There are various ways to look for fraud but here is one recommendation.

Download all disbursements and group disbursements by vendor. Then group vendor payments around the same time frame (month, week, day, etc..) and look for payments that appear duplicative by seeing if one payment matches the sum of half the payments that period (month, week, day).

In my experience I’ve seen where people are aware of disbursement controls and disburse fragmented amounts with the same support to avoid approval requirements.

https://cryptonews.net/434967/?utm_source=CryptoNews&utm_medium=app&utm_campaign=shared

I’ve seen this point made a couple times and I always find it a helpful reminder. I play by the rules when I risk a couple bucks. I hope my DD is solid and that I’ll get a little lucky w timing when I click that buy button. I never know if I’m going to see green or red, it’s a FINANCIAL risk.

On the other hand, SHF/MM go in knowing full well how to print money. Mayo boy clearing $63,000,000 (after taxes) every single month is all you need to know. They have ZERO financial risk, that is not the game they’re playing. Their game is LEGAL. They are breaking every fucking law, obliterating fiduciary responsibility, colluding eg Citadel/RH Jan 27 emails, shutting off the buy button, blocking DRS… and they’re simply calculating how to mitigate their legal risk so they can keep their counterfeit/shell game/ponzi going.

UNTIL NOW.

They are now exposed legally AND financially. They’ve been dragged into deep waters they’re not comfortable in. Should be fun to see it all come to a head tomorrow, when MOASS launches.

Hey GG, keep up the great work, retail appreciates your advocacy on our behalf.

>JPMorgan Chase cannot provide assurance that the significant competition in the financial services industry will not materially and adversely affect its future results of operations.

>New competitors have emerged. For example, technological advances and the growth of e-commerce have made it possible for non-depository institutions to offer products and services that traditionally were banking products. These advances have also allowed financial institutions and other companies to provide electronic and internet-based financial solutions, including electronic securities trading, payment processing and online automated algorithmic-based investment advice. Furthermore, both financial institutions and their non-banking competitors face the risk that payment processing and other services could be disrupted by technologies, such as cryptocurrencies, that require no intermediation. New technologies have required and could require JPMorgan Chase to spend more to modify or adapt its products to attract and retain clients and customers or to match products and services offered by its competitors, including technology companies.

>Ongoing or increased competition may put downward pressure on prices and fees for JPMorgan Chase’s products and services or may cause JPMorgan Chase to lose market share. This competition may be on the basis of, among other factors, quality and variety of products and services offered, transaction execution, innovation, reputation and price. The failure of any of JPMorgan Chase’s businesses to meet the expectations of clients and customers, whether due to general market conditions or underperformance, could affect JPMorgan Chase’s ability to attract or retain clients and customers. Any such impact could, in turn, reduce JPMorgan Chase’s revenues. Increased competition also may require JPMorgan Chase to make additional capital investments in its businesses, or to extend more of its capital on behalf of its clients in order to remain competitive.

The above quote is from page 25 of this document (be warned that it is a very large document to open):

http://investor.shareholder.com/jpmorganchase/secfiling.cfm?filingID=19617-18-57&CIK=19617#CORP10K2017_HTM_S440D20F00AA0567AADC9B36846A275C5

Bank translation: "Oh no, we could be forced to innovate!"

The International Monetary Fund which is known in developing countries for its predatory lending practices has recently released a post about Crypto saying,

>Our analysis suggests that crypto assets are no longer on the fringe of the financial system. Given their relatively high volatility and valuations, their increased comovement could soon pose risks to financial stability especially in countries with widespread crypto adoption.

While another IMF post said,

>***“Cryptoization can reduce the ability of central banks to effectively implement monetary policy. It could also create financial stability risks.”***

What an awe-inspiring organization spreading awareness about financial freedom and economic stability and prosperity around the globe right? What can they possibly have against poor countries adopting Cryp-

Let's see...

• Intentionally pushing poor countries into recession
• Saddling countries with debt beyond what they can handle
• Pursuing debt trap policies
• Imposing tough economic austerity on developing countries during the Covid-19 pandemic
• Forcing countries to cut healthcare spending during the Covid-19 Pandemic
• Pressuring countries that try to get rid of Fiat
• Systematically making loans to countries as a means of influencing their policies
• Focusing on geopolitics to give loans instead of economics

The reason they are spreading so much bad PR about Crypto is they know that if more countries start adopting Crypto, their debt traps and their inflationary fiat financial system scam is bound to collapse. This organization intentionally has had countries devalue their currencies (so they can't repay loans as easily with their own currency), impose recessions, inflation and induce hardship among the populace.

TLDR: They should be ashamed of posting such bullshit when they are responsible for so

Been in this stock for 11 months now. Seen every bullshit diversion tactic the shills have thrown at us.

From god damn corn dogs, to "Silent Day" on the webull forums where they just wanted all Apes to shut up (so only shills could fill the forums with gloom)

It has been one trick after another from AMCX, to religious bots telling people to sell because that's what Jesus would do.

I dunno how many thousands of times I have seen "sell sell sell" or "Timber".

They have hit us with RUGPULL shills, people who say "This is going to happen on this day", which obviously never does.

There have been dozens of contrived "diversions" from the whole dog c0in thing to other lessor short squeezes

They have suspended accounts, flooded Youtubers with people talking about suicide, and even back in the beginning some GME researchers were getting threats.

I'm telling you this is another trick, whether it's a trick to influence price action or it's a trick to play a narrative in the media that everyone colluded or conspired, but a trick nonetheless.

Social media ‘echo chamber’ can help fuel volatility, report says

Stock-market volatility resulting from a surge in first-time investors who congregate on social media could pose a risk to the U.S. financial system, the Federal Reserve said in its biannual financial stability report released Monday.

The report noted that new trading platforms that offer zero-commission trading, fractional shares and flashy and engaging graphics have helped recruit a generation of young traders to the stock market, and the size of this new demographic makes it important for regulators to monitor.

“Social media can contribute to an echo chamber in which retail investors find themselves communicating most frequently with others with similar interests and views, thereby enforcing their views, even if these views are speculative or biased,” the report said.

The Fed reported that so far, wild swings in the prices of popular meme stocks, including GameStop Corp. GME, +2.53% and AMC Entertainment Holdings Inc. AMC, +8.06% have had a “limited” impact on financial stability so far, it is an area of the market that should be “monitored” because new, younger equity investors tend to have higher debt levels and often invest in options, two factors that could amplify losses in a downturn.

“Episodes of hightened risk appetite may continue to evolve with the interaction between social media and retailer investors may be difficult to predict,” the report warned. “A potentially destabilizing outcome could emerge if elevated risk appetite among retail investors retreats rapidly to more moderate levels.”

The Fed suggested that financial institutions calibrate for the potential increased volatility that the meme stock phenomenon could endanger and that “more frequent episodes of higher volatility may require further steps to ensure the resilience of the system.”

Other vulnerabilities to the financial system outlined in the report include high valuations for stocks and real estate, which remain elevated relative to corporate earnings and rents. The Fed noted, however, that “despite rising housing valuations, little evidence exists of deteriorating credit standards or highly leveraged investment activity in the housing market.”

On the positive side, businesses and households have seen their debt relative to income decline in recent months, as federal stimulus and a rapid recovery from the COVID-19 recession has helped bolster balance sheets.

The Fed also pointed to in

Ok, quick little analysis here Apes, to go into a bit of detail on what we ALL already know.

MSM spins shit.

Today we will be picking on Barrons.com with their Article titled:

Fed Says Meme Stocks Pose Risks to Financial Stability

Source:

https://www.barrons.com/articles/fed-meme-stocks-financial-stability-51636420320

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Before we jump in... take a second to Follow me on Twitter here: https://twitter.com/BadassTrader69

And check out some Youtube Videos I made here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCYjNfatgzl-TRm-ffNfnZdQ

Why am I begging for followers and views?

Because it means more people will see my content! Duh...

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ok, Paragraph 1. As a Journalist, this is their opportunity to try suck you into the article, so they are going to try and get the juicy stuff in before providing some background. Here's what Barron's had to say to try and draw in its readers:

>The Federal Reserve said stock market volatility linked to a surge in new investors who share tips on social media and invest in meme stocks could be a risk to the financial system, according to the central bank’s latest twice-yearly financial stability report.

The points to reference from this paragraph:

• Market Volatility LINKED to a surge in new investors could be a risk to the financial system
• And we share TIPS

Well lets take a look at this twice-yearly financial stability report shall we?

QUICK CTRL F for the word "Tips"

https://preview.redd.it/slmn6244nly71.png?width=413&format=png&auto=webp&s=2b9a85eaf2bb4ea8a4f0f0ac09ff7b44f188aceb

Hmm... NO RESULTS FOUND!! But how could that be MSM? You SAID they are sharing tips according to the FED???

Maybe it was just 1 Tip they shared was it?

(Insert just the tip jokes)

https://preview.redd.it/iibvfpj8nly71.png?width=414&format=png&auto=webp&s=dad004895dccc72cbf9e5251a245cba5857531db

Ahhh.... 6 results! NOW we are getting somewhere...

BUT WAIT... each o

It’s pretty cool the Financial Times references Ross Coulthart’s In Plain Sight to make their point that UAP carry portfolio risk.

Here’s the full article.

>News of the Omicron variant has over the last two weeks courted chaos in markets as prices have moved to account for the prospect of further economic closures. Even so, there was no broader financial meltdown.

>Omicron was a shock, but it wasn’t a total shock. This is because most investment professionals had factored the possibility of a new and disruptive variant derailing the global recovery firmly into their world view.

>As the late former US secretary of defence, Donald Rumsfeld, might have dubbed it, Omicron was a known unknown coming to light. Something we know we do not know. In this case the known was the risk of a new variant; the unknown how bad it would be or when it might emerge. For the most part that meant the risk could, at least to a certain degree, be modelled and accounted, for sparing markets the worst turmoil.

>Far more concerning for markets is the concept of unknown unknowns -- another Rumsfeldian classification. These are things we haven’t even imagined happening. “If one looks throughout the history of our country and other free countries, it is the latter category that tend to be the difficult ones,” Rumsfeld famously opined on the matter.

>Today’s known knowns and known unknowns include the continuing fallout from the Covid pandemic. They also include harder to define risks like a potential Western confrontation with either China or Russia. But none of these have the potential to jolt markets the way a major unknown unknown suddenly becoming a known unknown has.

>What’s curious, then, is the degree to which markets have thus far ignored what is becoming the transformation of one of the greatest unknown unknowns of all time into a known unknown.

>We are, of course, talking about the growing seriousness with which both Pentagon officials and Congress have starting taking the phenomenon of so-called Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) -- more colloquially known as UFOs.

>For markets, the important thing about these developments is the increasingly fervent admissions by high-level security officials that while the phenomena are real, they remain unexplainable even to the most sophisticated militaries in the world.

>The slow and steady release of official military footage of UAPs started earlier this year wh

To whom it may concern,

I have a thesis supported by evidence that systemically destabilizing risks currently exist in the US financial market. I am writing this open letter to call attention to these risks as the open exposure can result in catastrophic and uncontainable losses throughout the financial system. I have experience managing financial risk on an institutional level to give credibility to these claims. I am not a financial advisor. The rest of this letter will be describing a historical comparison to GME and certain dynamics of option trading in GME over the last two weeks. I will provide evidence substantiating my thesis and the supporting claims.

First, I would like to call attention to the history of Overstock (NASDAQ:OSTK). Similar to the recent trading in GME, over a decade ago OSTK was a heavily shorted stock with persistent failure to delivers (FTDs). OSTK was the target of manipulative and illegal short selling made possible by regulatory loopholes and abusive option trades known as "married puts" and "reverse conversions". Economist John Welborn of The Haverford Group published a detailed study on Oct 9, 2007 highlighting abuses of exceptions to SEC Reg SHO where deceptive trading deemed as bona-fide by market makers enabled "naked", unborrowed shorting of OSTK. Evidence is provided showing market makers engaged in non bona-fide speculation leaving open position exposure. This was made possible through married puts and reverse conversion trades. The study describes these trades as the following -

>" In a married put, a short seller purchases put options from an options market maker who then [naked] shorts the same amount of stock back to the short seller as a hedge. If the stock sold is not a threshold security, then the options market maker may fail and never deliver. A married put can be disguised as a market-neutral reverse conversion."

Over the last year, the trading in GME stock has had many similarities to the trading activity in OSTK between 2004-2007. These similarities include large and persistent FTDs, high short interest, and suspicious option trading likely tied to married put and reverse conversion trades. For instance, after Robinhood and other brokers took unprecedented action in January to restrict their customers ability to buy GME and other equities, public documents from class action lawsui

Most of us in the Air Force have at least a secret clearance. Some of us in the Air Force are looking at living in an RV or going on WIC because it has gotten twice as expensive to feed and house our dependents. It's been a while since I've furiously clicked through that dumb cyber awareness challenge, but I'm pretty sure there's an entire section in there on how financial stress is a major risk factor for insider threats. I wouldn't be surprised if there's someone out there who if a foreign intelligence agent offered $$$$ three years ago for some information, they'd tell them to fuck off, but if they got offered $$$$ now, they might at least entertain the idea.

Pretty sure there's a reason security clearances are so valuable on the outside.

EDIT: Just in case I need to make this clear, but I'm not telling people to go sell state secrets. Don't do that, it's bad.

Original question in previous comment: "Is now (after SGB price dump) a good time to get the loan from Flare Finance?"

Any time with a low SGB price is a decent time for starting the loan due to the low interest rate to start one, the delegator rewards when SGB is in a contract, and the dFLR from staked CAND getting you more SGB and CAND, which gets you more SGB anyway. Kind of like delayed increase in buying power by leveraging the loan. Those rewards offset the fact you cant mint as much CAND at a low price of SGB due to decreased buying power from the price being lower.

If you get the loan at a higher price, you get more CAND, but have to worry more about liquidation, and would have to make adjustments as the price changes

Here are my thoughts on how to view the overall opportunities when SGB is at a high price, intermediate price, and low price.

When the SGB price is super high: Your SGB is most powerful and gets you the most CAND, so is a decent time to get a loan initially. CAND is best to be in if you think the SGB price will go down, since it will retain its value and allow you to trade it for more SGB if the price drops. And while you wait for the price to drop, it can be staked to earn more value in other assets (WSGB, dFLR, CAND and SGB from dFLR).

Technically, if you think SGB got pumped to a bubble, with a super high price and is about to crash hard, you may want to just exhange directly from SGB to CAND without doing the loan since youre at highest risk of a major price drop which could liquedate you, losing all collateral.

That being said, having the loan collateral, on top of the equivalent CAND value you mint, is a major advantage if you dont expect a high risk of liquedation. Having the loan, to then have the collateral WSGB, is beneficial as youd still get delegator rewards from the collateral, which you wouldnt if you just directly exchange SGB for CAND on FlareX.

When you think the SGB price is high: Liquidity pool is prolly the most rewarding, since you have to have both CAND and SGB to get LP tokens, and it forces you to exchange SGB for CAND which would retain its value during a price drop. Then the LP tokens get you more dFLR to stake, and if SGB price drops, you have the opportunity to pull LP tokens out. If you did, you can then exchange the LP tokens for CAND and SGB, but itll be more SGB than you put in originally, since the lower SGB price means you get more of them back out. Conversely if the price of SGB rises a

>JPMorgan Chase cannot provide assurance that the significant competition in the financial services industry will not materially and adversely affect its future results of operations.

>New competitors have emerged. For example, technological advances and the growth of e-commerce have made it possible for non-depository institutions to offer products and services that traditionally were banking products. These advances have also allowed financial institutions and other companies to provide electronic and internet-based financial solutions, including electronic securities trading, payment processing and online automated algorithmic-based investment advice. Furthermore, both financial institutions and their non-banking competitors face the risk that payment processing and other services could be disrupted by technologies, such as cryptocurrencies, that require no intermediation. New technologies have required and could require JPMorgan Chase to spend more to modify or adapt its products to attract and retain clients and customers or to match products and services offered by its competitors, including technology companies.

>Ongoing or increased competition may put downward pressure on prices and fees for JPMorgan Chase’s products and services or may cause JPMorgan Chase to lose market share. This competition may be on the basis of, among other factors, quality and variety of products and services offered, transaction execution, innovation, reputation and price. The failure of any of JPMorgan Chase’s businesses to meet the expectations of clients and customers, whether due to general market conditions or underperformance, could affect JPMorgan Chase’s ability to attract or retain clients and customers. Any such impact could, in turn, reduce JPMorgan Chase’s revenues. Increased competition also may require JPMorgan Chase to make additional capital investments in its businesses, or to extend more of its capital on behalf of its clients in order to remain competitive.

The above quote is from page 25 of this document (be warned that it is a very large document to open):

http://investor.shareholder.com/jpmorganchase/secfiling.cfm?filingID=19617-18-57&CIK=19617#CORP10K2017_HTM_S440D20F00AA0567AADC9B36846A275C5

Bank translation: "Oh no, we could be forced to innovate!"