how to cash out jili super ace

An estimated 18 million Americans are invested in cryptocurrency, according to the Federal Reserve. And the United States just elected a pro-crypto president. Cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin have become a trendy digital asset. Supporters claim that crypto subverts capitalism because it bypasses traditional bankers. Crypto can offer quick riches along with an air of high-tech sophistication. Early adopters reaped enormous rewards, many becoming millionaires and billionaires. Currently, there are about 100,000 crypto millionaires. Cryptocurrency wealth, furthermore, has built Fairshake, the largest political lobbying group in the U.S. During the recent election, it helped elect 253 pro-crypto candidates. But is cryptocurrency a good ethical investment? As a business professor who studies technology and its consequences, I’ve identified three ethical harms associated with cryptocurrency that might give investors pause. The three harms The first harm is excessive energy use, most notably by Bitcoin, the first decentralized cryptocurrency. Bitcoins are created, or “mined,” by tens of thousands of computers in massive data centers, contributing significantly to carbon emissions and environmental degradation. Bitcoin mining, which represents the lion’s share of crypto energy consumption, uses as much as 0.9% of global demand for electricity – similar to the annual energy needs of Australia. Second, unregulated and anonymous crypto is the payment system of choice for criminals behind fraud, tax evasion, human trafficking and ransomware – the latter costing victims an estimated $1 billion in extorted cryptocurrency payments. Until about a decade ago, these bad actors generally moved and laundered money through cash and shell companies. But around 2015, many transitioned to cryptocurrency, a much less troublesome form of handling dirty money anonymously. A bank cannot hold or transfer money anonymously. By law, a bank is passively complicit in money laundering if it isn’t enforcing know-your-customer measures to restrict bad actors, such as money launderers. In the case of a crypto coin, however, legal and ethical accountability cannot be transferred to a bank – there is no bank. So, who is complicit? Anyone in the crypto ecosystem may be viewed as ethically complicit in enabling illicit activities. I believe these first two harms are the most ethically troublesome. The first one harms the Earth and the second undermines global systems of trust – the interplay of institutions that underpin economic activity and social order. Cryptocurrency’s third problem is its predatory culture. A predatory system, especially without regulatory oversight, takes advantage of small investors. And some cryptos have enriched their founders while taking advantage of investors’ lack of knowledge about the virtual currency. Some cryptocurrencies, especially the smaller coins and initial coin offerings, have characteristics of Ponzi schemes. The now defunct Bitconnect, for example, promised large profits to investors who exchanged their Bitcoins for Bitconnect tokens. New investor money paid out “profits” to the first layer of investors with money from later investors. Ultimately, Satish Kumbhani, the Bitconnect founder, was indicted by a federal grand jury, and as of 2024 his whereabouts are unknown. Pernicious myth Besides cryptocurrency’s ethical harms, a pernicious myth surrounds the digital coin. It is the myth of inclusion, that cryptocurrency has the power to benefit society’s disadvantaged, especially the unbanked. The global poor who don’t have bank accounts, and who could use cryptocurrency for international money transfers to family back home, do not necessarily benefit from crypto’s advantages. That’s because of the need to pay fees when converting and transferring, say, dollars to crypto and then from crypto to the local currency of the person receiving the money transfer. In reality, the distribution of crypto assets is highly concentrated among the wealthy. A 2021 study found that just 0.01% of Bitcoin holders control 27% of its value. Democratizing finance is often framed as a movement to break the dominance of traditional financial institutions – private banks and government central banks. However, this narrative has not played out. Instead, a new elite has emerged: cryptocurrency’s creators, early backers and maintainers, who tweak the crypto’s software code and influence its future direction. This group holds disproportionate control, including over the crypto coin’s governance. All of this replicates the concentration of power that crypto was meant to dismantle. A bit more ethical? To be fair, the crypto community hasn’t ignored the criticism, including calls for more environmental awareness. In early 2021, members of the community founded the Crypto Climate Accord. The group enlisted some 250 crypto firms to reduce environmental harm. The following year, Ethereum, with its Ether coin, took the most significant step. It reduced its energy consumption by over 99% by migrating to a coin mining mechanism called “proof-of-stake,” which doesn’t require miners to solve complex, energy-guzzling puzzles to validate transactions. This was a brave move. However, Bitcoin, the largest cryptocurrency, hasn’t followed Ethereum’s lead. Bitcoin stands out because its energy consumption surpasses any other crypto coin. To address cryptocurrency’s other harms, some regulatory bodies began controlling the crypto market in 2023. The European Union, United Kingdom and United States began attempting to curb illegal activities and protect investors. In January 2024, U.S. regulators permitted exchange-traded funds, which are popular investment funds, to invest in crypto. This move was meant to help small investors trade in a safer marketplace. But normalizing crypto trading can create perverse ethical repercussions. For example, the most successful 2023 “ethical” fund, Nikko Ark Positive Change Innovation Fund, prospered with a 68% return because it made a bet on crypto. Its manager rationalized this investment by repeating the myth that cryptocurrency allows “provision of financial services to the underbanked.” Where does all this leave the ethical investor? Investors, I believe, have two clear ethical choices on cryptocurrency: They can divest from Bitcoin or, at the very least, invest in other cryptocurrencies that minimize harms, especially harms that jeopardize the environment. But even so-called ethical investments come with hidden ethical issues. Many ethical investors invest in so-called ESG funds that stress social or environmental impact. Some of these ESG funds may avoid shares in petroleum companies while investing directly or indirectly in crypto. This doesn’t seem ethically consistent. While cryptocurrency offers exciting opportunities and the potential for high returns, its environmental impact, association with illegal activities and predatory nature all present significant ethical challenges. Erran Carmel is Professor of Business, American University Kogod School of Business. The Conversation is an independent and nonprofit source of news, analysis and commentary from academic experts.Although many more structures and sections of guideway are under construction, the Authority has a long way to go just to complete the first 119-mile segment it decided to start on. It has yet to break ground along the rest of the Merced to Bakersfield route, let alone begin building links to Los Angeles or the Bay Area. With the project unlikely to receive any new federal funds from the incoming administration, now is a good time to revisit its scope. “[L]et’s level about High-Speed Rail. I have nothing but respect for Governor Brown’s and Governor Schwarzenegger’s ambitious vision. I share it. And there’s no doubt that our state’s economy and quality of life depend on improving transportation. “But let’s be real. The project, as currently planned, would cost too much and take too long. There’s been too little oversight and not enough transparency. “Right now, there simply isn’t a path to get from Sacramento to San Diego, let alone from San Francisco to LA. I wish there were. “However, we do have the capacity to complete a high-speed rail link between Merced and Bakersfield. “I know that some critics will say this is a ’train to nowhere.' But that’s wrong and offensive.” Under pressure from project proponents, Newsom quickly walked back his plan to truncate the project to the Central Valley. But, nearly six years after his address, the facts he stated remain largely unchanged. Another justification for California high-speed rail is the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. But California’s lower-than-expected population growth will mean fewer riders and thus fewer car and plane trips replaced. Further, back in 2008, we were not expecting that electric vehicle technology would evolve to the point that state government would be comfortable banning new internal combustion engine car sales by 2035. Looking forward to 2050, it is now reasonable to assume that the vast majority of car trips that high-speed rail would replace will not be carbon emitting. Given the lack of new federal funding, a schedule in which we can be confident, and a strong justification based on capacity needs or climate change, a full buildout of high-speed rail project no longer makes sense for California. The governor and legislators should absorb the current set of facts and reassess the project, rather than keeping it on autopilot or making it a point of resistance to the incoming Trump administration. While that might feel good, it would be a disservice to California taxpayers who will have to cover the bulk of project costs. Newsom had it right in 2019. While we can’t simply shut down and leave an unfinished line, we should determine the least costly way of deriving something usable from the $13.6 billion spent thus far and then wind down the project.Los Angeles Kings (11-7-3, in the Pacific Division) vs. San Jose Sharks (6-12-5, in the Pacific Division) San Jose, California; Monday, 10:30 p.m. EST BOTTOM LINE: The San Jose Sharks take on the Los Angeles Kings as losers of three games in a row. San Jose has a 6-12-5 record overall and a 1-5-0 record in Pacific Division games. The Sharks have a 2-6-1 record when they serve more penalty minutes than their opponent. Los Angeles is 4-4-0 against the Pacific Division and 11-7-3 overall. The Kings serve 9.9 penalty minutes per game to rank eighth in league play. The matchup Monday is the third meeting between these teams this season. The Sharks won 4-2 in the last matchup. TOP PERFORMERS: Mikael Granlund has nine goals and 15 assists for the Sharks. Macklin Celebrini has over the last 10 games. Alex Laferriere has scored nine goals with six assists for the Kings. Kyle Burroughs has over the last 10 games. LAST 10 GAMES: Sharks: 3-4-3, averaging 2.4 goals, 4.6 assists, three penalties and 6.6 penalty minutes while giving up 2.6 goals per game. Kings: 5-4-1, averaging 2.7 goals, 5.3 assists, 3.6 penalties and nine penalty minutes while giving up 1.7 goals per game. INJURIES: Sharks: None listed. Kings: None listed. The Associated Press created this story using technology provided by Data Skrive and data from Sportradar .

Philadelphia takes on Vegas after overtime winIG Group (OTCMKTS:IGGHY) Trading 11.5% Higher – What’s Next?