ComTech Gold 是一個數位資產平台，旨在將實體黃金進行代幣化，促進數位經濟的發展。該平台建立在 XDC 網絡之上，發行 CGO — 一種100%由實體黃金支持的代幣，確保每一個代幣都具有實體黃金的價值保障。 Lim Say Cheong 是一位屢獲殊榮的金融與數位資產領域領導者，現任數位資產策略的首席顧問，並在行業內享有盛譽。

原文標題：當一位父親用預測市場緩解育兒焦慮 原文作者：Polyfactual 原文來源： 轉載：Daisy， 火星財經 上周二早晨，我站在小學的接送隊伍中，手扶着兒子的背包，僵在那裏。剛剛過去的周末，又一場校園槍擊事件佔據了新聞的頭條。 當他興奮地跑進學校大樓時，我感到胸口那熟悉的緊繃感——一種令人揪心的感覺，仿佛隨着他們逐漸在這個充滿敵意的世界中變得更加獨立，任何事情都可能發生。 開車去上班的路上，我播放了一本正在聽的長篇有聲書：《無聲告白》（Say Nothing），一本關於北愛爾蘭衝突（The Troubles）的歷史記錄——從1969年到1990年代末長達三十年的反殖

Techub News 消息，據 CoinDesk 報道，Strategy 創始人 Michael Saylor 近日在接受採訪時淡化量子計算對比特幣的威脅，認爲當威脅迫在眉睫時，比特幣協議可通過軟件升級應對潛在風險。他表示：「這主要是那些想向你推銷下一個量子概念代幣的人的營銷手段。谷歌和微軟不會出售能破解現代加密技術的計算機，因爲這會毀了谷歌和微軟——也會毀了美國政府和銀行系統。」 目前已有多個方案研究如何使比特幣工作量證明（PoW）抵御量子攻擊，包括 BTQ 等初創公司開發的抗量子加密硬件。一位比特幣開發者已提交改進提案（BIP），建議通過硬分叉將錢包地址遷移至量子安全地址。Say

來源：If You Miss This Bitcoin Run, Don’t Say You Weren’t Told 整理&編譯：lenaxin，ChainCatcher 編者按： 本文整理自Anthony Pompliano與Jordi Visser的視頻訪談，Jordi是一位擁有30年華爾街經驗的宏觀策略投資專家。Jordi將以獨到視角解讀當前經濟形勢。在訪談中，Jordi還深入探討了通脹、股市、比特幣、AI等熱點話題，並解析爲何市場走勢總與主流預期背道而馳。 ChianCatcher對內容進行了整理編譯。 TL&DR 傳統經濟學教科書對“經濟衰退”的定義，在當代經濟結

來源：If You Miss This Bitcoin Run, Don’t Say You Weren’t Told 整理&編譯：lenaxin，ChainCatcher 編者按： 本文整理自Anthony Pompliano與Jordi Visser的視頻訪談，Jordi是一位擁有30年華爾街經驗的宏觀策略投資專家。Jordi將以獨到視角解讀當前經濟形勢。在訪談中，Jordi還深入探討了通脹、股市、比特幣、AI等熱點話題，並解析爲何市場走勢總與主流預期背道而馳。 ChianCatcher對內容進行了整理編譯。 TL&DR 1. 傳統經濟學教科書對“經濟衰退”的定義，在當代經濟結

* * * * * If the SEC were a sports team measured by its “win” rate, it would be a runaway champ. But that win-loss record suffered a mild hit — and its first ever loss in an “ICO” case — one that refers to the controversial method of crowd fundraising and that borrows from the public company “IPO” or initial public offering. A federal judge denied the SEC a preliminary injunction against Blockvest after he granted a temporary restraining order on the same issue. We chat with Amit Singh, attorney and shareholder in Stradling’s corporate and securities practice group about the SEC’s fresh loss. His take? They’ll be out for blood, next. **For those not in the know, share the legal background leading up to this case.** In October of this year, the Securities Exchange Commission filed a complaint against Blockvest LLC and its founder, Reginald Buddy Ringgold III. According to the complaint, Blockvest falsely claimed its planned December initial coin offering was “registered” and “approved” by the SEC and created a fake regulatory agency, the Blockchain Exchange Commission, which included a phony logo that was nearly identical to that of the SEC. The SEC also alleged Blockvest conducted pre-sales of its digital token, BLV, ahead of the ICO and raised more than $2.5 million. The SEC’s complaint alleged violations of the anti-fraud provisions of the Securities Exchange and the Securities Act and violations of the Securities Act’s prohibitions against the offer and sale of unregistered securities in the absence of an exemption from the registration requirements. U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel issued a temporary restraining order “freezing assets, prohibiting the destruction of documents, granting expedited discovery, requiring accounting and order to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not be granted” on October 5, 2018. On Tuesday, November 27, in the SEC’s first loss in stopping an ICO, judge Gonzalo Curiel stated that the SEC had not shown at this stage of the case that the BLV tokens were securities under the Howey Test, a decades-old test established by the U.S. Supreme Court for determining whether certain transactions are investment contracts and thus securities. If the tokens weren’t securities, all the SEC’s other allegations automatically fail Under the Howey Test, a transaction is an investment contract (or security) if: – It is an investment of money; – There is an expectation of profits from the investment; – The investment of money is in a common enterprise; and – Any profit comes from the efforts of a promoter or third party Later cases have expanded the term “money” in the Howey Test to include investment assets other than money. The judge said that the SEC failed to show investors had an expectation of profits. “While defendants claim that they had an expectation in Blockvest’s future business, no evidence is provided to support the test investors’ expectation of profits,” the judge wrote. Blockvest argued that the pre-ICO money came from 32 “test investors” and said the BLV tokens were only designed for testing its platform. It presented statements from several investors who said they either did not buy BLV tokens or rely on any representations that the SEC has alleged are false. The SEC responded by noting that various individuals wrote “Blockvest” or “coins” on their checks and were provided with a Blockvest ICO white paper describing the project and the terms of the ICO. Judge Curiel said that evidence, by itself, wasn’t enough: “Merely writing ‘Blockvest or coins’ on their checks is not sufficient to demonstrate what promotional materials or economic inducements these purchasers were presented with prior to their investments. Accordingly, plaintiff has not demonstrated that ‘securities’ were sold to [these] individuals.” **Won’t the case proceed? Why is the denial of an injunction important here?** This does not mean that the SEC cannot pursue an action against the defendants Rather it just means that the SEC didn’t meet the high burden required to receive a preliminary injunction of proving “(1) a prima facie case of previous violations of federal securities laws, and (2) a reasonable likelihood that the wrong will be repeated.” The court determined that, at this stage, without full discovery and disputed issues of material facts, the Court could not decide whether the BLV token were securities. Since the SEC didn’t meet its burden of proving the tokens were securities in the first place, it couldn’t have shown that there was a previous violation of the federal securities laws So, the first prong was not met Further, the defendants agreed to stop the ICO and provide 30 days’ prior notice to the SEC if they intend to move forward with the ICO So, the court determined that there was not a reasonable likelihood that the wrong will be repeated As a result, the SEC’s motion for a preliminary injunction was denied. Nonetheless, this is an important case as it is the first time the SEC went after an ICO issuer and the issuer pushed back and won (if only temporarily) It reminds us that, though most people think of the SEC as judge and jury in securities actions, that isn’t the case Ultimately, an issuer that pushes back may have a chance if it has the wherewithal to fight and if it has good arguments However, this does not mean that the SEC is done with them and we may very well see this case continue. **Won’t media coverage of this case ultimately impair Blockvest’s ability to raise funds — its ultimate goal?** That may very well be the case. Unfortunately, unsophisticated investors could ultimately merely remember the Blockvest name and decide that it must be a good investment since they’ve heard of it (ala PT Barnum – “I don’t care what the newspapers say about me as long as they spell my name right.”). But I may be too cynical (hopefully I am). In any case, I would be surprised if Blockvest attempts to pursue an ICO without either registering the tokens or utilizing an exemption from the registration requirements. They clearly have a target on their back, so the SEC would love another crack at them I’m sure. Plus, even though a preliminary injunction was denied here, the SEC still got what it wanted as Blockvest agreed not to pursue the ICO without giving the SEC 30 days’ prior notice of its intent to do so. So, the investing public was ultimately protected. **What is the SEC’s current stance on what constitutes a security based on this case?** The SEC will still point to the Howey Test Further, as stated in recent speeches by Hinman and others, the SEC seems to be focused not only on the utility of any tokens (i.e., they can be used on the platform for which they were created), but also on decentralization (that the efforts of the promoters are no longer required to maintain the value/utility of the tokens/platform). However, the court in this case looked at the investment of money prong differently than has historically been the case Normally, the investment of money prong is assumed with little analysis as any consideration is considered “money” for purposes of the test But this case looked at the investment not from the purchaser’s subjective intent when committing funds, but instead based the analysis on what was offered to prospective purchasers and what information they relied on So, issuers are well advised to be very careful in how they advertise an offering. Further, the expectation of profits prong wasn’t met because, according to Blockvest, these were just test investors So, it wasn’t clear these folks invested for a profit The tokens were never even used or sold outside the platform. **Where does the Ninth Circuit sit in regards to what is a security?** The Ninth Circuit follows the Howey Test. However, the common enterprise element has received extensive and varied analysis in the federal circuit courts For example, while all circuits accept “horizontal” commonality as satisfying the common enterprise prong of the Howey Test, a minority of circuits (including the ninth) also accept “vertical” commonality in this analysis. Horizontal commonality involves the pooling of assets, profits and risks in a unitary enterprise, while vertical commonality requires that profits of investors be “interwoven with and dependent upon the efforts and success of those seeking the investment or of third parties” (narrow verticality), or “that the well-being of all investors be dependent upon the promoter’s expertise” (broad commonality). SEC v. SG Ltd., 265 F.3d 42, 49 (1st Cir. 2001). The Ninth Circuit is the only one to accept the narrow vertical approach (though it also accepts horizontal commonality), which finds a common enterprise if there is a correlation between the fortunes of an investor and a promoter.” Sec. & Exch. Comm’n v. Eurobond Exchange, Ltd., 13 F.3d 1334, 1339 (9th Cir., 1994). Under this approach a common enterprise is a venture “in which the ‘fortunes of the investor are interwoven with and dependent upon the efforts and success of those seeking the investment….'” Investors’ funds need not be pooled; rather the fortunes of the investors must be linked with those of the promoters, which suffices to establish vertical commonality. So, a common enterprise exists if a direct correlation has been established between success or failure of the promoter’s efforts and success or failure of the investment. **Which Federal Circuits might offer an equal or even bigger split with the SEC?** I wouldn’t really say that any courts split with the SEC as the SEC’s decisions take precedent over any decisions of those courts. However, there is a split among the circuits as described above with respect to what type of commonality is sufficient to find a common enterprise. **What impact could the outcome of this case have on ICOs at large?** This case may embolden companies who have already conducted ICOs to push back on any SEC actions that they might not otherwise fight as it shows that the SEC will always have to meet the burden of proving all factors of the Howey Test are met before the SEC has jurisdiction over the offering in the first place. **Has the Supreme Court addressed anything crypto, crypto related, or analogous?** The only case I know of where the Supreme court has addressed crypto currencies is Wisconsin Central Ltd. v. United States. That was a case about whether stock counts as “money remuneration” The dissent in that case talked about how our concept of money has changed over time and said that perhaps “one day employees will be paid in bitcoin or some other type of cryptocurrency.” This goes against the IRS’s position that cryptocurrencies are property and should be taxed as such But, it was just a passing comment in the dissent. So, it has no precedential value. But, it may embolden someone to fight the IRS’s position.

瑞波幣 vs. 證券交易委員會: 證券交易委員會預計將出現的態度轉變 前美國商品期貨交易委員會(CFTC)主席Chris Giancarlo和大佬-瑞波律師，包括Bill Morgan，暗示美國證券交易委員會(證券交易委員會)可能會降低對瑞波幣實驗室的訴訟。證券交易委員會可能會因領導層的潛在變動而產生轉變，這種變動由

落地比寫詩更重要。如何落地？

在頭部科技廠商的最新敘事裡，ToB賦能千行百業才是大模型落地的重點。 騰訊、華為之後，又一個姍姍來遲的大模型“雖遲但到”。 7月13日，在2023京東全球科技探索者大會暨京東雲峰會上，京東正式推出大模型“言犀”。目前平台已開放預約註冊，預計將於8月份正式上線。 至此，頭部互聯網大廠的大模型產品悉數登場：百度有文心，阿里有通義，騰訊要做行業大模型，華為有盤古，京東有言犀，字節有火山方舟。 目前放眼全球，已經有數百個大模型上線；僅中國國內就發布了80多個。 圖片來源：中國移動研究院發布的《我國人工智能大模型發展動態》 幾天前舉辦的2023年WAIC（世界人工智能大會）展館裡，30多...