I can't see the original, probably racist, post, but you're thinking of FTX for SBF. The founder of Binance is Changpeng Zhao (a.k.a. CZ).

The company I work for had a similar incident nearly twenty years ago. As a result we implemented permissions so that only a handful of senior people to send to our largest distribution lists. I assume almost everyone does the same. Why didn't/doesn't the army.

This could be very expensive for the manipulators if they spend a fortune propping BC up, only for it to fall anyway, UNLESS the tethers they used were not paid for but were deliberately unbacked.

There'd be a DoD skunkworks section already. Probably their introduction to the battlefield will be gradual, starting with unarmed tasks, then they'll get "self protection", and that protection will get more and more capable until the pretence is abandoned.

It's Zimbabwe. Even if there were honest intentions, they'd screw it up.

Regulating would give a false air of legitimacy to the crypto sector - and that would hurt rather than help. The regulators should just come out and say "we're not regulating because we think crypto is all worth zero and we don't want to get involved. You can get involved AT YOUR OWN RISK, and do not expect any help whatsoever when it turns sour,"

Might be the same amount of commercial paper, revalued.

Why should the government intervene? People can be responsible for their own dumb mistakes.

U235 has a half life of 700m years, and U238 1.4b years. Waste products we're worried about have half lives ranging from days to a few decades, so they're obviously much more radioactive than the original fuel.

I still like the idea of deep ocean burial. Even though the material will be radioactive the ocean is VAST and dilution will make the extra radiation immeasurable.

Won't it displace people BEFORE it crashes? After the crash people will be able to buy cheaper housing. And it will crash.

[crocodile_dundee_voice]That's not a drought. THIS (pointing to Australia some years back) is a drought.[/crocodile_dundee_voice].

I don't think the point is to control the market, it is more to ensure availability

It is the same for the environment IF the hydrogen is produced with electricity, e.g. electrolysis. Unfortunately most H2 is produce from natural gas - so NO, unless you're careful about the source.

If the H2 is produced via electricity, its emissions depend on the electricity source, same as your battery.

I think the U.S. would destroy the factory rather than let it fall into Chinese hands. One or two missiles and done.

If the aim is to feed the third world, then the plan will just defer the problem a few years until we've created a bigger problem. The population will expand to exceed whatever food production capacity we've reached. Maximising the earth's human population is not a worthy goal.