Mediaboss Marketing

Investor alert: SQB.

REGINA The Financial and Consumer Affairs Authority of Saskatchewan (FCAA) warns investors of the online entity SQB.

"We continue to encourage investors to verify that entities selling investment opportunities are registered as required by legislation," says Dean Murrison, executive director of the Securities Division with the FCAA. "Registration status can be easily checked through the Canadian Securities Administrators' database at aretheyregistered.ca."

SQB claims to offer Saskatchewan residents an opportunity to invest in cryptocurrencies and contracts for difference (CFDs) through the websitehttps:// www sqbank ai (this url has been altered so as not to be interactive).

SQB is not registered to trade or sell securities or derivatives in Saskatchewan.The FCAA cautions investors and consumers not to send money to companies that are not registered in Saskatchewan, as they may not be legitimate businesses.

If you have invested with SQB or anyone claiming to be acting on their behalf, contact the FCAA's Securities Division at 306-787-5936.

In Saskatchewan, individuals or companies need to be registered with the FCAA to trade or sell securities or derivatives. The registration provisions ofThe Securities Act, 1988and accompanying regulations are intended to ensure that only honest and knowledgeable people are registered to sell securities and that their businesses are financially stable.

Tips to protect yourself:

Read the original here:

Beware of cryptocurrency scams: FCAA warns against SQB - SaskToday.ca

Summary

LEASH and Shiba Inu (SHIB) have gained attention as top-trending cryptocurrencies on CoinMarketCaps list. The Shiba Inu ecosystem is introducing a new governance structure, assigning specific roles to SHIB, LEASH, BONE, and TREAT tokens. Anticipation is growing for the potential launch of Shibarium, which has boosted the social dominance of SHIB and LEASH tokens.

LEASH and Shiba Inu (SHIB) have emerged as popular cryptocurrencies on CoinMarketCap. LEASH holds the top position, while SHIB ranks second among the top five trending cryptocurrencies. The recent surge in SHIBs social dominance has contributed to its growing popularity. Additionally, discussions surrounding the upcoming launch of Shibarium have further fueled attention towards SHIB and LEASH.

LEASH and Shiba Inu (SHIB) have gained attention as top-trending cryptocurrencies. The introduction of a new governance structure for the Shiba Inu ecosystem, along with discussions surrounding the potential launch of Shibarium, has contributed to the increased social dominance of SHIB and LEASH. These developments have sparked fresh interest in both tokens and are generating anticipation among cryptocurrency enthusiasts.

Read the original post:

"Shiba Inu and LEASH: The Rising Stars of Cryptocurrency" - Geeks World Wide

Cryptocurrencies have revolutionized the financial landscape, providing a decentralized and secure way to transfer value. Over the years, numerous cryptocurrencies have emerged, each with its unique features and potential. One such promising cryptocurrency that has been making waves in the market is Chia (XCH). In this article, we will explore the future of Chia and its potential impact on the cryptocurrency market. Join the ranks of successful crypto traders by leveraging the features and capabilities of Immediate Bitcoin, a reliable platform for achieving your trading goals.

Chia is a relatively new cryptocurrency that was introduced in 2021 by Bram Cohen, the creator of BitTorrent. Its main objective is to provide a more environmentally friendly alternative to traditional cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin. Unlike Bitcoin, which relies on energy-intensive mining processes, Chia employs a consensus mechanism known as proof-of-space and proof-of-time.

The Chia Network operates on a concept called farming, where users dedicate their unused hard drive space to participate in the network and secure the blockchain. This innovative approach has attracted attention due to its low energy consumption and reduced carbon footprint. As concerns regarding the environmental impact of cryptocurrencies continue to grow, Chia emerges as an appealing solution.

By leveraging the unused storage space on users hard drives, Chia eliminates the need for resource-intensive mining rigs and power-hungry computations. Instead, the network utilizes the available disk space to store cryptographic proofs, which are used to validate transactions and secure the Chia blockchain. This proof-of-space approach not only reduces energy consumption but also contributes to a more sustainable cryptocurrency ecosystem.

Furthermore, Chias proof-of-time mechanism complements the proof-of-space consensus. It introduces an element of time, ensuring that farmers have invested a certain duration of real-world time in their contribution to the network. This mechanism adds an additional layer of security and makes the Chia blockchain resistant to potential attacks.

With its environmentally friendly approach, Chia has gained attention from both cryptocurrency enthusiasts and individuals concerned about the ecological impact of digital currencies. It offers an alternative that aligns with the growing global focus on sustainability and energy efficiency.

It is worth noting that as Chia continues to develop and gain adoption, it is important to monitor and evaluate its impact on the environment. While it presents a promising solution to the energy consumption challenges associated with cryptocurrencies, ongoing research and assessment are crucial to ensure its long-term sustainability and environmental benefits.

One of the key factors driving the interest in Chia is its focus on environmental sustainability. With the increasing popularity of cryptocurrencies, concerns regarding their energy consumption have become more prevalent. Chias use of proof-of-space and proof-of-time consensus mechanism significantly reduces energy consumption compared to traditional mining. This makes Chia an attractive option for environmentally conscious investors and cryptocurrency enthusiasts.

Chias farming mechanism offers greater accessibility to a wider range of users. Unlike Bitcoin mining, which requires specialized and expensive hardware, Chia farming only requires unused hard drive space. This opens up the possibility of participation to a larger demographic, promoting inclusivity within the cryptocurrency space.

Chias unique approach to consensus mechanism ensures robust security and scalability. The proof-of-space and proof-of-time algorithm offers enhanced protection against potential attacks, making the network more resilient. Additionally, Chias scalability potential allows for efficient transactions, making it a viable option for day-to-day use.

Beyond its role as a digital currency, Chia has the potential to enable various innovative applications. Smart contracts, decentralized finance (DeFi), and secure data storage are just a few examples of the possibilities that Chia can unlock. With its sustainable and efficient infrastructure, Chia could foster the development of new decentralized applications, further expanding the cryptocurrency ecosystem.

As Chia gains traction in the cryptocurrency market, various businesses and organizations are starting to explore its potential. Partnerships and collaborations with established companies can accelerate Chias adoption and drive its value. These alliances can bring increased liquidity and stability to the Chia network, making it a compelling investment opportunity.

Chias unique approach to consensus mechanism, focus on environmental sustainability, and potential for diverse applications make it an intriguing cryptocurrency for the future. While it is still in its early stages, Chia has already captured the attention of investors and enthusiasts alike. Its eco-friendly nature, accessibility, and scalability set it apart from other cryptocurrencies, positioning it as a viable contender in the digital asset space.

As the cryptocurrency market continues to evolve, Chias impact and influence are expected to grow. Its potential to disrupt traditional financial systems and offer innovative solutions make it an asset to watch closely. The future of Chia holds promise, and its development and adoption will undoubtedly shape the cryptocurrency market in the years to come.

Like Loading...

See the article here:

The Future of Chia (XCH) and its Potential Impact on the ... - Tekedia

Its often said that the essence of wisdom in investing is diversification. In the world of cryptocurrencies, holding different coins in a single portfolio, often called a bag, can be a strategic move. In this article, we compare two hypothetical portfolios (Bag A and Bag B), each comprising three distinct cryptocurrencies, and predict their performances over a span of 3 years. Lets take a look at this cryptocurrency ROI prediction article.

Bag A contains Cardano (ADA), Ripple (XRP), and Bitcoin (BTC), while Bag B is made up of Ethereum (ETH), Shiba Inu (SHIB), and Litecoin (LTC).

Before we jump into future predictions, lets look at the current market prices:

We will use these prices as the basis for our calculations.

Before we proceed, its vital to remember that cryptocurrency markets are notoriously volatile, and predicting specific values can be challenging. The calculations provided here are hypothetical, based on past performance and current market trends, and should not be considered as financial advice.

Lets break down each cryptocurrency in Bag A with a starting investment of $1,000:

Cardano (ADA): At a current price of $0.286 per ADA, an investment of $1,000 would buy approximately 3496.50 ADA. A predicted growth of 300% over three years would increase the price to around $1.144 per ADA. This would give us a future value of 3496.50 ADA * $1.144 = $4,000.

Ripple (XRP): A $1,000 investment at the current XRP price of $0.4673 would buy approximately 2139.54 XRP. With a predicted growth of 200%, the price would rise to approximately $1.4019 per XRP. This gives us a future value of 2139.54 XRP * $1.4019 = $3,000.

Bitcoin (BTC): At the current BTC price of $30,132.95, a $1,000 investment would give us approximately 0.0332 BTC. A predicted growth of 100% would raise the price to around $60,265.90 per BTC. This results in a future value of 0.0332 BTC * $60,265.90 = $2,000.

The total future value of Bag A would be $4,000 (ADA) + $3,000 (XRP) + $2,000 (BTC) = $9,000. Subtracting the initial investment of $3,000 gives an overall profit of $6,000, which represents a 200% return on the original investment.

Lets conduct similar calculations for Bag B with a starting investment of $1,000 in each coin:

Ethereum (ETH): A $1,000 investment at the current price of $1,861.39 per ETH would give us approximately 0.537 ETH. With a predicted 200% increase, the price could rise to about $5,584.17 per ETH. This gives us a future value of 0.537 ETH * $5,584.17 = $3,000.

Shiba Inu (SHIB): At the current price of $0.000007625 per SHIB, $1,000 would buy approximately 131,062,500,000 SHIB. If SHIB were to increase by 500% over three years, the price would be around $0.00004575 per SHIB. This gives a future value of 131,062,500,000 SHIB * $0.00004575 = $6,000.

Litecoin (LTC): A $1,000 investment at the current LTC price of $93.75 would give us approximately 10.67 LTC. If LTC price were to increase by 100% to approximately $187.50, this would give us a future value of 10.67 LTC * $187.50 = $2,000.

The total future value of Bag B would be $3,000 (ETH) + $6,000 (SHIB) + $2,000 (LTC) = $11,000. Subtracting the initial investment of $3,000 gives an overall profit of $8,000. This represents a 267% return on the initial investment.

ROI is calculated as follows:

ROI = (Future Value Initial Investment) / Initial Investment * 100%

For ADA, XRP, and BTC, we have future values of $4,000, $3,000, and $2,000 respectively. Each of these started with an initial investment of $1,000.

The overall ROI for Bag A is an average of the individual ROIs:

(300% + 200% + 100%) / 3 = 200%

For ETH, SHIB, and LTC, we have future values of $3,000, $6,000, and $2,000 respectively. Each of these started with an initial investment of $1,000.

The overall ROI for Bag B is an average of the individual ROIs:

(200% + 500% + 100%) / 3 = 267%

Given these assumptions, Bag B provides a greater average ROI over the 3 year period, but its also important to remember that these predictions are highly speculative and dont account for the high volatility and risk associated with cryptocurrency investments.

Do you want to trade cryptocurrencies? ClickHEREto do so with eToro!

Based on these hypothetical predictions, Bag B (ETH, SHIB, LTC) appears to have a higher return potential over three years. However, its essential to remember that cryptocurrency investments are inherently risky and unpredictable. Careful analysis, diversified investments, and understanding the risk tolerance are key to navigating the crypto seas. Always do your own research or consult with a financial advisor before making investment decisions.

Read more:

Holding Pattern Showdown: Bag A vs Bag B A 3-Year ... - CryptoTicker.io - Bitcoin Price, Ethereum Price & Crypto News

Visitors walk outside the Supreme Court building on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., Feb. 21, 2022. Members of high court (inset) pose for a group photo Oct. 7, 2022 | Associated Press file photos, St. George News

OPINION In response to the recent Letter to the Editor published on St. George News about the proposed Judiciary Act, support for court packing shows a severe lack of comprehension regarding our Constitution and the separation of power.

The writer laments that current Supreme Court rulings do not reflect the will of the people. Perhaps the public education system needs to be teaching U.S. Government instead of gender theory, considering such a statement shows dangerous ignorance regarding checks, balances and the purpose of judicial review.

It is the elected representatives who make up Congress, the legislative branch, who are to write constitutional legislation that hopefully represents the will of the people. The system of checks and balances leaves it up to the judicial branch to interpret whether or not such legislation is constitutional. Obviously, not every act of central power is protected in our Constitution, nor should it be, considering such a stance is a slip n slide into federal tyranny.

The ideological issue is this: Conservatives are what are traditionally known to be strict constructionists, while liberals tend to be loose constructionists. That is to say, strict constructionists interpret the language of the Constitution within its historical context, intent and explicit language; while loose constructionists interpret the founding document arbitrarily and can be framed as relatively good for the country, even if the Constitution does not explicitly allow it.

Here is a fundamental issue with loose constructionists good is entirely subjective to personal values and social ideology. For example, one day, a loose constructionist court can determine that overpopulation is a threat to the prosperity of our Union and thus determine that it is good for Congress to enact legislation that would limit reproduction to state-approved families. Within the explicit context of the Constitution, there is no circumstance where a strict constructionist court would allow such tyranny.

Another issue is that liberals tend to believe that the central government has to be the solution to all problems, while conservatives believe that problems tend to exist because of personal choices, thus can be solved by personal choices. Conservatives believe you should turn to yourself, your family and your local community/charity before you look to the government to bail you out.

Regarding the writers statements regarding recent Supreme Court decisions: First, they claimed that the Supreme Court gutted voting rights. Since he or she never actually states what cases they are fear-mongering on, readers can only speculate the decisions in reference. Allen v. Milligan was decided in June of this year, which affirmed a lower court ruling that Alabamas congressional maps for 2020 likely violated the Voting Rights Act, thus requiring Alabama to redraw congressional maps by the 1st of October. If anything, this decision errs more to liberal favor. Personally, I think it is a terrifying precedent set that states must district according to racial demographics rather than statistically reviewed voting patterns.

Secondly, the writer complains about the court opening the floodgates to unlimited corporate money within our elections. This is another complaint that I am very confused as to what the writer is referring to. There is a 2010 case, Citizens United vs. FEC, where the court ruled that prohibiting corporate and union independent expenditures violated the First Amendment. The dissent in this case essentially wrote that the potential for taking bribes was far greater than the First Amendment.

If your fear is corruption, then we need to constantly hold our elected representatives up to ethical standards as citizens rather than infringe on First Amendment rights as a preventative measure for potential corruption. Dont expect the government to hold itself accountable. If you think your representatives are voting solely in the interests of corporate donors and not their constituents, vote them out. This is also why we have laws against taking bribes and we have ethical standards in Congress. The onus is on you, the constituency, to pay attention.

Thirdly, the writer whines about the courts overturning what is broadly referred to as gun safety laws. My assumption is that she is referencing the Bruen decision, which ruled that requiring a state-approved reason for wanting to conceal carry was unconstitutional. The wording in the 2nd amendment is very clear the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed. The use of the term militia also implies bearing arms extends to the public domain.

The New York law that was struck down required citizens to have proper cause to conceal carry. Shall-issue permitting requires applicants for firearms to satisfy objective criteria, such as a background check; the court did not take issue with this. What the court deemed unconstitutional was the may-issue policy that meant your right to arm yourself against tyranny was dependent on local authorities agreeing with your reason for wanting to own a gun.

Fourthly, regarding the Dobbs decision and the overturning of Roe v. Wade sending abortion back to the states the writers personal turmoil is simply a result of their social ideology and holds no constitutional weight. Abortion was loosely interpreted as a personal liberty when Roe was initially decided. When you disingenuously simplify abortion to merely the choice between parenthood or not, it is very easy to then view it as a personal liberty. However, when you are honest about the conversation, you realize abortion is not simply choosing to have children, but it is medically intervening in the life of ones own child who already exists in the womb.

The Constitution does not define liberty, and it would be negligent for the justices to use their own arbitrary feelings of what should be included in the word to define it for the country. They instead interpreted what the founding fathers meant when they wrote the Constitution, and to do so, they examined abortion in its historical context. Prior to Roe v Wade in 1973, abortion was overwhelmingly criminalized; such a pattern of criminalization shows that abortion was not considered essential to American liberty. To add to this, the Jackson Womens Health Organization attempted to prove that America had a pattern of allowing abortion prior to quickening before Roe as a way to show the historical context in allowing abortion.

What is quickening? It is approximately 15 weeks gestation when the mother can feel her son or daughter moving inside the womb. Think about this: why would quickening be the cut-off point for ending a pregnancy during a time when we lacked prenatal technology? It was the point in fetal development where mothers would objectively know that their childs life in the womb had begun. Considering modern technology, Jackson Womens Health Organization may have inadvertently provided the historical context that when human life begins has always been important to criminalizing abortion, thus laying the groundwork for broader abortion bans.

To be clear, the court did not ban abortion, it ruled that abortion is not constitutionally protected and thus should be left to the states.

With all things said, the Supreme Court is doing exactly what the founding fathers intended it to do interpret the meaning and constitutionality of legislation and federal power. Citizens should be scared for their rights when the court is full of loose constructionists who lack objectivity and arbitrarily decide what they think is relatively good for the public.

Submitted by MELANIE COX, St. George.

Letters to the Editor are not the product of St. George News, its editors, staff or news contributors. The matters stated and opinions given are the responsibility of the person submitting them. They do not reflect the product or opinion of St. George News and are given only light edit for technical style and formatting.

Letters to the Editor are received from the public and are not the product of St.George News, its editors, staff or contributors. The matters stated and opinions given are strictly the responsibility of the person submitting them; they do not reflect the product or opinion of St. George News. Letters to the Editor, op-eds, and other news matters may be submitted for consideration to St. George News via email to: [emailprotected]

View post:
Letter to the Editor: Packing the Supreme Court with liberals would undermine our Constitution - St George News