And there are ways to help protect yourself. But here, too, the extent that individuals’ transaction histories would be visible to the authorities would need to be decided as a political matter.

This latter point helps to explain why there is much public disagreement amongst economic officials about how best to regulate private digital currencies and prevent their use for money laundering, tax evasion or other illicit economic activities. Whether public or private, purely digital currencies leave the ultimate “paper trail” that can be followed back to inception. Yes, individuals can use cryptography to protect their privacy on a public blockchain, hence why bitcoin is frequently referred to as a “cryptocurrency”.

In a 2021 article, the former acting director of the CIA, Mike Morell, made precisely this point, calling bitcoin a “boon for surveillance,” and noting that “concern over bitcoin’s use for illicit finance is significantly overstated.”

He should know. The CIA is known to monitor international financial transactions as it seeks to discover the source of all manner of activity, illicit or otherwise, that is considered a threat – real or potential, distant or immediate – to the national security of the United States, and to draw connections between both state and non-state actors whenever possible.

CBDCs as international reserves

The international arena is an interesting one for CBDCs, not only in that they would facilitate the ability of authorities to monitor cross-border transactions, but also because they could potentially disrupt the existing international monetary order.

The global financial system remains centred around the US dollar: it is worth considering whether another country’s CBDC, once successfully implemented domestically, could displace the dollar and provide the new global reserve.

Given that international reserve balances are already, in effect, digital in nature, the introduction of CBDCs doesn’t fundamentally change the game in this respect. Reserves remain within the banking system and are not “spent” in the way that domestic physical currencies are. Rather, as they are accumulated, they are sometimes sold to purchase securities of some sort, such as government bonds, or they are exchanged for other currencies, or sometimes gold.

Whether or not the dollar eventually loses its exclusive international reserve status will be down to other factors. It could be that China, Russia, Japan, Germany or the big oil exporters eventually tire of accumulating dollars that seem destined to lose value to inflation over time.

The war in Ukraine and associated economic sanctions might also catalyse some changes in international monetary behaviour. Dollar-dependent trade is a relatively easy target for sanctions, but if other currencies are used instead, sanctions become far harder to enforce. It should surprise no one that political leaders from Russia, China, India, Turkey and others have all made recent public statements to the effect that they have been actively seeking alternatives to the dollar even since Washington imposed war-related sanctions.

Were the above and other countries to indeed find a means to avoid the dollar in trade entirely, this would imply a severe reduction in the dollar’s global monetary role. Could the weaponisation of the dollar have, in fact, been counterproductive? Imagine Messrs Putin, Xi, Modi and Erdoğan channelling Napoleon (as discussed in yesterday’s edition of Fortune & Freedom): “Never interrupt the Americans when they are making a mistake!”

Dollar dominance on the wane, but NOT due to CBDCs

Having written extensively on the topic of global monetary regime change, in my opinion there is currently no national currency alternative to the dollar. All of them have problems of their own. Should the primary candidates migrate to CBDCs in future, with the US government opting for whatever reason to be left behind, doesn’t necessarily imply that the dollar would not remain the dominant reserve.

Of course, the US government might opt not to be left behind at all, but rather to place itself in the vanguard of the thrust to introduce a universal CBDC serving all modern monetary roles, including that of provide for the bulk of the international monetary reserve base. In a project of Napoleonic ambition, the US government could simply explain that all existing dollar balances be converted into a purely digital dollar and that, over some period of months, all physical currency would need to be redeemed for digital dollar balances in an account or would simply expire worthless.

However, what if, subsequent to such a move, multiple major countries in the world pushed back? For example, what if they shared some of the concerns mentioned above, including, perhaps, that the US government would abuse its dominant reserve position by not providing for a fair market interest rate or, perhaps, implementing an outright negative dollar interest rate as a de facto tax on foreign-held dollar balances?

In a way not dissimilar to Napoleon’s sense of near invulnerability when he set about invading Russia, the US government might find the rest of the world pursuing a form of defence in depth, finding ways to reduce reliance on the dollar. Perhaps some countries would even engage in a form of “scorched-earth” policy in which they required domestic economic agents to transact internationally in non-dollar currencies only.

Certainly such policies would be disruptive, but perhaps some actors would perceive their cost of their implementation to be less than to remain dependent not only on the dollar, but on a newfangled dollar CBDC which, paradoxically, gave the US Federal Reserve more power over global monetary conditions than it had ever had: nevertheless, this would be at a time when relative US global economic power had slipped to its lowest ebb since the 19th century.

What about digital gold?

If the dollar’s role continues to decline, there is a candidate that is more likely than any particular CBDC to replace it: gold. Gold is the only truly international money, accepted everywhere as a reliable store of value, and one with the strongest possible historical track record providing the de facto global monetary base and, under the classical gold standard, the de jure one. As I argue in my book, The Golden Revolution, Revisited, gold provides the game-theoretic monetary solution to a globalised, multipolar world.

So, while I don’t see CBDCs changing the international monetary regime on their own, it would be a real game-changer indeed if one or more CBDCs were to be linked to gold in some way. That would introduce real, tangible, perhaps irresistible competition for the dollar as the dominant global reserve.

As it stands now, however, it seems a more immediate concern that CBDCs will not only make it easier for central banks to implement negative interest rates, if desired, but that they will acquire a range of new, implied powers. Thus they bring with them broad implications for tax and fiscal policy, financial privacy and the ability for households to preserve their wealth in what has already become a highly challenging economic environment.

Read full story here…

USE CASH – or Become A Slave to The System

Babylon's Bankers


For some time now, people like former Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Catherine Austin Fitts and many others – including yours truly – have been warning about the dangers of crypto-currencies, and more especially, of Central Bank Digital Currencies or CBDCs. Our warnings have consistently centered around three basic dangers they carry with them: (1) they are not energy efficient, and as electronically based systems can be subject to outages such as electro-magnetic pulse and so on, and additionally as cyber-systems, suffer from the lack of integrity in such systems. Indeed, when I first heard about them, one of my own personal warnings was that in spite of claims to the contrary, they could be hacked. Stories have finally appeared to this effect. (2) Contrary to claims of privacy and to the early claims that crypto-currencies spelled the end of central bank private money monopolies, such technologies in the hands of central banks, with the power to mandate their use and to outlaw others, would spell the end of privacy.  Finally and most importantly (3) such currencies in the hands of central banks, coupled with social credit scoring systems, would effectively not be a currency at all, but more like corporate coupons whose value (or lack thereof) could be adjusted on a case-to-case basis, depending on your behaviour and your thinking.

These may seem like outlandish ideas, but the following article shared by V.T. provides confirmation of these basic theses:

Let us be clear about the developments outlined in this article: while these “currencies” may be new, they are not normal nor are they currencies. Note the following statements:

For those who have never heard of them, “Central Bank Digital Currencies” (CBDCs) are exactly what they sound like, digitized versions of the pound/dollar/euro etc. issued by central banks.

Like bitcoin (and other crypto), the CBDC would be entirely digital, thus furthering the ongoing war on cash. However, unlike crypto, it would not have any encryption preserving anonymity. In fact, it would be totally the reverse, potentially ending the very idea of financial privacy.

Now, you may not have heard much about the CBDC plans, lost as they are in the tangle of the ongoing “pandemic”, but the campaign is there, chugging along on the back pages for months now. There are stories about it from both Reuters and the Financial Times just today. It’s a long, slow con, but a con nonetheless.

The countries where the idea progressed the furthest are China and the UK. The Chinese Digital Yuan has been in development since 2014, and is subject to ongoing and widespread testing. The UK is nowhere near that stage yet, but Chancellor Rishi Sunak is keenly pushing forward a digital pound that the press are calling “Britcoin”.

Other countries, including New Zealand, Australia, South Africa and Malaysia, are not far behind.

The US is also researching the idea, with Jerome Powell, head of Federal Reserve, announcing the release of a detailed report on the “digital dollar” in the near future.

And here’s the rub, and it directly confirms the warnings of Catherine Fitts and others regarding the true nature of CBDC’s: they are not money nor currency in any sense:

The proposals for how these CBDCs might work should be enough to raise red flags in even the most trusting of minds.

Most people wouldn’t like the idea of the government monitoring “all spending in real-time”, but that’s not the worst it.

By far the most dangerous idea is that any future digital currency should be “programmable”. Meaning the people issuing the money would have the power to control how it is spent.

The article then links a video of Agustin Carstens, head of the Bank of International Settlements (BIS), and in case one missed it, actually cites him a little later in the article:

Here’s that quote again, with some emphasis added:

The key difference [with a CBDC] is that the central bank would have absolute control on the rules and regulations that will determine the use of that expression of central bank liability, and the have the technology to enforce that.”

…which tells you not only that they want and are seeking this power, but how they justify it to themselves. They transform other people’s money into an “expression of their liability”, and so consider it’s only right that they control it.

An article in the Telegraph, back in June, was just as candid [our emphasis]:

Digital cash could be programmed to ensure it is only spent on essentials, or goods which an employer or Government deems to be sensible

The article goes on to quote Tom Mutton, a director at the BoE:

You could introduce programmability […] There could be some socially beneficial outcomes from that, preventing activity which is seen to be socially harmful in some way.

It does not take a particle physicist to understand that if central banks can program their digital “currency” on a case-by-case individual basis to be spent only on certain things, the same capability also gives them the ability to determine the value of that “currency” on a case-by-case individual basis. In short, the same technology enables both the end of financial privacy and makes the “currency” into a corporate coupon. This is a one way mirror behind which the banksters can operate with impunity, and is tailor-made for even more financial fraud.


So how does one combat this? There are two simple solutions: do not bank with the big banks, use cash as much as possible in transactions, and start building networks with the realization that sooner or later, those networks might have to create currencies of their own.

See you on the flip side…

from:    https://gizadeathstar.com/2021/10/programmable-central-bank-digital-currency/

CASH Friday!

Let’s Do It!

Bring Back Cash!






By the Solari Team

As the saying goes, “money makes the world go around,” but today’s battle of digital currencies, inflation, and paper currency has humanity at a tipping point between freedom and fascism.

The pandemic and accompanying lockdowns have been wildly successful, creating the right environment for total control of society, health, money, and food. Huge portions of the population, influenced by fear and mind control, are in complete submission. Every aspect of life and how it functions is now approaching Mr. Global’s grasp.

Why the need for total control? Who knows…. People like Catherine and Dr. Joseph Farrell have spent decades trying to figure it out; no doubt they are close. The reality is, however, that we have no more time to figure out why. Humanity is in the middle of the train tracks, and the train is coming through the tunnel and toward us at full force.

There is an overwhelming feeling of “what to do?” I can understand how a deer gets stuck when the headlights are coming at it. Fear can be paralyzing. But we all can do something and that something is pretty simple: use cash, especially on Fridays.

Some of us are Christians, some not. We don’t all know the purpose of eating only fish on Fridays, but it seems to many that Fridays are a day to prep for something bigger, such as Good Friday. In American culture, we have a lot of Friday events: summer Fridays, half-day Fridays, dress-down Fridays. When Mary Holland from Children’s Health Defense suggested Cash Fridays, it made perfect sense to Catherine.

Why cash? Because in order to have a full digital monetary system with complete central control, the circulation of paper currency has to end. (See the above video of Bank for International Settlements General Manager Agustín Carstens in October 2020, telling you exactly where the central bankers intend to go.) We’ve already heard there are coin shortages. Some are saying that the Fed has stopped printing paper currency. That can’t be confirmed, but it doesn’t really matter. We know the game. To slow this train down, we can keep paper currencies and coins circulating. This is a very easy thing for all of us to do.

There are a lot of divide-and-conquer politics out there. People are fighting for the stupidest reasons. We bet a dollar, however, that the one thing we ALL can agree on is stopping our money from being stolen or controlled—keeping our money safe. It wouldn’t shock us if even the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) or Black Lives Matter (BLM) could agree on that. So it’s simple: We don’t need 100% of the population to do this; 10% of the population is enough.

Keep cash floating through the system.


1. Use cash whenever you can, but on Fridays use cash ONLY.

2. Download the #cashfriday slogan and spread it on all your social media platforms. It’s especially important not to type out #cashfriday because of algorithms and censorship.

3. Keep it going for as long as it takes.

It’s as simple as 1, 2, and 3. But if you really want to take it further, we are including links on how to find a local bank and other reports on how to take big bank and corporate tyranny out of your life. We are making these reports available to the public to add strength to the momentum.

So, let’s make Cash Friday the preparation for something bigger—and that something bigger is sovereignty and freedom for all humanity.

from:   https://home.solari.com/cash-friday/

Use Cash – Defy the System



July 13, 2020 By Joseph P. Farrell

G.B. spotted this article, and offered a few tangential but important comments. Essentially, it’s an “update” to the Bank of International Settlements’ plans to roll out digital currency, ultimately to replace cash:

BIS Innovation Hub: The Gradual March To Central Bank Digital Currency Continues To Advance

Essentially, there are two important points to note. Firstly, various central banks are already engaged in a limited roll-out of digital currencies:

The initial phase of the project saw Hub’s opened up in Switzerland, Hong Kong and Singapore. An operational agreement was signed with the Hong Kong Monetary Authority in September 2019, followed by an agreement with the Swiss National Bank in October. The Hub in Singapore began operations in November.

With phase one completed, the BIS have now moved into the second phase which they warned was going to happen when the Hub first launched. Accompanying the release of this year’s Annual Economic Report, the institution announced that the Hub is expanding to new locations in both Europe and North America.

Over the next two years, the Bank of England will be opening a centre, along with the Bank of Canada, the European Central Bank and four Nordic central banks (Sweden, Denmark, Norway and Iceland). A ‘strategic partnership‘ will also be formed with the Federal Reserve System.

East and West may appear divided in the geopolitical sphere, but in the world of central banking they are very much united behind the common goal of the Hub.

As the BIS outlined in a press release, the expansion will ‘allow Innovation Hub to spur central bank work across multiple fintech pillars‘. General Manager Agustin Carstens confirmed that the ‘new centres will expand our reach significantly and help create a global force for fintech innovation‘.

The second, and much more important point to note, is that the goal is both to digitize liquid assets and cash and essentially free this digitized currency from any connection to tangible and real assets, and to incorporate the “unbanked” or “underbanked” population of the world, some billion and a half people, into this system:

What central banks (in line with state legislatures) are not going to do is simply outlaw cash when CBDC’s become available. I believe what they want is for banknotes to dwindle to a level where they can make the argument that the servicing costs of maintaining the cash infrastructure outweigh the amount of cash still in circulation and being used for payment.

An Access to Cash report published in the UK last year warned that because of bank branch closures and the decline of ATM’s, Britain’s cash network was at real risk of collapsing. Introduce a CBDC into the equation and you can see how cash will soon be deemed nonviable. Those who might opt to use cash over a digital currency would eventually have no other option than to transfer their money into a CBDC.

One of the main goals of global planners is to target what they call the ‘unbanked‘ or the ‘underbanked‘. In other words, those who exist largely outside of the financial system and trade anonymously. The BIS Annual Report declared that 1.7 billion adults and hundreds of millions of firms ‘are tied to cash as their only means of payment‘. That is one fifth of the world’s population that central banks are seeking to bring into their world – a digital only construct in which the only alternative is a life of destitution.

Essentially, the central banking fraternity will want to be able to pinpoint the abolition of cash on the advancement of technology and the changing payment habits of the consumer, thereby taking the emphasis off themselves.

With regards to changing consumer behaviour, the unproven fear perpetuated throughout the media that cash could transmit Covid-19 has successfully managed to undermine cash to the point where a large swathe of people have stopped using it. The latest statistics from Link show that in the UK transaction volume is down 47% on this time last year.

Over time, central banks will be able to use a sustained reduction in demand for cash to their advantage. As Yves Mersch of the European Central Bank mentioned in May, ‘if our customers, the people of Europe signalled a change in payments behaviour, we would want to preserve their direct link to the ultimate owner of our currency by maintaining their access to central bank liabilities‘.

There are three problems here.

Firstly, notice where the earliest trials of digital currency were held: Hong Kong, Switzerland, and Singapore. As G.B. noted in the comments of the email accompanying the article, each place has been a hub of massive financial scandal and fraud in recent years. And as I and Catherine Austin Fitts have repeatedly warned, a move to a digital currency is a move to something which, in effect, is not a currency at all, simply because of the implied ability of central banks, at the push of a button, to modify the value of that currency at will. Say you leave your place of work with 15,000 digibooboos being deposited in your account. On your way home, you decide to stop and get some groceries. But Mr. Central Banskter needed some extra digibooboos to cover his margin calls, which amount to just a few quadrillions of digibooboos, so he decides simply to create more digibooboos at the push of a button. By the time you arrive at the checkout lane in the grocery store, the robocashier informs you that your grocery bill, which just a few seconds ago might have cost a mere 200 digibooboos, now comes to 14,000 digibooboos, leaving you to ponder whether or  not to buy your groceries and figure out  how to pay your mortgage (which, incidentally, is also digitized along with the title to your house), or abandon your purchase of mystery 3d-printed meat and GMO potatoes, and pay your mortgage (pronto!) before it too becomes too expensive to pay. You decide to do the latter, and rush to the nearest morgautpaycen (mortgage automated payment center), which informs you that, woops, your mortgage payment is now 15,500 digibooboos. Frantic, you try transferring money from your savings account to your transactions account, only to be told that Microsh*t corporation is interrupting the transaction to update the morgautpaycen system (and your “vaccine tatoos”) with the latest updates; please standby, this will take just a few minutes, and do not cancel the transaction. By the time this has ended, a line has formed, and you make the transfer and rush home, only to find the robosheriff has arrived and repossessed your home. In fact, it’s already been sold and people are already moving into it.

Think I’m exaggerating? Well, don’t forget the roll of currency speculators and banksters in driving the German hyper-inflation of the 1920s so they could make huge amounts of money.  In short, a digital currency frees the central banksters and speculators from the necessity of having to use far slower and clumsier methods of the manipulation of stocks, bonds, commodities, and currencies in order to manipulate currency and other types of value. They will be able to do all of that at the push of a button; it’s a convenient way for the banksters to walk away from all their frauds and crimes, probably of an intergenerational nature. It’s Venice all over again, on steroids.

You might as well paint a big target on yourself and all you own, and say, “Here, take it, it’s yours.”

There’s a second problem: the U.S. constitution, which has that curiously worded phrase that only Congress has the power to “make” and “coin” money. Clearly, a digital “currency’s” fulfillment of this provision is at least debatable on a number of grounds.

And finally, the third problem: What happens to all those wonderful digital “assets” if, say, the Socialist Peoples’ Parasite and Piracy Party of Zhi Ping Pong, Woe Phat (thank you Hawaii Five-O) and Wahn Beeg Rhat (thank you Uncle Scrooge and Karl Barks) decides to zap it all with an electro-magnetic pulse because they’re unhappy with the balance of payments  (they were the ones paid off by Mr. Central Bankster with the suddenly-created digibooboos that are now worth far less). Please take all disputes to accounting; issues are typically resolved in 10-30 business days.

I suppose then were back to old fashioned analogue things like cuneiform tablets and paper records.

In short, use cash folks, as much as you can.

See you on the flip side…

from:    https://gizadeathstar.com/2020/07/the-bis-and-digital-currency/