• The U.S. government is poised to withdraw longstanding warnings about cholesterol
    Peter Whoriskey

    Time to put eggs back on the menu? (Deb Lindsey for The Washington Post)
    The nation’s top nutrition advisory panel has decided to drop its caution about eating cholesterol-laden food, a move that could undo almost 40 years of government warnings about its consumption.

    The group’s finding that cholesterol in the diet need no longer be considered a “nutrient of concern” stands in contrast to the committee’s findings five years ago, the last time it convened. During those proceedings, as in previous years, the panel deemed the issue of excess cholesterol in the American diet a public health concern.

    The finding follows an evolution of thinking among many nutritionists who now believe that, for healthy adults, eating foods high in cholesterol may not significantly affect the level of cholesterol in the blood or increase the risk of heart disease.

    Story continues below advertisement

    The greater danger in this regard, these experts believe, lies not in products such as eggs, shrimp or lobster, which are high in cholesterol, but in too many servings of foods heavy with saturated fats, such as fatty meats, whole milk, and butter.

    [Scientists have figured out what makes Indian food so delicious]

    The new view on cholesterol in food does not reverse warnings about high levels of “bad” cholesterol in the blood, which have been linked to heart disease. Moreover, some experts warned that people with particular health problems, such as diabetes, should continue to avoid cholesterol-rich diets.

    While Americans may be accustomed to conflicting dietary advice, the change on cholesterol comes from the influential Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, the group that provides the scientific basis for the “Dietary Guidelines.” That federal publication has broad effects on the American diet, helping to determine the content of school lunches, affecting how food manufacturers advertise their wares, and serving as the foundation for reams of diet advice.

    Story continues below advertisement

    The panel laid out the cholesterol decision in December, at its last meeting before it writes a report that will serve as the basis for the next version of the guidelines. A video of the meeting was later posted online and a person with direct knowledge of the proceedings said the cholesterol finding would make it to the group’s final report, which is due within weeks.

    After Marian Neuhouser, chair of the relevant subcommittee, announced the decision to the panel at the December meeting, one panelist appeared to bridle.

    “So we’re not making a [cholesterol] recommendation?” panel member Miriam Nelson, a Tufts University professor, said at the meeting as if trying to absorb the thought. “Okay ... Bummer.”

    Story continues below advertisement

    Members of the panel, called the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, said they would not comment until the publication of their report, which will be filed with the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Agriculture.

    [Here’s what the government’s dietary guidelines should really say]

    While those agencies could ignore the committee’s recommendations, major deviations are not common, experts said.

    Five years ago, “I don’t think the Dietary Guidelines diverged from the committee’s report,” said Naomi K. Fukagawa, a University of Vermont professor who served as the committee’s vice chair in 2010. Fukagawa said she supports the change on cholesterol.

    Story continues below advertisement

    Walter Willett, chair of the nutrition department at the Harvard School of Public Health, also called the turnaround on cholesterol a “reasonable move.”

    “There’s been a shift of thinking,” he said.

    But the change on dietary cholesterol also shows how the complexity of nutrition science and the lack of definitive research can contribute to confusion for Americans who, while seeking guidance on what to eat, often find themselves afloat in conflicting advice.

    Cholesterol has been a fixture in dietary warnings in the United States at least since 1961, when it appeared in guidelines developed by the American Heart Association. Later adopted by the federal government, such warnings helped shift eating habits -- per capita egg consumption dropped about 30 percent -- and harmed egg farmers.

    Story continues below advertisement

    Yet even today, after more than a century of scientific inquiry, scientists are divided.

    Some nutritionists said lifting the cholesterol warning is long overdue, noting that the United States is out-of-step with other countries, where diet guidelines do not single out cholesterol. Others support maintaining a warning.

    The forthcoming version of the Dietary Guidelines -- the document is revised every five years -- is expected to navigate myriad similar controversies. Among them: salt, red meat, sugar, saturated fats and the latest darling of food-makers, Omega-3s.

    As with cholesterol, the dietary panel’s advice on these issues will be used by the federal bureaucrats to draft the new guidelines, which offer Americans clear instructions -- and sometimes very specific, down-to-the-milligram prescriptions. But such precision can mask sometimes tumultuous debates about nutrition.

    Story continues below advertisement

    “Almost every single nutrient imaginable has peer reviewed publications associating it with almost any outcome,” John P.A. Ioannidis, a professor of medicine and statistics at Stanford and one of the harshest critics of nutritional science, has written. “In this literature of epidemic proportions, how many results are correct?”

    Now comes the shift on cholesterol.

    Even as contrary evidence has emerged over the years, the campaign against dietary cholesterol has continued. In 1994, food-makers were required to report cholesterol values on the nutrition label. In 2010, with the publication of the most recent “Dietary Guidelines,” the experts again focused on the problem of "excess dietary cholesterol."

    Story continues below advertisement

    Yet many have viewed the evidence against cholesterol as weak, at best. As late as 2013, a task force arranged by the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association looked at the dietary cholesterol studies. The group found that there was “insufficient evidence” to make a recommendation. Many of the studies that had been done, the task force said, were too broad to single out cholesterol.

    “Looking back at the literature, we just couldn’t see the kind of science that would support dietary restrictions,” said Robert Eckel, the co-chair of the task force and a medical professor at the University of Colorado.

    The current U.S. guidelines call for restricting cholesterol intake to 300 milligrams daily. American adult men on average ingest about 340 milligrams of cholesterol a day, according to federal figures. That recommended figure of 300 milligrams, Eckel said, is " just one of those things that gets carried forward and carried forward even though the evidence is minimal.”

    Story continues below advertisement

    "We just don't know," he said.

    Other major studies have indicated that eating an egg a day does not raise a healthy person’s risk of heart disease, though diabetic patients may be at more risk.

    “The U.S. is the last country in the world to set a specific limit on dietary cholesterol,” said David Klurfeld, a nutrition scientist at the U.S. Department of Agriculture. “Some of it is scientific inertia.”

    The persistence of the cholesterol fear may arise, in part, from the plausibility of its danger.

    As far back as the 19th century, scientists recognized that the plaque that clogged arteries consisted, in part, of cholesterol, according to historians.

    It would have seemed logical, then, that a diet that is high in cholesterol would wind up clogging arteries.

    In 1913, Niokolai Anitschkov and his colleagues at the Czar’s Military Medicine Institute in St. Petersburg, decided to try it out in rabbits. The group fed cholesterol to rabbits for about four to eight weeks and saw that the cholesterol diet harmed them. They figured they were on to something big.

    “It often happens in the history of science that researchers ... obtain results which require us to view scientific questions in a new light,” he and a colleague wrote in their 1913 paper.

    But it wasn’t until the 1940s, when heart disease was rising in the United States, that the dangers of a cholesterol diet for humans would come more sharply into focus.

    Experiments in biology, as well as other studies that followed the diets of large populations, seemed to link high cholesterol diets to heart disease.

    Public warnings soon followed. In 1961, the American Heart Association recommended that people reduce cholesterol consumption and eventually set a limit of 300 milligrams a day. (For comparison, the yolk of a single egg has about 200 milligrams.)

    Eventually, the idea that cholesterol is harmful so permeated the country's consciousness that marketers advertised their foods on the basis of "no cholesterol."

    What Anitschkov and the other early scientists may not have foreseen is how complicated the science of cholesterol and heart disease could turn out: that the body creates cholesterol in amounts much larger than their diet provides, that the body regulates how much is in the blood and that there is both “good” and “bad” cholesterol.

    Adding to the complexity, the way people process cholesterol differs. Scientists say some people -- about 25 percent -- appear to be more vulnerable to cholesterol-rich diets.

    “It’s turned out to be more complicated than anyone could have known,” said Lawrence Rudel, a professor at the Wake Forest University School of Medicine.

    As a graduate student at the University of Arkansas in the late 1960s, Rudel came across Anitschkov’s paper and decided to focus on understanding one of its curiosities. In passing, the paper noted that while the cholesterol diet harmed rabbits, it had no effect on white rats. In fact, if Anitschkov had focused on any other animal besides the rabbit, the effects wouldn't have been so clear -- rabbits are unusually vulnerable to the high-cholesterol diet.

    “The reason for the difference -- why does one animal fall apart on the cholesterol diet -- seemed like something that could be figured out,” Rudel said. “That was 40 or so years ago. We still don’t know what explains the difference.”

    In truth, scientists have made some progress. Rudel and his colleagues have been able to breed squirrel monkeys that are more vulnerable to the cholesterol diet. That and other evidence leads to their belief that for some people -- as for the squirrel monkeys -- genetics are to blame.

    Rudel said that Americans should still be warned about cholesterol.

    “Eggs are a nearly perfect food, but cholesterol is a potential bad guy,” he said. “Eating too much a day won’t harm everyone, but it will harm some people.”

    Scientists have estimated that, even without counting the toll from obesity, disease related to poor eating habits kills more than half a million people every year. That toll is often used as an argument for more research in nutrition.

    Currently, the National Institutes of Health spends about $1.5 billion annually on nutrition research, an amount that represents about 5 percent of its total budget.

    The turnaround on cholesterol, some critics say, is just more evidence that nutrition science needs more investment.

    Others, however, say the reversal might be seen as a sign of progress.

    “These reversals in the field do make us wonder and scratch our heads,” said David Allison, a public health professor at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. “But in science, change is normal and expected.”

    When our view of the cosmos shifted from Ptolemy to Copernicus to Newton and Einstein, Allison said, “the reaction was not to say, ‘Oh my gosh, something is wrong with physics!’ We say, ‘Oh my gosh, isn’t this cool?’ ”

    Allison said the problem in nutrition stems from the arrogance that sometimes accompanies dietary advice. A little humility could go a long way.

    “Where nutrition has some trouble,” he said, “is all the confidence and vitriol and moralism that goes along with our recommendations.”

    Did the government’s dietary guidelines help make us fat?

    A local's guide to Mumbai, India

    5 simple Indian recipes to make at home

    Scientists have figured out what makes Indian food so delicious

    Ghee has been an Indian staple for millennia. Now the rest of the world is catching on.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/02/10/feds-poised-to-withdraw-longstanding-warnings-about-dietary-cholesterol/?utm_term=.1982832f86fa
    The U.S. government is poised to withdraw longstanding warnings about cholesterol Peter Whoriskey Time to put eggs back on the menu? (Deb Lindsey for The Washington Post) The nation’s top nutrition advisory panel has decided to drop its caution about eating cholesterol-laden food, a move that could undo almost 40 years of government warnings about its consumption. The group’s finding that cholesterol in the diet need no longer be considered a “nutrient of concern” stands in contrast to the committee’s findings five years ago, the last time it convened. During those proceedings, as in previous years, the panel deemed the issue of excess cholesterol in the American diet a public health concern. The finding follows an evolution of thinking among many nutritionists who now believe that, for healthy adults, eating foods high in cholesterol may not significantly affect the level of cholesterol in the blood or increase the risk of heart disease. Story continues below advertisement The greater danger in this regard, these experts believe, lies not in products such as eggs, shrimp or lobster, which are high in cholesterol, but in too many servings of foods heavy with saturated fats, such as fatty meats, whole milk, and butter. [Scientists have figured out what makes Indian food so delicious] The new view on cholesterol in food does not reverse warnings about high levels of “bad” cholesterol in the blood, which have been linked to heart disease. Moreover, some experts warned that people with particular health problems, such as diabetes, should continue to avoid cholesterol-rich diets. While Americans may be accustomed to conflicting dietary advice, the change on cholesterol comes from the influential Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, the group that provides the scientific basis for the “Dietary Guidelines.” That federal publication has broad effects on the American diet, helping to determine the content of school lunches, affecting how food manufacturers advertise their wares, and serving as the foundation for reams of diet advice. Story continues below advertisement The panel laid out the cholesterol decision in December, at its last meeting before it writes a report that will serve as the basis for the next version of the guidelines. A video of the meeting was later posted online and a person with direct knowledge of the proceedings said the cholesterol finding would make it to the group’s final report, which is due within weeks. After Marian Neuhouser, chair of the relevant subcommittee, announced the decision to the panel at the December meeting, one panelist appeared to bridle. “So we’re not making a [cholesterol] recommendation?” panel member Miriam Nelson, a Tufts University professor, said at the meeting as if trying to absorb the thought. “Okay ... Bummer.” Story continues below advertisement Members of the panel, called the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, said they would not comment until the publication of their report, which will be filed with the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Agriculture. [Here’s what the government’s dietary guidelines should really say] While those agencies could ignore the committee’s recommendations, major deviations are not common, experts said. Five years ago, “I don’t think the Dietary Guidelines diverged from the committee’s report,” said Naomi K. Fukagawa, a University of Vermont professor who served as the committee’s vice chair in 2010. Fukagawa said she supports the change on cholesterol. Story continues below advertisement Walter Willett, chair of the nutrition department at the Harvard School of Public Health, also called the turnaround on cholesterol a “reasonable move.” “There’s been a shift of thinking,” he said. But the change on dietary cholesterol also shows how the complexity of nutrition science and the lack of definitive research can contribute to confusion for Americans who, while seeking guidance on what to eat, often find themselves afloat in conflicting advice. Cholesterol has been a fixture in dietary warnings in the United States at least since 1961, when it appeared in guidelines developed by the American Heart Association. Later adopted by the federal government, such warnings helped shift eating habits -- per capita egg consumption dropped about 30 percent -- and harmed egg farmers. Story continues below advertisement Yet even today, after more than a century of scientific inquiry, scientists are divided. Some nutritionists said lifting the cholesterol warning is long overdue, noting that the United States is out-of-step with other countries, where diet guidelines do not single out cholesterol. Others support maintaining a warning. The forthcoming version of the Dietary Guidelines -- the document is revised every five years -- is expected to navigate myriad similar controversies. Among them: salt, red meat, sugar, saturated fats and the latest darling of food-makers, Omega-3s. As with cholesterol, the dietary panel’s advice on these issues will be used by the federal bureaucrats to draft the new guidelines, which offer Americans clear instructions -- and sometimes very specific, down-to-the-milligram prescriptions. But such precision can mask sometimes tumultuous debates about nutrition. Story continues below advertisement “Almost every single nutrient imaginable has peer reviewed publications associating it with almost any outcome,” John P.A. Ioannidis, a professor of medicine and statistics at Stanford and one of the harshest critics of nutritional science, has written. “In this literature of epidemic proportions, how many results are correct?” Now comes the shift on cholesterol. Even as contrary evidence has emerged over the years, the campaign against dietary cholesterol has continued. In 1994, food-makers were required to report cholesterol values on the nutrition label. In 2010, with the publication of the most recent “Dietary Guidelines,” the experts again focused on the problem of "excess dietary cholesterol." Story continues below advertisement Yet many have viewed the evidence against cholesterol as weak, at best. As late as 2013, a task force arranged by the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association looked at the dietary cholesterol studies. The group found that there was “insufficient evidence” to make a recommendation. Many of the studies that had been done, the task force said, were too broad to single out cholesterol. “Looking back at the literature, we just couldn’t see the kind of science that would support dietary restrictions,” said Robert Eckel, the co-chair of the task force and a medical professor at the University of Colorado. The current U.S. guidelines call for restricting cholesterol intake to 300 milligrams daily. American adult men on average ingest about 340 milligrams of cholesterol a day, according to federal figures. That recommended figure of 300 milligrams, Eckel said, is " just one of those things that gets carried forward and carried forward even though the evidence is minimal.” Story continues below advertisement "We just don't know," he said. Other major studies have indicated that eating an egg a day does not raise a healthy person’s risk of heart disease, though diabetic patients may be at more risk. “The U.S. is the last country in the world to set a specific limit on dietary cholesterol,” said David Klurfeld, a nutrition scientist at the U.S. Department of Agriculture. “Some of it is scientific inertia.” The persistence of the cholesterol fear may arise, in part, from the plausibility of its danger. As far back as the 19th century, scientists recognized that the plaque that clogged arteries consisted, in part, of cholesterol, according to historians. It would have seemed logical, then, that a diet that is high in cholesterol would wind up clogging arteries. In 1913, Niokolai Anitschkov and his colleagues at the Czar’s Military Medicine Institute in St. Petersburg, decided to try it out in rabbits. The group fed cholesterol to rabbits for about four to eight weeks and saw that the cholesterol diet harmed them. They figured they were on to something big. “It often happens in the history of science that researchers ... obtain results which require us to view scientific questions in a new light,” he and a colleague wrote in their 1913 paper. But it wasn’t until the 1940s, when heart disease was rising in the United States, that the dangers of a cholesterol diet for humans would come more sharply into focus. Experiments in biology, as well as other studies that followed the diets of large populations, seemed to link high cholesterol diets to heart disease. Public warnings soon followed. In 1961, the American Heart Association recommended that people reduce cholesterol consumption and eventually set a limit of 300 milligrams a day. (For comparison, the yolk of a single egg has about 200 milligrams.) Eventually, the idea that cholesterol is harmful so permeated the country's consciousness that marketers advertised their foods on the basis of "no cholesterol." What Anitschkov and the other early scientists may not have foreseen is how complicated the science of cholesterol and heart disease could turn out: that the body creates cholesterol in amounts much larger than their diet provides, that the body regulates how much is in the blood and that there is both “good” and “bad” cholesterol. Adding to the complexity, the way people process cholesterol differs. Scientists say some people -- about 25 percent -- appear to be more vulnerable to cholesterol-rich diets. “It’s turned out to be more complicated than anyone could have known,” said Lawrence Rudel, a professor at the Wake Forest University School of Medicine. As a graduate student at the University of Arkansas in the late 1960s, Rudel came across Anitschkov’s paper and decided to focus on understanding one of its curiosities. In passing, the paper noted that while the cholesterol diet harmed rabbits, it had no effect on white rats. In fact, if Anitschkov had focused on any other animal besides the rabbit, the effects wouldn't have been so clear -- rabbits are unusually vulnerable to the high-cholesterol diet. “The reason for the difference -- why does one animal fall apart on the cholesterol diet -- seemed like something that could be figured out,” Rudel said. “That was 40 or so years ago. We still don’t know what explains the difference.” In truth, scientists have made some progress. Rudel and his colleagues have been able to breed squirrel monkeys that are more vulnerable to the cholesterol diet. That and other evidence leads to their belief that for some people -- as for the squirrel monkeys -- genetics are to blame. Rudel said that Americans should still be warned about cholesterol. “Eggs are a nearly perfect food, but cholesterol is a potential bad guy,” he said. “Eating too much a day won’t harm everyone, but it will harm some people.” Scientists have estimated that, even without counting the toll from obesity, disease related to poor eating habits kills more than half a million people every year. That toll is often used as an argument for more research in nutrition. Currently, the National Institutes of Health spends about $1.5 billion annually on nutrition research, an amount that represents about 5 percent of its total budget. The turnaround on cholesterol, some critics say, is just more evidence that nutrition science needs more investment. Others, however, say the reversal might be seen as a sign of progress. “These reversals in the field do make us wonder and scratch our heads,” said David Allison, a public health professor at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. “But in science, change is normal and expected.” When our view of the cosmos shifted from Ptolemy to Copernicus to Newton and Einstein, Allison said, “the reaction was not to say, ‘Oh my gosh, something is wrong with physics!’ We say, ‘Oh my gosh, isn’t this cool?’ ” Allison said the problem in nutrition stems from the arrogance that sometimes accompanies dietary advice. A little humility could go a long way. “Where nutrition has some trouble,” he said, “is all the confidence and vitriol and moralism that goes along with our recommendations.” Did the government’s dietary guidelines help make us fat? A local's guide to Mumbai, India 5 simple Indian recipes to make at home Scientists have figured out what makes Indian food so delicious Ghee has been an Indian staple for millennia. Now the rest of the world is catching on. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/02/10/feds-poised-to-withdraw-longstanding-warnings-about-dietary-cholesterol/?utm_term=.1982832f86fa
    Like
    1
    1 Yorumlar 0 hisse senetleri 12797 Views
  • A long #overdue video of JED's time at Twycross Zoo ???? ???? ????????
    We hope that with watching this humble video you'll feel like you are a part of our little family as we tour around the Zoo ????
    You can watch it as well at our #SoMeePlay Channel #JEDiaries. JED is currently exploring (having talks) the possibilities of vlogging but as you can see part of exploring is the #learningphase. Although we use other apps for creating and editing videos JED will always be a #HomeGrown SoMeeian
    A long #overdue video of JED's time at Twycross Zoo ???? ???? ???????? We hope that with watching this humble video you'll feel like you are a part of our little family as we tour around the Zoo ???? You can watch it as well at our #SoMeePlay Channel #JEDiaries. JED is currently exploring (having talks) the possibilities of vlogging but as you can see part of exploring is the #learningphase. Although we use other apps for creating and editing videos JED will always be a #HomeGrown SoMeeian
    Like
    Love
    11
    5 Yorumlar 0 hisse senetleri 3916 Views 30
  • ![05-pexels-anna-tarazevich-5697256-Scam.jpg](https://files.peakd.com/file/peakd-hive/rzc24-nftbbg/23tGW1f33WQKD7oX9r3sgLiva9b6MrT1cqwNRtBctGRNge7y8r7d43VjFDn9wsM9TKW4p.jpg)
    [Photo Credit](https://www.pexels.com/photo/scam-alert-letting-text-on-black-background-5697256/)
    This is an overdue article. Not completing it, I will consider it a waste of time.
    Yesterday, after listening to @neopch uploaded video, I made some notes thinking to write later about the points raised in the HBD scam “debate.” Unfortunately, I got distracted by many concerns in the Business Office, such as the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) penalty and the need to apply for amnesty to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).
    Listening to TCMD’s voice reminds me of a conversation with a friend a week ago. He shared with me that he invested his money in a government investment tool with a 6 to 7% annual return. Though I did not mention HBD, I mentioned the possibility of a saving with 20% interest rate. As an accountant by profession, his immediate response is that such a thing doesn’t exist. And so, I did not pursue the conversation for he might misinterpret me as pushing a “scam.”
    Hearing the word “scam” associated with any project out there is sufficient enough for anyone to close his mind to take a serious look at that particular project. At this point, I think many have already heard such a heavy word used to describe HBD. The fact that HBD has a 20% APR is considered a red flag.
    TCMD raised several points. One of them is clarifying the distinction between the contention that HBD is a scam from the question of the sustainability of the 20% APR and the feared “red flag.”
    Perhaps, the critics are thinking that HBD giving 20% APR qualifies it as a scam. For TCMD, the response to the scam allegation is clear. Only those who know nothing about Hive will insist that HBD is a scam.
    Turning to the other questions whether the 20% APR makes a project a scam or unsustainable, we need a different response. Another point that TCMD emphasized is that no single individual or any centralized entity made the decision to come up with such a high-interest rate. In fact, he mentioned that he favored the more conservative 12%.
    And so, it was the community that made the decision to increase the APR of HBD to 20%. Another surprising idea I heard is about a proposal to increase the interest to 30%. We don’t know if this will pass the polling process or when will it be implemented. Perhaps, once such an increase is made, the voice of those who accuse HBD of a scam will get even louder.
    Another interesting insight mentioned in the video is that the history of the market price of HBD is usually over the peg rather than under the peg of $1.00 worth of HIVE. Given that the token has a seven-year history (as far as the technology behind is concerned) and many digital applications are developed as well as the growing number of in-person economies utilizing the token, the fear that it might follow the footstep of LUNA is unlikely to happen. Perhaps, if no projects are being built on top of Hive, such dreaded crash may be justified.
    Lastly, TCMD mentioned that looking back at the history of the price of the token, the typical swing is between 10% to 20%. Yes, no one can say for sure about the future direction of the price of the token, but if I will bet between crashing and price appreciation, I think the facts support the latter. T
    So that’s all I’ve learned from listening to the video uploaded by @neopch. Thanks!
    Finally, I was able to complete this article and I feel satisfied somehow.
    Grace and peace!
    What is Hive
    What is LeoFinance?
    ![05-pexels-anna-tarazevich-5697256-Scam.jpg](https://files.peakd.com/file/peakd-hive/rzc24-nftbbg/23tGW1f33WQKD7oX9r3sgLiva9b6MrT1cqwNRtBctGRNge7y8r7d43VjFDn9wsM9TKW4p.jpg) [Photo Credit](https://www.pexels.com/photo/scam-alert-letting-text-on-black-background-5697256/) This is an overdue article. Not completing it, I will consider it a waste of time. Yesterday, after listening to @neopch uploaded video, I made some notes thinking to write later about the points raised in the HBD scam “debate.” Unfortunately, I got distracted by many concerns in the Business Office, such as the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) penalty and the need to apply for amnesty to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Listening to TCMD’s voice reminds me of a conversation with a friend a week ago. He shared with me that he invested his money in a government investment tool with a 6 to 7% annual return. Though I did not mention HBD, I mentioned the possibility of a saving with 20% interest rate. As an accountant by profession, his immediate response is that such a thing doesn’t exist. And so, I did not pursue the conversation for he might misinterpret me as pushing a “scam.” Hearing the word “scam” associated with any project out there is sufficient enough for anyone to close his mind to take a serious look at that particular project. At this point, I think many have already heard such a heavy word used to describe HBD. The fact that HBD has a 20% APR is considered a red flag. TCMD raised several points. One of them is clarifying the distinction between the contention that HBD is a scam from the question of the sustainability of the 20% APR and the feared “red flag.” Perhaps, the critics are thinking that HBD giving 20% APR qualifies it as a scam. For TCMD, the response to the scam allegation is clear. Only those who know nothing about Hive will insist that HBD is a scam. Turning to the other questions whether the 20% APR makes a project a scam or unsustainable, we need a different response. Another point that TCMD emphasized is that no single individual or any centralized entity made the decision to come up with such a high-interest rate. In fact, he mentioned that he favored the more conservative 12%. And so, it was the community that made the decision to increase the APR of HBD to 20%. Another surprising idea I heard is about a proposal to increase the interest to 30%. We don’t know if this will pass the polling process or when will it be implemented. Perhaps, once such an increase is made, the voice of those who accuse HBD of a scam will get even louder. Another interesting insight mentioned in the video is that the history of the market price of HBD is usually over the peg rather than under the peg of $1.00 worth of HIVE. Given that the token has a seven-year history (as far as the technology behind is concerned) and many digital applications are developed as well as the growing number of in-person economies utilizing the token, the fear that it might follow the footstep of LUNA is unlikely to happen. Perhaps, if no projects are being built on top of Hive, such dreaded crash may be justified. Lastly, TCMD mentioned that looking back at the history of the price of the token, the typical swing is between 10% to 20%. Yes, no one can say for sure about the future direction of the price of the token, but if I will bet between crashing and price appreciation, I think the facts support the latter. T So that’s all I’ve learned from listening to the video uploaded by @neopch. Thanks! Finally, I was able to complete this article and I feel satisfied somehow. Grace and peace! What is Hive What is LeoFinance?
    Like
    3
    0 Yorumlar 0 hisse senetleri 4151 Views
  • Coinbase Sues SEC Seeking Clarity for the U.S. Crypto Sector. Coinbase Chief Legal Officer Paul Grewal said the company had filed a “direct action” in federal court. The move is intended to compel the SEC to respond yes or no to Coinbase's pending regulatory petition. Coinbase filed the petition in July 2022, asking the SEC to provide overdue guidance to the cryptocurrency industry.
    Coinbase Sues SEC Seeking Clarity for the U.S. Crypto Sector. Coinbase Chief Legal Officer Paul Grewal said the company had filed a “direct action” in federal court. The move is intended to compel the SEC to respond yes or no to Coinbase's pending regulatory petition. Coinbase filed the petition in July 2022, asking the SEC to provide overdue guidance to the cryptocurrency industry.
    Like
    9
    0 Yorumlar 0 hisse senetleri 1554 Views
  • Why is the U.S. economy suddenly deteriorating so rapidly all around us? Well, the short answer is that this downturn is way overdue. But there's more...
    Why is the U.S. economy suddenly deteriorating so rapidly all around us? Well, the short answer is that this downturn is way overdue. But there's more...
    WWW.ACTIVISTPOST.COM
    Brace Yourself For Extreme Economic Turbulence - Activist Post
    One of the most prominent subprime auto lenders in the entire country has just collapsed. Then there is what is happening in the UK...
    Like
    3
    0 Yorumlar 0 hisse senetleri 681 Views
  • The words of Andrew Griffith, member of the UK Parliament and HM Treasury Economic Secretary, about stablecoin:

    "A stablecoin will likely serve as a 'first use case of what is likely to be a wholesale settlement coin' in the 'long runtime' leading up to the potential introduction of a central bank digital currency (CBDC)."

    He also added that removing the banks as intermediaries, "certainly at the current evolution of the market, feels very premature."

    Really? Premature or long overdue?


    https://cointelegraph.com/news/uk-mp-says-stablecoin-is-a-gateway-to-cbdc-only-crypto-can-disrupt-settlements

    #someeofficial
    The words of Andrew Griffith, member of the UK Parliament and HM Treasury Economic Secretary, about stablecoin: "A stablecoin will likely serve as a 'first use case of what is likely to be a wholesale settlement coin' in the 'long runtime' leading up to the potential introduction of a central bank digital currency (CBDC)." He also added that removing the banks as intermediaries, "certainly at the current evolution of the market, feels very premature." Really? Premature or long overdue? https://cointelegraph.com/news/uk-mp-says-stablecoin-is-a-gateway-to-cbdc-only-crypto-can-disrupt-settlements #someeofficial
    COINTELEGRAPH.COM
    UK MP says stablecoin is a gateway to CBDC, only crypto can ‘disrupt’ settlements
    UK MP Andrew Griffith spoke to a parliamentary committee about the future of payment technologies and a potential British central bank digital currency on Jan. 9.
    Like
    6
    0 Yorumlar 0 hisse senetleri 1618 Views
  • Ending the night by doing a couple loads of laundry that is much overdue to get cleaned. Finishing last load so why not have a little Wine ! Watch a little TV and finish out the evening. Have a good one all see ya Thursday !
    Ending the night by doing a couple loads of laundry that is much overdue to get cleaned. Finishing last load so why not have a little Wine ! Watch a little TV and finish out the evening. Have a good one all see ya Thursday !
    1 Yorumlar 0 hisse senetleri 360 Views
  • The inevitable is overdue
    The inevitable is overdue
    Like
    1
    0 Yorumlar 0 hisse senetleri 351 Views