• Skip to main content

Biz Builder Mike

You can't sail Today's boat on Yesterdays wind - Michael Noel

  • Cryptocurrency Exchange
  • Blockchain Consultants
  • About Us
  • Blog

decentralization

Dec 27 2020

SEC vs. Ripple: A predictable but undesirable development

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has not been kind to crypto in the past year. In March 2020, in the SEC v. Telegram case, the Commission won a worldwide injunction against the proposed issuance of Grams by Telegram, undoing years of innovative work even in the absence of any allegations of fraud. Then, on the last day of September 2020, Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein dashed the hopes of Kik Interactive by ruling in favor of the SEC’s motion for summary judgment in SEC v. Kik Interactive, halting the sale of Kin crypto tokens. Both of these actions were filed in the Southern District of New York. On Dec. 22, 2020, the SEC decided that it was time to initiate another high-profile action, filing in the same district against Ripple Labs and its initial and current CEOs, Christian Larsen and Bradly Garlinghouse, respectively, for raising more than $1.38 billion through the sale of XRP since 2013.

The initial fallout from this action has been swift and severe: 24 hours after the lawsuit was filed, the price of XRP was down almost 25%. This still left XRP ranked fourth on CoinMarketCap, with a total market capitalization of over $10.5 billion.

The complaint

In its complaint, the Commission paints a straightforward pattern of sales of XRP that were never registered with the SEC or made pursuant to any exemption from registration. From the perspective of the Commission, this amounts to a sustained practice of illegal sales of unregistered, non-exempt securities under Section 5 of the Securities Act of 1933.

For readers not familiar with legal procedure, it might seem unusual for the case to be brought in a New York federal court, especially since Ripple is headquartered in California, and both named individuals reside there. However, Ripple has an office in the Southern District of that state, some statements were made by Garlinghouse while he was present in New York, and significant sales of XRP were made to New York residents. In legal parlance, this would make venues in the Southern District of New York appropriate.

In addition, it might be surprising to some that both Larsen and Garlinghouse were named personally in an action that seeks primarily to recover for XRP allegedly sold illegally by Ripple, through its wholly-owned subsidiary, XRP II LLC. They are named both because they individually also sold significant volumes of XRP — 1.7 billion by Larsen and 321 million by Garlinghouse — and because the SEC contends they “aided and abetted” Ripple in its sales.

Aiding and abetting is a cause of action that depends on a primary violation by a third party, in which the aider and abettor voluntarily and knowingly participates with the goal of assisting in the venture’s success. In this case, Ripple would be the primary violator, and both Larsen and Garlinghouse are alleged to have substantially participated in the pattern of Ripple’s XRP sales, with the goal of allowing the company to raise funds without registering XRP under the federal securities laws or complying with any available exemption from registration.

The bulk of the complaint provides an overview of digital assets, details the SEC’s version of the history of Ripple and its marketing efforts with regard to XRP, illustrates how in the opinion of the Commission, XRP satisfies the elements of the Howey investment contract test under the federal securities laws, and seeks to demonstrate how Larsen and Garlinghouse participated in the on-going sales efforts.

In addition to disgorgement of all “ill-gotten gains,” the requested order would permanently ban the named defendants from ever selling unregistered XRP or participating in any way in the sale of unregistered, non-exempt securities. It would also prohibit them from participating in the offering of any digital asset securities, and it seeks unspecified civil monetary penalties.

A brief history of Ripple and XRP

The idea behind the current XRP dates back to late 2011 or early 2012, before the company changed its name to Ripple. The XRP Ledger, or software code, operates as a peer-to-peer database, spread across a network of computers that records data about transactions, among other things. In order to achieve consensus, each server on the network evaluates proposed transactions from a subset of nodes it trusts not to defraud it. Those trusted nodes are known as the server’s unique node list, or UNL. Although each server defines its own trusted nodes, the XRP Ledger requires a high degree of overlap between the trusted nodes chosen by each server. To facilitate this overlap, Ripple publishes a proposed UNL.

Upon the completion of the XRP Ledger in December 2012, and as its code was being deployed to the servers that would run it, a fixed supply of 100 billion XRP was set and created at little cost. Of those XRP, 80 billion were transferred to Ripple and the remaining 20 billion XRP went to a group of founders, including Larsen. At this point in time, Ripple and its founders controlled 100% of XRP.

Note that these choices represent a compromise between the fully decentralized, peer-to-peer network that was envisioned when Bitcoin (BTC) was first announced and a fully centralized network with a single trusted intermediary such as a conventional financial institution. In addition, Bitcoin was never designed or intended to be held or controlled by a single entity. In contrast, all XRP was originally issued to the company that created it and that company’s founders. This hybrid approach to a blockchain-based digital asset and more conventional assets created and controlled by a single entity led some crypto enthusiasts to complain that XRP was not a “true” cryptocurrency at all.

According to the SEC’s complaint, from 2013 through 2014, Ripple and Larsen made efforts to create a market for XRP by having Ripple distribute approximately 12.5 billion XRP through bounty programs that paid programmers compensation for reporting problems in the XRP Ledger’s code. As part of these calculated steps, Ripple distributed small amounts of XRP — typically between 100 and 1,000 XRP per transaction — to anonymous developers and others to establish a trading market for XRP.

Ripple then began more systematic efforts to increase speculative demand and trading volume for XRP. Starting in at least 2015, Ripple decided that it would seek to make XRP a “universal [digital] asset” for banks and other financial institutions to effect money transfers. According to the SEC, this meant that Ripple needed to create an active, liquid XRP secondary trading market. It, therefore, expanded its efforts to develop a use for XRP while increasing sales of XRP into the market.

At about this time, Ripple Labs, and its subsidiary, XRP II LLC, came under investigation by the U.S. Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, or FinCEN, acting pursuant to its mandates in the Bank Secrecy Act, or BSA. Acting in conjunction with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of California, the two companies were charged with failing to comply with various BSA requirements, including failure to register with FinCEN and failure to implement and maintain proper Anti-Money Laundering and Know Your Customer protocols. According to FinCEN, Ripple’s failure to comply with these FinCEN requirements was facilitating the use of XRP by money launderers and terrorists.

This action did not proceed to trial, with Ripple Labs settling the charges by agreeing to pay a $700,000 fine and further agreeing to take immediate remedial steps to bring the companies into compliance with BSA requirements. The settlement was announced by FinCEN on May 5, 2015. The major contention of FinCEN throughout its investigation was that XRP was a digital currency. Ripple acceded to this position and has since worked to comply with BSA requirements.

At the same time, as noted in the SEC’s complaint, from 2014 through the third quarter of 2020, the company sold at least 8.8 billion XRP in the market and institutional sales, raising approximately $1.38 billion to fund its operations. In addition, the complaint asserts that from 2015 through at least March 2020, while Larsen was an affiliate of Ripple as its CEO and later chairman of the board, Larsen and his wife sold over 1.7 billion XRP to public investors in the market. Larsen and his wife netted at least $450 million from those sales. From April 2017 through December 2019, while an affiliate of Ripple as CEO, Garlinghouse sold over 321 million XRP he had received from Ripple to public investors in the market, generating approximately $150 million from those sales.

XRP is not like Bitcoin or Ether

The preceding description paints a picture of a digital asset that is widely held by persons scattered around the globe. In the case of both Bitcoin and Ether (ETH), this kind of decentralization was apparently enough to convince the SEC that those two digital assets should not be regulated as securities. As Director Bill Hinman of the SEC’s Division of Corporation Finance explained in June of 2018:

“If the network on which the token or coin is to function is sufficiently decentralized — where purchasers would no longer reasonably expect a person or group to carry out essential managerial or entrepreneurial efforts — the assets may not represent an investment contract. Moreover, when the efforts of the third party are no longer a key factor for determining the enterprise’s success, material information asymmetries recede. As a network becomes truly decentralized, the ability to identify an issuer or promoter to make the requisite disclosures becomes difficult, and less meaningful. […] The network on which Bitcoin functions is operational and appears to have been decentralized for some time, perhaps from inception. Applying the disclosure regime of the federal securities laws to the offer and resale of Bitcoin would seem to add little value.”

This kind of analysis does not really work for XRP, most of which continues to be owned by the company that created it, where the company continues to have significant influence over which nodes will serve as trusted validators for transactions, and where the company continues to play a significant role in the profitability and viability of the asset. Part of that role will now, of course, involve responding to this latest SEC initiative.

The court’s probable reaction

Unfortunately for Ripple and its former and current CEOs, the SEC has a strong case that XRP fits within the Howey investment contract test. Derived from the 1946 Supreme Court decision in SEC v. W. J. Howey, this test holds that you have bought a security if you: (1) make an investment (2) of money or something else of value, (3) in a common enterprise, (4) with the expectation of profits, (5) from the essential managerial efforts of others. Most of the purchasers of XRP, or certainly a very large number of them, would appear to fit within each of these categories.

Ripple raised more than $1.38 billion from the sale of XRP, so it is abundantly clear that purchasers were paying something of value. Moreover, as there was no effort to limit purchasers to the amount of XRP that they might reasonably “use” for anything other than investment purposes, that element appears likely to be present as well. The fact that the fortunes of all the investors rise and fall together along with the value of XRP in the marketplace should satisfy the commonality requirement.

The complaint highlights a number of things that Ripple has done to promote profitability, including statements that it has made, all of which suggest that a reason for purchasing XRP is the potential for appreciation. The limited functionality of XRP in comparison to its trading supply is another reason to believe that most purchasers were buying for investment, seeking to make a profit.

Finally, the significant on-going involvement and role of the company, especially given its huge continuing ownership interest in XRP, means that there is a strong case to be made that the profitability of XRP is highly dependent on the efforts of Ripple. All of this points to the reality that, under the Howey Test, XRP is likely to be a security.

Ripple’s response to the SEC’s action

Ripple’s response to the SEC’s enforcement action came even before the SEC’s complaint was officially filed. On Dec. 21, Garlinghouse tweeted out a condemnation of the SEC’s planned action, criticizing the agency for picking favorites and trying to “limit US innovation in the crypto industry to BTC and ETH.” Soon after, Ripple’s general counsel, Stuart Alderoty, gave a strong indication of how the company was likely to respond in the pending matter by pointing out the 2015 FinCEN issue, which he claimed was a government determination that XRP was a digital currency rather than a security under the Howey Test.

Unfortunately, classification as a digital currency does not necessarily preclude regulation as a security. As another New York district court decided in the 2018 case of CFTC v. McDonnell, in the context of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s authority to regulate digital assets, “Federal agencies may have concurrent or overlapping jurisdiction over a particular issue or area.”

Thus, even though FinCEN regulates crypto as a digital asset, the CFTC may treat it as a commodity; the SEC may regulate it as a security; and the Internal Revenue Service may tax it as property. All at the same time.

Conclusion

This comment should not be taken as approval of the SEC’s current approach and relative hostility to crypto offerings. As the SEC’s complaint notes, the XRP sales that are now being questioned took place over many years. The initial sales date back to 2013, which had happened considerably before the SEC first publicly announced its position that digital assets should be regulated as securities if they fit within the Howey investment contract analysis, which did not come until 2017 with The DAO Report. Moreover, since 2015, Ripple has been proceeding in accordance with the settlement reached with FinCEN. Since that time, Ripple has worked to bring its operations into compliance with BSA requirements, operating as if XRP is a currency rather than a security.

The views, thoughts and opinions expressed here are the author’s alone and do not necessarily reflect or represent the views and opinions of Cointelegraph.

Carol Goforth is a university professor and the Clayton N. little professor of law at the University of Arkansas (Fayetteville) School of Law.

The opinions expressed are the author’s alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of the University or its affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.

SEC vs. Ripple: A predictable but undesirable development

Source

Written by bizbuildermike · Categorized: cryptocurrency · Tagged: 2017, AML, analysis, article, ban, Banks, bitcoin, btc, California, ceo, CEOs, cftc, Christian Larsen, Commodity Futures, company, compensation, Computers, Court, crypto, cryptocurrencies, Currency, dao, data, decentralization, decentralized, digital, digital asset, digital assets, digital currency, element, enforcement, Enterprise, ETH, ether, exchange, finance, FinCEN, founders, fraud, fund, gains, government, highlights, html, information, innovation, Internal Revenue Service, investment, irs, Kik, KYC, Law, lawsuit, Ledger, legal, market, market capitalization, marketing, money, more, New York, Offerings, opinion, opinions, other, perspective, Regulation, revenue, ripple, ripple labs, risk, SEC, securities, Securities and Exchange Commission, security, Software, Space, Telegram, token, tokens, trading, transaction, transfers, u.s., United States, us, work, xrp

Nov 29 2020

Curve Finance Allocates $3 Million in Admin Fees to Governance Token Holders 

Curve Finance, one of the top decentralized finance (DeFi ) projects of the year, has confirmed a $3 million payout to holders of its governance tokens. Following a week-long voting period, the decentralized exchange (DEX) platform has reached a consensus on allocating administrative fees.

Maintaining Decentralization

As the voting log shows, the process ended in favor of governance token holders. As such, these holders are set to receive about $2.63 million in fees. The fees were accrued before the vote opened. As Curve Finance chief executive Michael Egorov told CoinDesk, they will be dispersing the funds every week following the initial payout.

Curve has been one of the star participants of the 2020 DeFi rally. It is currently the sixth-largest DeFi protocol on the market with about $884 million in locked assets, per data from DeFi Pulse.

However, the service also owes its impressive run to its focus on decentralization. The vote on allocating admin fees is part of Curve’s work to ensure that all community members have a voice. To vote, users will need to stake CRV tokens to Curve’s voting contract, which will then supply them with veCRV. So far, veCRV holders have earned half of all trading fees on Curve – the other half goes to liquidity providers.

Curve Finance in an Evolving DeFi Market

Now that Curve appears to have sorted out its fee distribution mechanism, the service can now focus on maintaining its rally. The DeFi market has been particularly active this year, with protocols posting upticks in their user numbers.

Last month saw a bit of a drop in the market, with assets locked falling and many DeFi tokens dropping in value. However, metrics remain strong. Data from Dune Analytics shows that there are now 860,000 DeFi user addresses, increasing about 1,000 percent over the same period last year.

Even in October, when the DeFi rally halted, user numbers increased, as Dune Analytics’ numbers showed the month saw a 40 percent surge in user count, with the metric moving from 555,000 to 755,000.

The strongest gainers include lending protocol Compound and DEX Dydx. Both increased their user numbers by 250 percent and 50 percent, respectively, over the past month. Compound has lost its position as the industry’s top lending protocol to Maker, but its growth of 135,000 new users shows that it could be making a run for the top spot soon enough.

As for Curve, it still has Uniswap to contend with when it comes to top decentralized exchanges. Dune Analytics’ data shows that Uniswap holds 63.6 percent of all DEX trades, with Curve coming in a distant second in 12.2 percent. SushiSwap and Ox have 8.64 percent and 7 percent of volumes, respectively, meaning that just four DEXs hold over 90 percent of all exchange volumes.

Curve Finance Allocates $3 Million in Admin Fees to Governance Token Holders 

Source

Written by bizbuildermike · Categorized: cryptocurrency · Tagged: Community, cryptocurrency, decentralization, decentralized, decentralized exchanges, decentralized finance, defi, DEX, exchange, Exchanges, finance, lending, liquidity providers, market, other, SushiSwap, token, tokens, trading, voting, work

Nov 28 2020

Crypto-Focused Educational Web Show Sponsored By Ukrainian Government

A new web series has been released by the Ukrainian Ministry of Digital Transformation, of all things. This series is dedicated to the education of the country’s citizens regarding blockchain technology, cryptocurrencies, and Bitcoin (BTC) in particular.

The Big Push For Crypto Literacy

The show itself saw its premiere on Wednesday, and was developed with collaborations with firms like Hacken, Binance, and Crystal Blockchain. The entire series itself stands as part of the “Diia.Digital Education” program enacted by the government of Ukraine.

The show itself boasts eight episodes, ranging from 6 to 12 minutes in length. The show itself sets out to explain the fundamentals of blockchain technology and cryptocurrencies. Andriy Onistrat, a former banker and now an entrepreneur, stands as the host of the show, with the main idea behind it being to interview various guests that work within the blockchain industry.

Questions Both Easy And Difficult

The first episode is already out, and publicly available on YouTube. The episode focuses on introducing cryptocurrencies as a concept, highlighting the unstoppable, permissionless transaction ledger behind it. The concept of supply auditability were given special considerations.

Onistrat compared this to the National Bank of Ukraine, who could always print out the Hryvnia to increase the supply, highlighting how this isn’t so easy for cryptocurrencies. The first guest of the series was Ivan Paskar, which stands as the Marketing Manager for Binance’s Ukrainian operations. Paskar gave an explanation regarding Bitcoin and how it maintains an auditable, immutable supply.

The pair discussed more complicated ideas, as well, going into some detail regarding smart contracts, Ethereum, and decentralized exchanges. While the show itself is developed to be friendly to beginners, Onistrat threw in some more complicated questions, as well. A prime example would be the conflicting ideas within centralized crypto exchanges.

Cryptocurrencies were built originally on the ideals of freedom and decentralization, but as the world started to adopt and regulate it, identification requirements and traceability have become a new norm. Onistrat asked Paskar these questions.

Ukraine Working Hard For New Digital Age

Should viewers completely go through all the episodes in this series, they will receive a certificate of completion. While not particularly useful, the initiative itself is sound, as the Ukrainian government is making a hard push to increase the digital literacy within its country.

The Ministry already boasts a number of informative shows: One is dedicated on how to be a YouTube blogger, while the other is titled “Digital Lessons for Teachers.”

Crypto-Focused Educational Web Show Sponsored By Ukrainian Government

Source

Written by bizbuildermike · Categorized: cryptocurrency · Tagged: Binance, bitcoin, blockchain, btc, crypto, cryptocurrencies, cryptocurrency, data, decentralization, decentralized, decentralized exchanges, digital, digital transformation, Education, entrepreneur, ethereum, Exchanges, freedom, Go, government, hacken, ideas, interview, marketing, other, smart contracts, sponsored, Tading, Technology, trading, transaction, work, world, youtube

Nov 27 2020

What happens to your Bitcoin when you die?

As cryptocurrency investment becomes more and more popular, long-term investors are increasingly concerned with the uncomfortable question: what happens to your Bitcoin (BTC) when you die? 

According to a 2020 study by the Cremation Institute, nearly 90% of crypto owners are worried about what happens to their crypto after they pass away. Furthermore, despite a high level of concern, crypto holders are reportedly four times less likely to use wills for inheritances than non-crypto investors.

As explained in its white paper, Bitcoin is a purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash allowing online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution.

As a distributed network, Bitcoin has no central authority to control user funds, so no one but the owners themselves can control their assets.

Consequently, millions of dollars in crypto are being lost each year through the deaths of the owners. Crypto insurance firm Coincover estimates that nearly 4 million Bitcoin, or $68 billion at publishing time, are out of circulation after access was lost, with a large portion likely caused by death.

But this doesn’t mean that cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin can’t be bequeathed and will inevitably be buried forever with th deceased owner.

In fact, there are a number of ways for investors to bequeath their crypto to the next generation, but each method requires some decision making and planning, as well as some general knowledge about how crypto works

Sharing keys with trusted family members

Sharing keys with trusted family members is probably one of the most straightforward methods to passing on your crypto. Some of the most prominent people in the crypto industry have publicly claimed to use this method to ensure their crypto fortune gets passed on.

Hal Finney, an early supporter of Bitcoin and recipient of the first Bitcoin transaction from BTC creator Satoshi Nakamoto, willed his crypto holdings to his children by simply providing his keys. About a year before his death in 2014, Finney wrote:

“Those discussions about inheriting your bitcoins are of more than academic interest. My bitcoins are stored in our safe deposit box, and my son and daughter are tech savvy. I think they’re safe enough. I’m comfortable with my legacy.”

This crypto inheritance practice is straightforward but may not be suitable for everyone in the crypto community. This way of bequeathing Bitcoin could be also considered risky as shared keys come with the responsibility of keeping those assets secure. If you choose this method, be sure that your heirs are aware of the plan and some best practices for crypto security. 

Some exchanges can unlock access to crypto with a death certificate

Despite the Bitcoin network itself not caring about things like inheritance, some crypto services can allow family members of a deceased client to access their crypto assets. Major United States-based cryptocurrency exchange and wallet service Coinbase, for example, allows the bereaved to gain access to a family members’ assets after providing a number of documents including a death certificate and a last will.

Coinbase users can also name a beneficiary on their Coinbase account. However, the procedure is not supported directly through Coinbase but rather using the services of an estate planning attorney.

A spokesperson for Binance — the world’s largest crypto exchange — told Cointelegraph that the company has similar policies for providing access to crypto beneficiaries, but did not elaborate on the process. “The beneficiary should contact customer support directly where one of our agents can guide them through the process,” the representative said.

Crypto inheritance services. Is it worth it?

There are also some projects that are dedicated to ensuring the inheritance of digital assets. For example, companies like Safe Haven, Casa and TrustVerse are working on their own solutions that allow people to bequeath their crypto assets using blockchain technology and cryptography.

Officially launched in September 2020, Safe Haven’s digital inheritance platform Inheriti allows users to bequeath access not only to cryptos like Bitcoin but also to social media profiles like Facebook and Google+. Logino says that neither Safe Haven nor Inheriti will ever store any digital assets themselves but rather provide a service to store encrypted information to the assets in question. “It is 100% your decision who gets a Safe Key since Safe Haven or the platform Inheriti has no idea what you are encrypting,” said Safe Haven CEO Dujardin Logino.

Logino told Cointelegraph that Inheriti has been gaining more traction amid the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic:

“In the last few weeks we have seen our platform grow to more than 1,000 unique users in the space. With the COVID-19 situation we are experiencing a huge demand from crypto and non-crypto people for our solution.”

While specialized services may offer a tailor-made solution to the crypto inheritance problem, they are generally in their early stages of development and also charge a fee. According to Logino, each back-up share by Safe Haven costs about $20 to $40 in the firm’s native token SHA. A standard edition solution also charges a $5 monthly subscription.

What happens to your Bitcoin when you die?

Source

Written by bizbuildermike · Categorized: cryptocurrency · Tagged: Binance, bitcoin, bitcoins, blockchain, btc, Cash, ceo, Children, coinbase, Community, company, covid-19, creator, crypto, Crypto Holdings, cryptocurrencies, cryptocurrency, Cryptocurrency Exchange, cryptography, decentralization, digital, digital assets, exchange, Exchanges, Facebook, Family, Hal Finney, information, insurance, investment, Media, pandemic, payments, Private Keys, satoshi-nakamoto, social, Social Media, Space, Study, supported, tech, Technology, token, Traction, wallet

Nov 27 2020

Report States that US Intelligence is Worried About China’s Involvement in Cryptocurrency

A report claims that the US Director of National Intelligence (DNI) John Ratcliffe has contacted SEC Chairman Jay Clayton regarding China’s influence in the crypto market including mining.

According to the Washington Examiner, the DNI is worried that China has too much control when it comes to crypto.  Reportedly, a senior intelligence official told the publication the following:

“There are serious national security concerns about China’s control over Bitcoin and Ether … The president’s recent executive order made abundantly clear the threat posed by securities investments that finance Communist Chinese military companies. Digital currency controlled by the CCP could certainly fall into that category, but the bottom line is that we cannot allow China to dominate the technologies and innovations that are going to decide who runs the world for decades to come — from artificial intelligence to digital currency, and everything in between.”

The same report pointed to recent tweets by Ripple’s General Counsel – commenting on China’s influence in the crypto markets:

The data doesn’t lie. Vast majority of BTC’s network / infrastructure – chips, mining pools, software – are all located in China or created by Chinese companies. This is not decentralization. (1/3) https://t.co/OBeMEKnuSn

— Stuart Alderoty (@s_alderoty) November 19, 2020

The relationship between the Trump administration and China has been fractious at best. In fact, China is frequently criticized by the current President regarding an ongoing trade dispute. Some people anticipate that once the Biden administration moves into power the rhetoric directed at China may be toned down as public officials change policy direction.

While the DNI may have sent a letter to the SEC regarding their concerns pertaining to crypto, expect little action to take place as the current Chairman has already announced his departure from the agency at the end of the year.

Source

Written by bizbuildermike · Categorized: Crowdfunding · Tagged: artificial-intelligence, Asia, bitcoin, Blockchain & Digital Assets, china, chips, crypto, cryptocurrency, Currency, data, decentralization, digital, digital currency, director of national intelligence, dni, ether, ethereum, finance, Global, Infrastructure, innovations, intelligence, Investments, Jay Clayton, john ratcliffe, LINE, market, markets, Military, mining, National Security, Politics, Legal & Regulation, president, report, SEC, securities, security, Software, trade, Trump, us, Washington, world

  • Go to page 1
  • Go to page 2
  • Go to page 3
  • Go to Next Page »

Copyright © 2021 · Altitude Pro on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in