ReportWire

Tag: regulation

  • What an ‘Airbnbopoly’ Game Says About Silicon Valley’s Standoff With Lina Khan

    What an ‘Airbnbopoly’ Game Says About Silicon Valley’s Standoff With Lina Khan

    [ad_1]

    Four years ago, one of Vice President Kamala Harris’ top donors—the billionaire cofounder of LinkedIn Reid Hoffman—celebrated the IPO of Airbnb, a company he was heavily invested in, by fashioning Monopoly boards where the game’s “jail” space is replaced by “government regulation.”

    Since Harris became the Democratic presidential nominee, many billionaire tech investors have come out of the woodwork to support her campaign. While they often tout Harris as a business-friendly politician, they’ve been vocal in their dislike of Federal Trade Commission chair Lina Khan’s antitrust agenda. Hoffman is one of the most influential donors in that group. He has donated tens of millions of dollars in support of the Biden and Harris campaigns and has organized other wealthy tech investors to do so as well.

    When Airbnb went public in December 2020, the company was valued at more than $47 billion. Hoffman sent at least a handful of other investors a board game styled after Monopoly called “Airbnopoly,” according to images of the game obtained by WIRED. A top Airbnb investor confirmed that he was one of several people who received the game from Hoffman and his venture firm Greylock Partners.

    The box is labeled as “a Reid Hoffman and Greylock production,” and it contains all of the pieces typically included in the classic board game, like cards, dice, and game pieces—all with a travel theme. Instead of a top hat or a thimble, players can navigate the board with an airplane seat, golf club, flip flops, and so on. The spaces on the board are customized, too, to include airports instead of railroads and Airbnb locations rather than Atlantic City streets. In one telling modification, instead of a “Go to Jail” space, the board tells players to go back to a “Government Regulation” corner space. If players avoid government regulation, they move across a path titled “Progress.”

    Some spaces on the board require the players to pay government-issued fines, taxes, or trust and safety fees. “Recent developments in American politics make you curious about living in Canada,” reads one of the game’s cards.

    Airbnbopoly is clearly more of a novelty gift than a screed against big government. “Reid is a huge lover of board games, having played Settlers of Catan, et cetera, for many, many years, so he made a custom board game called Settlers of Silicon Valley and gifted it to many friends,” says Aria Finger, podcast cohost and chief of staff for Hoffman told WIRED. “Then for Airbnb he thought a custom game would be a nice, unique gesture, and the Monopoly board easily lent itself to Airbnb’s various rentals, so he decided on that.”

    Still, it has become public at a time when Hoffman and his Silicon Valley contemporaries have called for Khan to be fired under a possible Harris administration.

    Image may contain Business Card Paper and Text

    Since Khan was confirmed as chair in 2021, the FTC has gone after tech giants like Amazon, Google, and Meta for possible anticompetitive behavior. Many of these lawsuits have failed, while others are ongoing. Khan’s biggest win came in August when a judge found that Google had maintained an illegal monopoly in the online search market.

    In 2016, Hoffman sold LinkedIn to Microsoft, and he sits on the company’s board. Microsoft is reportedly currently under FTC investigation as part of a probe into collaborations and investments in artificial intelligence. A spokesperson for Hoffman did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

    [ad_2]

    Makena Kelly

    Source link

  • Apple’s Sales in China Are Stalling. What Will It Sacrifice to Turn Things Around?

    Apple’s Sales in China Are Stalling. What Will It Sacrifice to Turn Things Around?

    [ad_1]

    Since then, though, the expectations of the level of Apple’s capitulation have only grown more onerous. Algorithms that determine what the public sees online or through AI have to be registered with the Chinese authorities, and new AI legislation is largely focused on controlling the exact public-interfacing models that Western tech companies want to get involved with.

    “You need to file with regulators. You might need to submit a lot of details about things like coding … many tech companies may not be willing to do that,” says Tan.

    The problem is, China can afford to put in place such measures because the power balance is in its favor—more so than ever.

    “China is no longer just playing a following role in many technology fields,” adds Tan. “It is already advancing and taking the leading role.”

    Business as Usual?

    From a Western view, the rules put in place for generative AI in China veer between the admirable and the worrying.

    “The regulation includes a number of vague censorship requirements, such as that deep synthesis content ‘adhere to the correct political direction,’ not ‘disturb economic and social order,’ and not be used to generate fake news,” reads Carnegie Endowment’s paper on the state of affairs in 2023.

    “Deep synthesis” is the term the CAC uses in place of generative AI. China’s restrictions would result in a Siri that wouldn’t talk about the Dalai Llama, that wouldn’t refer to Taiwan as a separate country or acknowledge the Uyghurs. And who knows what else.

    Given the current lax state of Western LLMs, it’s hard enough to picture a chatbot that couldn’t be cajoled into saying China is a part of the sovereign state of Taiwan, let alone falling into line 100 percent of the time. But clearly many Chinese tech companies have managed to adhere to the restrictions, to the satisfaction of the regulators at least. In August 2024, the South China Morning Post reported 188 LLMs had been approved for use to date, up from just 14 in January 2024.

    It could be argued that Apple effectively adopting a custom version of one of these LLMs to fill out China’s version of Apple Intelligence represents business as usual. Apple already censors the app store to comply with China’s policies. It already cooperates with local entities.

    However, with Apple Intelligence generative AI positioned at the heart of iPhones and other devices, the company seems more at risk of being accused of being a little too embedded in the wants and whims of the Chinese state for comfort, for a US company.

    In August, Zhuang Rongwen, director of the Cyberspace Administration of China, said generative AI, such as chatbots, was “forcefully driving economic and societal growth.” The New York Times’ 2021 report suggested the government didn’t really need Chinese iPhone users’ data to surveil its citizens, as it already had stronger methods. But with GenAI, Apple may inadvertently become a more active participant in the CCP’s goals.

    [ad_2]

    Andrew Williams

    Source link

  • The UK’s antitrust regulator will formally investigate Alphabet’s $2.3 billion Anthropic investment

    The UK’s antitrust regulator will formally investigate Alphabet’s $2.3 billion Anthropic investment

    [ad_1]

    The UK’s competition regulator is probing Alphabet’s investment in AI startup Anthropic. After opening public comments this summer, the Competition and Market Authority (CMA) said on Thursday it has “sufficient information” to begin an initial investigation into whether Alphabet’s reported $2.3 billion investment in the Claude AI chatbot maker harms competition in UK markets.

    The CMA breaks its merger probes into two stages: a preliminary scan to determine whether there’s enough evidence to dig deeper and an optional second phase where the government gathers as much evidence as possible. After the second stage, it ultimately decides on a regulatory outcome.

    The probe will formally kick off on Friday. By December 19, the CMA will choose whether to move to a phase 2 investigation.

    Google told Engadget that Anthropic isn’t locked into its cloud services. “Google is committed to building the most open and innovative AI ecosystem in the world,” a company spokesperson wrote in an email. “Anthropic is free to use multiple cloud providers and does, and we don’t demand exclusive tech rights.” Engadget also reached out to the CMA for comment, and we’ll update this story if we hear back.

    TechCrunch notes that Alphabet reportedly invested $300 million in Anthropic in early 2023. Later that year, it was said to back the AI startup with an additional $2 billion. Situations like this can be classified as a “quasi-merger,” where deep-pocketed tech companies essentially take control of emerging startups through strategic investments and hiring founders and technical workers.

    Amazon has invested even more in Anthropic: a whopping $4 billion. After an initial public comment period, the CMA declined to investigate that investment last month. The CMA said Amazon avoided Alphabet’s fate at least in part because of its current rules: Anthropic’s UK turnover didn’t exceed £70 million, and the two parties didn’t combine to account for 25 percent or more of the region’s supply (in this case, AI LLMs and chatbots).

    Although the CMA hasn’t specified, something in Alphabet’s $2.3 billion Anthropic investment constituted a deeper dive. Of course, Google’s Gemini competes with Claude, and both companies make large language models they provide to small businesses and enterprise customers.

    Update, October 25, 2024, 11:10AM ET: This story has been updated to add a quote from a Google representative.

    [ad_2]

    Will Shanklin

    Source link

  • California Tribes’ Lawsuits Against Card Rooms Could Threaten Their Survival

    California Tribes’ Lawsuits Against Card Rooms Could Threaten Their Survival

    [ad_1]

    A new California law may soon allow Native American tribes to legally challenge the operations of certain small casinos, or card rooms, that have existed for decades in Los Angeles County and other parts of the state. 

    These establishments, typically limited to table games rather than slot machines, represent vital revenue sources for their cities but could now be at risk of closure, jeopardizing millions in local tax dollars.

    However, the Tribal Nations Access to Justice Act (Senate Bill 549) was signed into law by Governor Gavin Newson over the weekend after extensive multi-million dollar lobbying efforts, with opposition from important names including Los Angeles’s second-largest newspaper, The Daily News, that called SB 549 a “mockery” of the state’s judicial system. 

    Tribal groups argue that these smaller venues, which rely heavily on popular games such as blackjack, are infringing on exclusive gaming rights that belong solely to tribal casinos under California law.

    Heavy Toll on State and Local Taxes 

    The California Cardroom Alliance, one of the strongest voices opposing the law and also a representative of card room operators across the state, has argued that the measure “could easily force card rooms out of business.”

    According to Keith Sharp, president of the Alliance, the financial loss could amount to $500 million annually in state and local tax revenue, impacting essential public services, education, and infrastructure funding.

    Card room representatives anticipate that legal challenges from tribes will emerge soon.

    Proponents of the law see it as a long-overdue correction that supports the rights of Native American tribes to protect their interests in the gaming sector. 

    “For much of California history, tribes have been precluded from having access to justice to defend what was rightfully ours,” said James Siva, a member of the Morongo Band of Mission Indians and chair of the California Nations Indian Gaming Association

    Siva argues that the opposition from card rooms “makes plainly apparent that these establishments are not at all confident that what they are doing is legal.”

    Debate on Game Classification 

    A key point of contention lies in whether card rooms are conducting games in a manner reserved for tribal casinos. 

    According to the tribes, games like blackjack are explicitly classified as Las Vegas-style gambling, which the state constitution restricts to tribal-run facilities

    Typically, card rooms rely on third-party companies to handle chips and payouts, skirting a legal requirement that bars them from direct involvement in bets. 

    This workaround has received approval from California’s Department of Justice over the years, but the new law may prompt fresh judicial review.

    “This Is a Matter of Law and Not of Policy”

    Senator Josh Newman, who sponsored the legislation, emphasized that the intent is to provide tribes with a fair legal forum

    Newman went on to say that, in case of a court ruling favorable for the tribes, he would express “an immense amount of sympathy for the workers and other affected community entities” while bluntly calling it “a matter of law and not of policy.”

    Mr. Siva stated that the law represents a move toward greater transparency, adding that the opposition from card room operators “makes plainly apparent that these establishments are not at all confident that what they are doing is legal.”

    “The Casinos Are a Lifeline”

    The impact of these legal challenges is already felt at the city level. 

    The Gardens Casino in Hawaiian Gardens, for instance, plays a pivotal role in funding the community. 

    According to Mayor Victor Farfan, the casino is not only the city’s largest employer, with 1,100 workers, but it also generates about $13 million in annual taxes, sustaining programs for youth and seniors. 

    Farfan emphasized the importance of the revenue: “The casino keeps us afloat financially.”

    When asked about what would happen provided the city’s card room would close, Farfan, in an interview for The New York Times’ Kurtis Lee reporting from the Southern California communities of Hawaiian Gardens and Commerce, immediately recalled the COVID-19 pandemic, when card rooms in Los Angeles County closed and Hawaiian Gardens faced severe financial strain, forced to lay off staff and cut hours due to lost income.

    Commerce, a nearby city, also relies heavily on revenue from its own card room, the Commerce Casino, which contributes roughly 40% of the city’s budget

    For city officials like 31-year-old management analyst Gisselle Delgado, these casinos are lifelines and “not a burden,” providing crucial funding for public services and community development.

    While Giselle does not gamble herself, she is well aware that “the taxes from gambling have funded her salary — along with about 40 percent of the municipal budget,” according to her interview for the NY Times

    Potential Long-Lasting Financial Implications

    Tribal donations to lawmakers played an important role in the legislative push, with some committee members receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars in support. 

    As lawsuits begin to surface, local communities could face financial implications in the long run. 

    The new law allows tribes to present their case in state courts until April 1.

    The ongoing tension underscores the balance between California’s long history of small card rooms and the financial and political power of the state’s Native American tribes, whose gaming operations contribute nearly $35 billion to the economy.

    [ad_2]

    Melanie Porter

    Source link

  • How Baker Tilly Toronto supports insurance providers in transition – MoneySense

    How Baker Tilly Toronto supports insurance providers in transition – MoneySense

    [ad_1]

    For professional advisors like Baker Tilly Toronto, staying current in this business landscape is critical. And for insurance intermediaries, the key to thriving in this environment is to partner with experts like Baker Tilly Toronto that offer specialized expertise and strategic guidance.

    Steven Frye, Baker Tilly Toronto

    An ever-changing business landscape

    “With the massive transfer of wealth currently going from one generation to the next, there’s a lot of consolidation going on,” explains Steven Frye, partner, audit, valuations and corporate finance at Baker Tilly Toronto, a leading independent audit, tax and advisory firm. “And private equity groups have driven the value of insurance brokerages up to a level that I didn’t even think was possible 20 years ago.”

    While the rise of brokerage valuations is a good thing for owner-operated businesses, it also creates new complexities, such as increased competition, succession planning complications and the need for strategic planning to maximize value during transitions.

    Technological advancements and the increasing use of artificial intelligence (AI) add further layers of market disruption. “AI is changing the way the insurance industry operates,” says Frye. “Twenty-five years ago, this was all just a concept.”

    These disruptors threaten insurance providers’ stability and growth trajectory. Fortunately, Baker Tilly Toronto specializes in the insurance industry, providing personalized, specialty support through its team’s in-depth knowledge of financial, regulatory, compliance, technological, operational, benchmarking and bookkeeping issues related to the market.

    “We stay current with what the issues are. A key to being a trusted advisor is to really understand where the client is at the moment.”

    Steven Frye

    Introducing Baker Tilly  

    Frye is a founding member of Baker Tilly Toronto, part of the Baker Tilly cooperative. He brings over 25 years of expertise in the valuation of insurance brokerages and consulting for companies in the financial services, manufacturing and technology-based industries. Frye’s experience in a broad range of specialty services (acquisitions and divestures, corporate finance, litigation support, regulatory matters and operations consulting) exemplifies Baker Tilly Toronto’s unique ability to address its clients’ needs successfully.

    The firm’s well-trained teams work across a variety of disciplines to align their skills with client requirements, ensuring exceptional outcomes. In addition to providing assurance, valuation and corporate finance services to the insurance industry, Baker Tilly Toronto also helps clients with planning, operations and profitability.

    “We stay current with what the issues are,” says Frye. “A key to being a trusted advisor is to really understand where the client is at the moment.” Baker Tilly Toronto offers strategic expertise to keep insurance providers competitive in the disrupted market. From succession planning to corporate finance, the firm works with insurance providers to ensure their businesses are well-positioned for the future.

    [ad_2]

    Tania Amardeil

    Source link

  • ACMA Bans Two Offshore Operators as Blocked Sites Exceed 1,000

    ACMA Bans Two Offshore Operators as Blocked Sites Exceed 1,000

    [ad_1]

    The Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) continues its constant effort to fight of the gambling market. In its latest publication, the authority announced that it has ordered local internet service providers (ISPs) to block two more illegal gambling websites.

    Two Operators Added to ACMA’s Long List

    The ACMA said that its decision followed thorough investigation of the services in question. The regulator’s team found the websites in question to operate in breach of Australia’s Interactive Gambling Act 2001.

    In line with its usual strategy, the body leveraged its authority to ask ISPs to block access to the gambling brands in question. This regulatory measure is one of a range of enforcement options available to the regulator and has proven fairly efficient in limiting the influence of foreign companies in Australia.

    According to the ACMA, the latest two operators to receive this treatment were Lucky Block and Rooli.

    The ACMA us allowed to issues a blocking order if it determines that a website offers illegal online gambling, provides a prohibited service, or promotes unregulated activities.

    ACMA Asks Players to Avoid Unlicensed Gambling

    The ACMA once again reminded consumers to remain vigilant and engage only with legal services. The regulator emphasized that offshore operators do not play by the rules and are highly unlikely to employ sufficient, if any, consumer protections.

    As a result, customers who play with illegal companies have no guarantees of payouts and may also develop addictive tendencies. The ACMA reminded that its register contains a full list of the wagering services that are licensed to operate in Australia.

    The ACMA recently surpassed 1,000 blocked illegal gambling and affiliate websites. With Lucky Block and Rooli. now added to this list, this figure has reached a total of 1,059. Earlier this year, the ACMA also issued bans to Richard Casino and Wanted Win, which likewise offered services that violated Australia’s Interactive Gambling Act.

    In addition to having blocked over a thousand illegal gambling websites and affiliates, the ACMA’s proactive approach has convinced 220 illegal services to willingly pull out of the Australian market.

    In other news, Sportsbet, one of Australia’s major operators, recently stopped providing novelty betting options amid regulatory concerns. Such wagering products included bets on the Grammys and reality shows like Australian Survivor.

    [ad_2]

    Angel Hristov

    Source link

  • Dutch Lawmakers Want Age Verification for iGaming and Porn

    Dutch Lawmakers Want Age Verification for iGaming and Porn

    [ad_1]

    Lawmakers in the Netherlands have supported the introduction of age verification measures for online gambling amid recent regulatory failures. The country, which launched regulated iGaming a few years ago, continues to struggle to hit the right regulatory balance.

    An End to Underage Gambling and Pornography Consumption

    The latest appeal for robust age verification measures comes from Don Ceder, a representative of the Christian Union. He appealed for age verification procedures for online gambling and adult websites that would prevent young people from engaging with age-inappropriate content.

    Ceder envisions procedures that are reliable without infringing on internet users’ privacy. Ceder noted that the Netherlands is already working on regulations for online alcohol sales. At the same time, the country is preparing to adopt new European Union measures that would restrict social media services for minors.

    At the same time, other European markets, including the UK, France and Spain, are already working on more robust regulations that would protect young internet users from harm.

    In light of the ongoing changes, Ceder suggested that the Netherlands should do more to prevent underage users from accessing online gambling or pornographic content.

    Ceder’s proposal is also backed by Jesse Six Dijkstra, a representative of the New Social Contract party. This is not the lawmakers’ first attempt to introduce more stringent age restriction measures and follows an earlier measure filed in May.

    Some Believe iGaming Should Be Banned

    Ceder and Dijkstra’s proposal comes amid the continued failures to shield online gamblers from harm and properly protect vulnerable groups. These setbacks have convinced some lawmakers that the only possible way forward is to introduce stricter measures or ban online gambling altogether.

    A few days ago, MPs Derk Boswijk and Diederik van Dijk launched Gambled and Lost, a motion that proposes a variety of amendments that would either limit iGaming or ban it for good. The measure was prompted by the concerning gambling harm rates in the Netherlands. The MPs alleged that the Remote Gambling Act (Koa) has normalized gambling and the exploitation of younger players for profit.

    However, stricter measures have not had the intended effect either, instead pushing some players toward the dangerous black market. A recent study suggested that the Netherlands’ channelization rates are fairly stable but that the few players playing with offshore operators spend disproportionate amounts of money.

    [ad_2]

    Fiona Simmons

    Source link

  • Dutch Black Market Spending May Be Larger than Expected

    Dutch Black Market Spending May Be Larger than Expected

    [ad_1]

    Although the latest figures from the Dutch Gaming Authority revealed a drop in the number of players using illegal gambling sites, black market gambling in the Netherlands remains a persistent threat. The regulator’s newest report claimed that 95% of registered accounts now belong to regulated online operators. However, the amount spent by the remaining 5% remains disproportionately high.

    Unlicensed Operators Draw in High-Stakes Gamblers

    The Netherlands Online Gambling Association (NOGA) and Licensed Dutch Online Gambling Providers (VNLOK) have raised alarms that while the overall number of players turning to illegal platforms has reduced, those who bet there are wagering substantially more money. This trend suggests that high-stakes gamblers might be migrating to the black market, particularly those affected by new legal restrictions.

    The Netherlands introduced a new law on 1 October 2024 imposing a monthly deposit limit of €700 ($766) for gamers aged 24 and above. This cap, designed to promote responsible gambling, could have unintended consequences. VNLOK Chairman Helma Lodders and NOGA Director Eric Konings were concerned about vulnerable groups like minors, young adults, and problem gamblers who might gravitate toward black marker providers.

    These groups are now in danger of disappearing into statistics when they deserve extra protection.

    Helma Lodders and Eric Konings joint statement

    With an increasing problem of high-stakes gamblers shifting to illegal platforms, Lodders and Konings urged better monitoring of the black market. The two industry representatives say that such sites are attractive to vulnerable groups because they allow significantly higher betting amounts without safeguards. The Netherlands regulator also acknowledged that the black market’s actual size may be larger than indicated due to incomplete data.

    Safe Gambling Initiatives Have Achieved Limited Success

    Lodders and Konings highlighted the need for greater awareness of the Loket Kansspel, a national help agency for those with gambling addiction. According to a recent study by IPSOS, 79% of gamblers were unaware of the service’s existence, limiting its potential to assist those in need. VNLOK and NOGA advocated for improved promotional efforts to ensure problem gamblers receive the support they need.

    The industry representatives also drew attention to several issues surrounding Cruks, the Central Register of Exclusion from Gaming. They acknowledged the program’s success but noted that the cumbersome registration process could take months, leaving individuals at risk. VNLOK and NOGA also believe operators should have follow-up conversations with ex-registered players to make sure they can keep their gambling behavior at bay.

    Whereas the figures suggest positive steps towards curbing illegal gambling, the two associations warn that stricter regulations and deposit limits could inadvertently push some gamblers into the black market. They urged the regulator to continue improving their monitoring efforts and enhance support services, ushering in a safer and equitable gambling sector.

    [ad_2]

    Deyan Dimitrov

    Source link

  • Gemini is exiting the Canadian market, plus more crypto news – MoneySense

    Gemini is exiting the Canadian market, plus more crypto news – MoneySense

    [ad_1]

    Is ethereum being left behind?

    As this chart shows, ethereum (ETH)—the second-largest cryptocurrency in terms of market cap—has lagged bitcoin (BTC) in investment returns over the past year. The blue line is BTC and the red line is ETH. (As of 12 p.m. EST on Oct. 1, 2024.)

    Source: TradingView

    Over the past year, BTC has gained about 122%, whereas ETH has gained only about 45%. Hang on—both are amazing one-year gains. However, ETH has been left behind comparatively. Here are two reasons why:

    1. New bull market: Usually, in a new crypto bull market—like the one that began in January 2024—BTC leads the way, in much the same way that large blue-chip stocks lead the charge in a new bull market for stocks. So, BTC’s outperformance is to be expected right now. There’s no obvious reason for ETH investors to panic (at least, not yet).
    2. BTC spot ETFs: In January 2024, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) approved spot BTC exchange-traded funds (ETFs) for the first time. This opened the floodgates for institutional investors and large individual investors in the U.S. to gain exposure to crypto without buying it directly. True, Canada was the first country to approve BTC and ETH spot ETFs, starting in 2021 but the big market-moving money comes from the U.S. Since BTC ETFs got the nod from the SEC first—followed by ETH ETFs six months later—BTC saw more money flowing in, and earlier, compared to ETH.

    How will rate cuts affect crypto?

    The U.S. Federal Reserve (Fed) lowered interest rates by 50 basis points in September. And more cuts are likely to come. This is significant for bitcoin and crypto. 

    TLDR: when the U.S. Fed lowers interest rates, it’s essentially adding dollars into the system by reducing the cost of borrowing. The more dollars there are sloshing around in the economy, the less each of those dollars is worth. Consequently, asset prices rise—including stocks, real estate and crypto. 

    Think of it this way: if the number of Gucci bags in the world doubled tomorrow, each of those bags would be worth less than they are today. In other words, each Gucci bag would have been devalued. It’s the same with money. 

    When there’s a lot of money in the economy, people don’t want to hold cash, because of its devaluation. Instead, they’d rather hold growth assets such as stocks, real estate, gold and—yes, you guessed it—cryptocurrencies. In fact, the devaluation of the U.S. dollar is one of the strongest narratives in support of investing in bitcoin.

    The chart below was shared on x.com (formerly Twitter) on Sept. 16, 2024, by Raoul Pal—author of the investment newsletter “Global Macro Investor.” It shows the close relationship between the anticipated global money supply (Global M2 10-week lead) and the price of BTC. 

    Federal Reserve rate cuts often lead to a rise in the money supply. So, the market is anticipating a rise in M2. If the price of BTC continues to resemble the moves in Global M2, we could be in for a sharp rise in BTC. That’s a big “if,” though. No chart can predict the future, so investors should not make decisions solely based on this (or any other) chart.

    The evolving regulatory landscape and increased institutional adoption are positive signs for crypto in Canada. Sure, some exchanges may exit due to tighter regulation, but many more are aligning themselves with securities laws. This makes crypto investing safer for Canadians. 

    [ad_2]

    Aditya Nain

    Source link

  • Waymo’s New Agreement With Hyundai Raises Questions About China

    Waymo’s New Agreement With Hyundai Raises Questions About China

    [ad_1]

    Soon you could see Waymo self-driving tech in Hyundai cars. The autonomous driving tech developer Waymo said this week that it would partner with the Korean automaker Hyundai to equip a fleet of its electric vehicles with self-driving technology. The vehicles, modified Ioniq 5s, will hit the road as part of Waymo’s self-driving ride-hail service in late 2025, the companies said.

    In a statement, Hyundai Motor Company president and global COO José Muñoz called the agreement a “first step” in the two firms’ partnership. “We are actively exploring additional opportunities for collaboration,” he said—opening up the possibility that Waymo self-driving tech could one day be installed on Hyundai passenger vehicles.

    However, the multinational partnership is the latest to prompt questions about how Waymo, arguably the world’s most successful autonomous-driving company, will handle a global realignment of the automotive industry.

    China’s new dominance in auto manufacturing and export has worried other global automakers, some of whom have argued that the country has unfair trade advantages. Over the past year, Western countries have built firmer trade walls to prevent the incursion of inexpensive Chinese electric and autonomous vehicles. Last month, the US finalized rules that dramatically increased tariffs against Chinese-made EVs and battery materials.

    The US Commerce Department also last month proposed a rule that would ban some Chinese- and Russian-made automotive hardware and software from the US, with an emphasis on technology that enables autonomy. Just this week, the European Union voted to hike tariffs against Chinese-made electric vehicles.

    Interestingly, Waymo insists that a partnership with Chinese-owned automaker Zeekr is still on. The deal, announced in late 2021, has seen Zeekr purpose-build roomier autonomous minivans for the Alphabet subsidiary that are also less expensive to manufacture. The Zeekr vehicle officially made its debut in San Francisco in June, though Waymo says it’s still in testing and is not yet part of its public ride-hail fleet.

    Zeekr is owned by Chinese automaker Geely, though its design center and one of its research and development facilities are in Gothenburg, Sweden. The Swedish city is also the headquarters of majority Geely-owned automakers Volvo and Polestar, an all-electric premium automaker.

    In an email on Friday, Waymo spokesperson Chris Bonelli wrote that the Hyundai Ioniq 5s “will not replace any of our other vehicle platforms,” and said the company is “hard at work validating” the latest version of Waymo’s tech on the Zeekr platform.

    In proposing new rules targeting Chinese-made auto software and hardware, the US government argued that such tech installed on US vehicles could create a long-term national security issue. “Imagine if there were thousands or hundreds of thousands of Chinese-connected vehicles on American roads that could be immediately and simultaneously disabled by somebody in Beijing,” US Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo said earlier this year.

    But in public comments submitted to the Commerce Department in April, Waymo representatives insisted that, despite its partnership with the Chinese automaker, China has nothing to do with the vital tech of the Zeekr-made robotaxi. “The AV-ready base vehicles being provided to Waymo have no driving automation or telematics capabilities built into them,” the company wrote, saying that only US-based Waymo personnel install autonomous technology onto vehicles at an American factory. The company said that, once operating in the US, the vehicles cannot remotely communicate with the vehicle’s manufacturer—Zeekr.

    [ad_2]

    Aarian Marshall

    Source link

  • Pavel Durov Defends Telegram’s Privacy Changes Amid User Unrest

    Pavel Durov Defends Telegram’s Privacy Changes Amid User Unrest

    [ad_1]

    Telegram CEO Pavel Durov today defended recent changes to his platform, amid concerns his arrest in France has made the messaging app more compliant with legal requests to share user data with the authorities.

    Durov attempted to minimize the significance of changes made to the app since he was arrested in August and charged with complicity in a range of crimes, including spreading sexual images of children. He was forbidden from leaving France for six months and must appear at a police station twice a week.

    In his post, the 39-year-old indirectly addressed speculation that Telegram may strengthen its notoriously light-touch content moderation as a result of his arrest. “Our core principles haven’t changed,” Durov stressed, in a post on the platform. “We’ve always strived to comply with relevant local laws—as long as they didn’t go against our values of freedom and privacy.”

    He attributed a recent uptick in the number of EU legal requests received and considered valid by the app over the last several months to European authorities beginning to use the correct Telegram email address.

    Yet since Durov’s arrest, Telegram has introduced a series of subtle changes. In late August, the company’s FAQ page read: “To this day, we have disclosed 0 bytes of user data to third parties, including governments.” Now the phrase “user data” has been replaced with “user messages.” Telegram did not reply to WIRED’s request for comment asking what exactly this change means.

    Then, early in September, Telegram quietly made it possible for users to report illegal content in private and group chats for moderators to review. Later that same month, Durov also announced Telegram had changed its terms of service to prevent the app’s abuse by criminals and would share user locations in response to legal requests. “We’ve made it clear that the IP addresses and phone numbers of those who violate our rules can be disclosed to relevant authorities,” he said at the time.

    Today, Durov framed those changes as a technicality. “Since 2018, Telegram has been able to disclose IP addresses/phone numbers of criminals to authorities,” he explained. Although last week he said that privacy policies in different countries had been “unified,” he insisted that “in reality, little has changed.”

    What has changed, however, is Durov’s tone. For years, Telegram cultivated an image as a proudly anti-authority platform that was politically neutral, while governments and digital rights groups bemoaned how difficult it was to contact its moderators.

    Now, there are signs Durov is adopting a more conciliatory attitude toward the authorities. That has prompted panic among some of the app’s less savory users, including German extremists and Russian military bloggers, who have expressed concern that the CEO’s arrest may be an attempt to access their data. Durov’s message today carried yet another warning to them. “We do not allow criminals to abuse our platform or evade justice,” he said.

    [ad_2]

    Morgan Meaker

    Source link

  • At V.P debate, J.D. Vance and Tim Walz scapegoat immigrants, ‘corporate speculators’ for high housing costs

    At V.P debate, J.D. Vance and Tim Walz scapegoat immigrants, ‘corporate speculators’ for high housing costs

    [ad_1]

    Both candidates at tonight’s vice-presidential debate agreed that housing costs are too high. And both Sen. J.D. Vance (R–Ohio) and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz had their favorite scapegoats to blame the problem on.

    For Vance, it was immigrants.

    “You’ve got housing that is totally unaffordable because we brought in millions of illegal immigrants to compete with Americans for scarce homes,” said the Republican vice-presidential nominee.

    Instead of “blaming migrants for everything on housing, we could talk a little bit about Wall Street speculators buying up housing and making them less affordable,” responded the Democrat.

    Neither candidate’s answer is particularly surprising. Vance has blamed immigrants for raising housing costs throughout the campaign. The GOP party platform claims that deportations will help bring housing costs down.

    Meanwhile, the Democratic presidential nominee, Vice President Kamala Harris, has repeatedly blamed “corporate landlords” and “Wall Street” for rising rents and home prices. As a solution, she has endorsed capping rents at properties owned by larger corporate investors and using antitrust law to stop landlords from using rent-recommendation software. Walz was merely aping his running mate’s rhetoric.

    Vance, to be sure, has also repeatedly blamed institutional investors for raising Americans’ housing costs.

    There’s a straightforward logic to both candidate’s claims. Increased demand for housing, whether from immigrants or corporate investors, would be expected to increase prices.

    But increased demand should also be expected to increase supply, bringing prices back down.

    Corporate investors and immigrants also play an important, direct role in increasing housing supply. Investors supply capital to build new homes. Immigrants supply labor for the same.

    At least one study has found that the labor shortages caused by immigration restrictions do more to raise the cost of housing than they do to lower it through reduced demand.

    Higher demand fails to translate into supply when the government restricts homebuilding through regulations that limit where and how much housing developers can build.

    California and New Jersey have the same percentage of foreign-born residents. California also has a lot more regulatory restrictions on home building than New Jersey. The median home price in New Jersey is 30 percent cheaper as a result.

    Vance cited a Federal Reserve study showing that immigration increased housing costs, promising to share the paper later on social media. (The campaign has thus far shared remarks, not studies, from Fed officials, to the effect that immigration has increased demand for housing, which duh.)

    Contra Walz, one study has found that restrictions on investor-owned rental housing raised rents and raised the incomes of residents in select neighborhoods by excluding lower-income renters. Studies on the effects of rent-recommendation software have found mixed effects on housing costs. In tight markets, such software raises rents. When supply is loose, it lowers them.

    As always, the ability of builders to add new supply is what sets the price in the long term. Both candidates gestured at this in their own way, although Walz was more explicit about the relationship.

    “We cut some of the red tape,” he said, referencing Minneapolis’ experience of liberalizing zoning laws and seeing housing costs fall. Walz’s pro-supply remarks were nevertheless sandwiched between calls for spending more on affordable housing and down-payment assistance.

    On the supply side of the equation, Vance referenced Trump’s plan to open up federal lands for more development, saying the feds own lands “that aren’t being used for anything. They’re not being used for national parks. They’re not being used and it could be places where we build a lot of housing. And I do think that we should be opening up building in this country.”

    In some Western states, the federal government is the largest landowner and its undeveloped lands act as a de facto urban growth boundary. Vance is right that opening up those lands for development would add supply and lower prices.

    Unfortunately, his support for residential development on currently federal-owned land was immediately succeeded by a call to kick out the illegal immigrants who are competing for homes.

    So there you have it. Both candidates recognized the role that home building and home supply plays in reducing housing costs. But both were also keen to single out scapegoats—immigrants for Vance, Wall Street for Walz—for increasing demand and prices.

    Walz acknowledged tonight that there’s not a lot the federal government can do to reduce locally set land use regulations. He’s right. But the federal government does have a lot of other levers they can pull to make housing costs worse, from immigration restrictions to nationwide rent control.

    And both candidates indicated that they’d pull those levers.

    [ad_2]

    Christian Britschgi

    Source link

  • As FTC Chair Lina Khan’s Term Expires, Democrats Are Torn Between Donors and Their Base

    As FTC Chair Lina Khan’s Term Expires, Democrats Are Torn Between Donors and Their Base

    [ad_1]

    For months, speculation has raged in Washington over the future of Lina Khan, the Federal Trade Commission chair and face of the Biden administration’s crusade against monopoly power. Overturning decades of antitrust norms, charged by Khan with failing to curb extreme concentrations of corporate power, the administration has routinely scrutinized major acquisitions traditionally ignored by Khan’s predecessors, forcing companies like Lockheed Martin and Nvidia to abandon multibillion-dollar deals in court.

    Opponents of Khan—who is often described as a legal “wunderkind” or “prodigy,” though invariably as “young”—include a number of powerful investors and CEOs known as prominent backers of the Democratic Party; billionaires with ties to businesses long under the FTC’s microscope.

    The donors, which include LinkedIn cofounder Reid Hoffman and media mogul Barry Diller, have openly urged Kamala Harris to replace Khan in the event she wins in November, a move that would likely spell disaster for president Joe Biden’s antitrust revolution.

    Diller, for his part, laid into Khan publicly in July, calling her a “dope” on national television, a remark that he later walked back, calling her “smart,” but “disrupting sensible business combinations.” To the ire of many of Khan’s supporters, the Harris campaign has remained silent on her future.

    Neither the Harris campaign nor the FTC responded to a request for comment. Diller did not immediately respond. Hoffman declined to comment.

    Roughly 80 percent of Democrats feel that the government should be doing more to take on corporate monopolies, compared to only 3 percent who say it should be doing less, according to new polling. Nearly 90 percent of Democrats, meanwhile, feel that lobbyists and corporate executives hold too much power over the government.

    The same poll, commissioned by the Tech Oversight Project, found that more than three-fourths of Democrats feel Big Tech wields monopoly power in ways that harm consumers and small businesses. Only 7 percent said the companies should face no repercussions, since they have continued to innovate.

    “Democratic voters want to build on the Biden-Harris administration’s record of protecting competition, holding monopolies accountable for breaking the law, and lowering the cost of living for everyday families,” says Sacha Haworth, the project’s executive director, who favors Khan as the “natural favorite” to carry on this campaign.

    Due perhaps in part to polling like this, there are strong indications that the billionaires are wasting their breath when it comes to the ousting of Khan. Last month, the Democratic Party adopted a platform that celebrated Khan’s crackdown on “corporate greed,” while calling for further investigations into the “potentially harmful effects of corporate consolidation” in Big Pharma and across the media industry. While Khan gave no speeches at the convention, the party’s promise to rid America of “monopolies that crush workers and small businesses and startups” was delivered—perhaps even more potently—by Biden’s secretary of commerce, Gina Raimondo, a consummate corporate advocate.

    Khan supporters, alarmed that Harris has yet to rally to the legal star’s side, erected a mock website this month, labeling her “Bad for Billionaires,” while satirizing some of the Democrats’ biggest donors, Hoffman and Diller among them. “Lina Khan must be fired,” the page declares, “so we can continue our untrammeled profiteering!”

    [ad_2]

    Dell Cameron

    Source link

  • China’s Plan to Make AI Watermarks Happen

    China’s Plan to Make AI Watermarks Happen

    [ad_1]

    Chinese regulators likely learned from the EU AI Act, says Jeffrey Ding, an assistant professor of Political Science at George Washington University. “Chinese policymakers and scholars have said that they’ve drawn on the EU’s Acts as inspiration for things in the past.”

    But at the same time, some of the measures taken by the Chinese regulators aren’t really replicable in other countries. For example, the Chinese government is asking social platforms to screen the user-uploaded content for AI. “That seems something that is very new and might be unique to the China context,” Ding says. “This would never exist in the US context, because the US is famous for saying that the platform is not responsible for content.”

    But What About Freedom of Expression Online?

    The draft regulation on AI content labeling is seeking public feedback until October 14, and it may take another several months for it to be modified and passed. But there’s little reason for Chinese companies to delay preparing for when it goes into effect.

    Sima Huapeng, founder and CEO of the Chinese AIGC company Silicon Intelligence, which uses deepfake technologies to generate AI agents, influencers, and replicate living and dead people, says his product now allows users to voluntarily choose whether to mark the generated product as AI. But if the law passes, he might have to change it to mandatory.

    “If a feature is optional, then most likely companies won’t add it to their products. But if it becomes compulsory by law, then everyone has to implement it,” Sima says. It’s not technically difficult to add watermarks or metadata labels, but it will increase the operating costs for compliant companies.

    Policies like this can steer AI away from being used for scamming or privacy invasion, he says, but it could also trigger the growth of an AI service black market where companies try to dodge legal compliance and save on costs.

    There’s also a fine line between holding AI content producers accountable and policing individual speech through more sophisticated tracing.

    “The big underlying human rights challenge is to be sure that these approaches don’t further compromise privacy or free expression,” says Gregory. While the implicit labels and watermarks can be used to identify sources of misinformation and inappropriate content, the same tools can enable the platforms and government to have stronger control over what users post on the internet. In fact, concerns about how AI tools can go rogue has been one of the main drivers of China’s proactive AI legislation efforts.

    At the same time, the Chinese AI industry is pushing back on the government to have more space to experiment and grow since they are already behind their Western peers. An earlier Chinese generative-AI law was watered down considerably between the first public draft and the final bill, removing requirements on identity verification and reducing penalties imposed on companies.

    “What we’ve seen is the Chinese government really trying to walk this fine tightrope between ‘making sure we maintain content control’ but also ‘letting these AI labs in a strategic space have the freedom to innovate,’” says Ding. “This is another attempt to do that.”

    [ad_2]

    Zeyi Yang

    Source link

  • Proposed Ban Would Be a ‘Death Sentence’ for Chinese EVs in the US

    Proposed Ban Would Be a ‘Death Sentence’ for Chinese EVs in the US

    [ad_1]

    After officially hiking tariffs on Chinese electric vehicle imports earlier this month, the US government is getting even more serious about keeping China-made autos out of the country. On Monday, the US Commerce Department proposed a new rule that would ban some Chinese- and Russian-made automotive hardware and software from the US, with software restrictions starting as early as 2026.

    The Biden administration says the move is needed for national security reasons, given how central technology is to today’s increasingly sophisticated cars. In announcing the proposed ban, Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo cited vehicles’ internet-connected cameras, microphones, and GPS equipment. “It doesn’t take much imagination to understand how a foreign adversary with access to this information could pose a serious risk to both our national security and the privacy of US citizens,” she said.

    The US government’s move comes as China has dramatically increased the number of affordable vehicles, and especially electric ones, it makes and sells overseas. Chinese auto exports grew by more than 30 percent in just the first half of this year, setting off alarm bells in Europe and the US, where officials worry inexpensively made Chinese vehicles could overwhelm domestic industry. The US and Europe had moved to make it harder and more expensive for China to sell its autos in those regions, but the Chinese automakers have responded by setting up manufacturing bases in Eastern Europe, Africa, and Mexico—all of which might one day provide a loophole to allow more Chinese-designed and engineered vehicles into new Western markets.

    Still, the proposed rule focuses on security rather than competition. Raimondo had previously raised the specter of foreign actors using hijacked connected car technology to cause mayhem on the US public roads. “Imagine if there were thousands or hundreds of thousands of Chinese connected vehicles on American roads that could be immediately and simultaneously disabled by somebody in Beijing,” she said in February.

    That situation isn’t quite realistic, given how few Chinese and Russian firms supply automotive software or hardware in the US right now. A proposed software and hardware ban is more preemptive than a response to any immediate security risk, says Steve Man, the global head of auto research at Bloomberg Intelligence, a research and advisory firm. “PRC and Russian automakers do not currently play a significant role in the US auto market, and US drivers right now are safe,” a senior Biden administration official told WIRED.

    Because the rule would apply to any connected vehicle, not just electric ones, it would create even stronger prohibitions against Chinese-made auto tech. “If the 100 percent tariffs on made-in-China EVs were a wall, the proposed ban on connected vehicles would be a death sentence for China EV Inc. aiming to enter the US,” says Lei Xing, the former chief editor at China Auto Review and an independent analyst. Under such a rule, he says, the prospects of seeing Chinese EVs on sale in the US in the coming decade is “nearly zero.”

    [ad_2]

    Aarian Marshall, Zeyi Yang

    Source link

  • Government in Thailand Hints at Plans for Three Casino Resorts in Bangkok

    Government in Thailand Hints at Plans for Three Casino Resorts in Bangkok

    [ad_1]

    The new government in Thailand is exploring options for casino gambling at several locations across the country, including at least three in Bangkok, local media reports suggest. Last month, the country took a major step toward casino resort regulation. This happened after a draft casino bill was released which outlined key regulations related to integrated resorts that would be permitted to offer casino gambling.

    Thailand retained the positive momentum with the casino legalization receiving overwhelming public support. During a recent public hearing on the proposal, the casino project received approval from approximately 80% of the participants.

    Thai Government Presses Forward with Entertainment Complex Project Proposal

    Earlier this week, Suksit Srichomkwan, the deputy secretary-general to the country’s Prime Minister for Political Affairs, quoted by the Nation, revealed that the government intends to push for legislation that permits the development of several large-scale integrated resorts.

    Developed under the same model as the one operating in Singapore, the government anticipates that the “entertainment complex” projects will boost tourism while attracting investments worth billions of baht.

    The efforts in Thailand do not come as a surprise, considering that countries across the globe capitalize on gambling as a way to generate extra tax revenue and boost tourism. In addition to proceeds from taxes and licensing fees, such large-scale projects provide new employment opportunities and provide significant economic stimulus.

    The Country Considers the Development of Seven Integrated Resorts

    In the words of Srichomkwan, Thailand will consider the development of a total of seven entertainment resorts. The government’s proposal is expected to include the development of three such venues in Bangkok, the country’s capital and home to nearly 11 million people.

    Besides Bangkok, entertainment venues are expected to be developed in four other tourist provinces. The large-scale projects would offer luxury hotel accommodation, shopping outlets, entertainment venues and other amenities with casinos taking no more than 10% of the total area of each venue.

    The Projects Represent Investments Worth Billions of Baht

    Per the media report, citing sources close to the Ministry of Finance, the seven entertainment complexes are expected to represent an investment between 300 billion baht ($8.9 billion) and 500 billion baht ($14.9 billion). The minimum investment in each of the four projects outside Bangkok is expected to be 50 billion baht ($1.49 billion). On the other hand, each of the three casino resort projects in Bangkok would require an investment of a minimum of 100 billion baht ($2.97 billion).

    Considering the size of the investments, should Thailand proceed with opening bids, it is likely to attract major gambling and hospitality operators. The list includes Wynn Resorts, Las Vegas Sands, as well as MGM Resorts International, among others, that have already explored options for expanding their operations to Thailand.

    [ad_2]

    Jerome García

    Source link

  • Private equity, private debt and more alternative investments: Should you invest? – MoneySense

    Private equity, private debt and more alternative investments: Should you invest? – MoneySense

    [ad_1]

    What are private investments?

    “Private investments” is a catch-all term referring to financial assets that do not trade on public stock, bond or derivatives markets. They include private equity, private debt, private real estate pools, venture capital, infrastructure and alternative strategies (a.k.a. hedge funds). Until recently, you had to be an accredited investor, with a certain net worth and income level, for an asset manager or third-party advisor to sell you private investments. For their part, private asset managers typically demanded minimum investments and lock-in periods that deterred all but the rich. But a 2019 rule change that permitted “liquid alternative” mutual funds and other innovations in Canada made private investments accessible to a wider spectrum of investors.

    Why are people talking about private assets?

    The number of investors and the money they have to invest has increased over the years, but the size of the public markets has not kept pace. The number of operating companies (not including exchange-traded funds, or ETFs) trading on the Toronto Stock Exchange actually declined to 712 at the end of 2023 from around 1,200 at the turn of the millennium. The same phenomenon has been noted in most developed markets. U.S. listings have fallen from 8,000 in the late 1990s to approximately 4,300 today. Logically that would make the price of public securities go up, which may have happened. But something else did, too.

    Beginning 30 years ago, big institutional investors such as pension funds, sovereign wealth funds and university endowments started allocating money to private investments instead. On the other side of the table, all manner of investment companies sprang up to package and sell private investments—for example, private equity firms that specialize in buying companies from their founders or on the public markets, making them more profitable, then selling them seven or 10 years later for double or triple the price. The flow of money into private equity has grown 10 times over since the global financial crisis of 2008.

    In the past, companies that needed more capital to grow often had to go public; now, they have the option of staying private, backed by private investors. Many prefer to do so, to avoid the cumbersome and expensive reporting requirements of public companies and the pressure to please shareholders quarter after quarter. So, public companies represent a smaller share of the economy than in the past.

    Raising the urgency, stocks and bonds have become more positively correlated in recent years; in an almost unprecedented event, both asset classes fell in tandem in 2022. Not just pension funds but small investors, too, now worry that they must get exposure to private markets or be left behind.

    What can private investments add to my portfolio?

    There are two main reasons why investors might want private investments in their portfolio:

    • Diversification benefits: Private investments are considered a different asset class than publicly traded securities. Private investments’ returns are not strongly correlated to either the stock or bond market. As such, they help diversify a portfolio and smooth out its ups and downs.
    • Superior returns: According to Bain & Company, private equity has outperformed public equity over each of the past three decades. But findings like this are debatable, not just because Bain itself is a private equity firm but because there are no broad indices measuring the performance of private assets—the evidence is little more than anecdotal—and their track record is short. Some academic studies have concluded that part or all of private investments’ perceived superior performance can be attributed to long holding periods, which is a proven strategy in almost any asset class. Because of their illiquidity, investors must hold them for seven years or more (depending on the investment type).

    What are the drawbacks of private investments?

    Though the barriers to private asset investing have come down somewhat, investors still have to contend with:

    • lliquidity: Traditional private investment funds require a minimum investment period, typically seven to 12 years. Even “evergreen” funds that keep reinvesting (rather than winding down after 10 to 15 years) have restrictions around redemptions, such as how often you can redeem and how much notice you must give.
    • Less regulatory oversight: Private funds are exempt from many of the disclosure requirements of public securities. Having name-brand asset managers can provide some reassurance, but they often charge the highest fees.
    • Short track records: Relatively new asset types—such as private mortgages and private corporate loans—have a limited history and small sample sizes, making due diligence harder compared to researching the stock and bond markets.
    • May not qualify for registered accounts: You can’t hold some kinds of private company shares or general partnership units in a registered retirement savings plan (RRSP), for example.
    • High management fees: Another reason why private investments are proliferating: as discount brokerages, indexing and ETFs drive down costs in traditional asset classes, private investments represent a market where the investment industry can still make fat fees. The hedge fund standard is “two and 20”—a management fee of 2% of assets per year plus 20% of gains over a certain threshold. Even their “liquid alt” cousins in Canada charge 1.25% for management and a 15.7% performance fee on average. Asset managers thus have an interest in packaging and promoting more private asset offerings.

    How can retail investors buy private investments?

    To invest in private investment funds the conventional way, you still have to be an accredited investor—which in Canada means having $1 million in financial assets (minus liabilities), $5 million in total net worth or $200,000 in pre-tax income in each of the past two years ($300,000 for a couple). But for investors of lesser means, there is a growing array of workarounds:

    [ad_2]

    Michael McCullough

    Source link

  • Netherlands Faces Scrutiny over Gambling Regulation

    Netherlands Faces Scrutiny over Gambling Regulation

    [ad_1]

    The Netherlands is in the midst of a large-scale debate about its legislation concerning gambling, especially regarding advertisements by online gambling operators. Recent parliamentary discussions and inquiries raise questions regarding the impact of gambling advertisements on vulnerable groups,  prompting calls for stricter oversight and urgent reforms.

    The Government Will Collect Additional Data

    State Secretary for Legal Protection Teun Struycken discussed the current situation for media outlet Casinonews.nl, addressing rising concerns following an investigation by De Groene Amsterdammer revealed that several online gambling ads were targeting young adults. The report was especially damning as state-owned operator Holland Casino was allegedly among the offenders.

    In the wake of this inquiry, Struycken emphasized the importance of protecting young adults from the perils of gambling addiction. He pointed to existing regulations designed to shield vulnerable groups, including a rule that limits gambling ads from reaching more than 5% of consumers aged 18 to 24. However, recent reports raise questions regarding the effectiveness of enforcement measures.

    Struycken disagreed with De Groene Amsterdammer’s claims that 60% of gambling ads reached young adults. He stated the actual number was 19.2%, which he claimed was well within regulatory limits. However, Struycken agreed that a definitive answer required clearer and more consistent data, hopefully enabling informed regulatory decisions.

    Struycken Advocates for a Comprehensive Approach

    The Dutch parliament has recently addressed several bills relating to online gambling advertisements. Of note is a motion tabled by MP Michiel van Nispen that passed earlier in 2024. It signaled a complete ban on online gambling advertising, but the current government has not given any timeline or strategy for implementing this measure. 

    In addition to advertising concerns, the Dutch government is also grappling with the broader social impacts of gambling, particularly relating to poverty and suicide. Struycken plans to survey at-risk and problem gamblers, examining the relationship between gambling addiction and suicide. The research results should be released in mid-2025, informing upcoming regulatory decisions.

    To what extent gambling addiction leads to an increase in poverty is not known to me, and this connection cannot be made easily.

    Teun Struycken

    Despite rising criticism, the Dutch government has demonstrated its commitment to evidence-based decision-making. The offending Holland Casino has since taken corrective measures. The upcoming progress letter on online gambling and the new research will likely play a crucial role in shaping the future of gambling regulation in the country.

    [ad_2]

    Deyan Dimitrov

    Source link

  • Illegal Horseracing Operators Threaten Industry Integrity

    Illegal Horseracing Operators Threaten Industry Integrity

    [ad_1]

    The horseracing industry faces a significant challenge from unregulated illegal betting markets, which threaten the integrity of the sport while siphoning off billions of dollars in revenue. Perhaps the most notorious of those illegal operators is Citibet, an online platform that has become a significant concern for the Asian Racing Federation (ARF).

    Black Market Entities Enjoy Specific Advantages

    A recent report by Hong Kong-based media outlet South China Morning Post highlighted how Citibet operates mainly in southern China and is estimated to handle a gambling turnover of about $50 billion annually, rivaling legal betting markets. A recent report from the ARF’s anti-illegal betting task force revealed that Citibet’s operations were equal to roughly 25% of the legal turnover in Hong Kong horseracing.

    Perhaps the most worrying aspect of Citibet’s operation is how it allows punters to bet on horses to lose, similar to legal exchange platforms. However, Citibet operates in complete secrecy, unlike these regulated offerings, refusing to share information with racing authorities. This lack of transparency creates a breeding ground for match-fixing and spot-fixing, compromising the sport’s integrity.

    The reason behind this appeal of illegal operators like Citibet is that they can offer better returns to bettors since they do not have to bear the cost related to taxes and regulatory fees. Search practices undermine the financial stability of legal betting markets and deprive the sport of crucial funding that, among other things, guarantees horse welfare.

    Setting Up an Illegal Bookmaker Is Easier than Ever

    James Porteous, the HKJC’s senior due diligence & research manager, has been vocal in his criticism of illegal operators. According to Porteous, the proliferation of technology has made it easier than ever to become an illegal bookmaker. Aspiring operators can now access everything they need for just a few thousand dollars, enabling them to offer customers an experience not too dissimilar to high-profile regulated companies.

    The illegals have zero regulatory overheads and zero concerns about reputational or ethical considerations about how they deploy technology to attract customers and boost their turnover.

    James Porteous, HKJC’s senior due diligence & research manager

    Making matters worse is the growing presence of cryptocurrency in the betting markets. The anonymity of cryptocurrency and the ease with which funds travel across borders have made it a favorite among illegal operators. While regulators can often contact traditional payment gateways and block payments to black-market businesses, crypto completely shuts down such measures.

    As illegal operators like Citibet continue to expand their technology and reach, so too must the industry’s stakeholders increase their efforts in counteracting this growing menace, ensuring that the sport remains fair and preserving its financial health. Consumers must also take care to only engage with regulated offerings, which guarantee safety, accountability, and transparency.

    [ad_2]

    Deyan Dimitrov

    Source link

  • Missourians Sue to Block Sports Betting Measure from November Ballot

    Missourians Sue to Block Sports Betting Measure from November Ballot

    [ad_1]

    Two Missouri citizens are suing to remove a proposed constitutional amendment legalizing sports betting on the state’s 5 November ballot. Political consultants Blake Lawrence and Jacqueline Wood have accused Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft of incorrectly conducting the certification procedure whether the petition had met the necessary criteria for inclusion on the ballot.

    The Measure May Not Have Amassed Enough Votes

    Local news outlet The St. Louis Post Dispatch revealed that the suit, filed in Cole County Circuit Court, claims Ashcroft used the new boundaries for congressional districts, created after the 2020 Census, to determine where petition signers lived but then used the old boundaries to calculate the number of signatures necessary in various districts.

    According to the complaint, had the correct procedure been followed, the 1st Congressional District of St. Louis and the 5th Congressional District of Kansas City in Missouri would have missed the threshold of required signatures to forward this new amendment. The lawsuit further asserts that most signatures verified within the congressional districts were legally invalid, further affecting the proposal’s eligibility.

    The threshold for a petition to make the ballot in Missouri requires signatures from 8% of the legal voters in six of the state’s eight congressional districts following the most recent gubernatorial election. The lawsuit accuses Ashcroft of not using a uniform statewide figure to calculate the signature requirements. Instead, he used varying thresholds based on previous district boundaries.

    Legalized Wagering Could Bring Significant Benefits

    The proposed amendment would set a sports-betting tax rate of 10% and allow Missouri’s professional sports franchises and the state’s 13 casinos to operate their retail and online sports-betting platforms. Proponents say the move would generate millions of dollars for the state and would merely legalize something many residents already do, either illegally or via out-of-state operators.

    Team mascots for the Royals, Blues, and Cardinals helped deliver the boxes with the signatures, highlighting sports teams’ robust support for legalized sports betting. Bill DeWitt III, president of the St. Louis Cardinals and a key backer of the sports betting amendment, called the lawsuit’s merit into question, noting that the petition had received significant support from all across the state.

    The lawsuit has been assigned to Cole County Circuit Judge Cotton Walker, who will issue a verdict on whether the sports betting measure will remain on the ballot or be struck down. This case may have sweeping implications for Missouri’s gaming landscape and the broader debate around the legalization of sports betting in the state.

    [ad_2]

    Deyan Dimitrov

    Source link