If “fold[ing] up shop” includes filing bankruptcy and losing all of your non-retirement assets, and you’re cool with that, then you’re basically good.
An LLC won’t protect you from claims that you personally screwed up; or that you treated the LLC like an alter ego (rather than as a separate entity) and thus piercing the veil is appropriate.
If you want to consider a very very unlikely but not impossible scenario, look at the Hulk Hogan/Peter Thiel vs. Gawker litigation and its aftermath.
If you need protection from litigation threats, you need insurance; structures like LLC’s don’t win/settle lawsuits, they make it tougher for plaintiffs to collect after they win a judgement.
I wouldn’t be shocked if lower-revenue customers turn out to be a disproportionate demand on support/customer service. Not every potential customer is a good fit from a vendors perspective.
My impression is that they’ve got the free plan for people with minimal usage or who just want to kick the tires - beyond that, if their service isn’t worth $100/yr to you, they don’t want to think about you or support you.
Is there a reason that a consumer would prefer an application-specific currency (intimate, DentaCoin, whatever) rather than a generic currency (BTC, BCH, ETH, LTC, whatever)?
From my point of view, it seems like an unnecessary friction to be moving value between different currencies depending on what I want to buy - and the fact that I'm buying the currency at all may reveal more than I want it to.
(* I understand why it's attractive to be in on the beginning of a new digital currency, and collect the proceeds of an ICO, or hold a lot of cheap or pre-mined coins; I'm specifically interested in why it's good for a consumer, not the promoters.)
The headline isn’t a very good summary of the article, or the basic idea expressed therein. The author proposes the use of a tontine, an investment trust arrangement dating back to the 1600’s. A tontine, correctly administered, won’t go bankrupt. A tontine can be implemented using a blockchain.
That’s as far as the article goes is showing how blockchains can prevent pension failures.
> Futures contract is bought or sold to hedge against risks for the underlying asset. Ex: Buying corn futures to hedge against corn price fluctuations. In case of bitcoin though, there is no underlying asset, right?
The underlying asset is 1 or 5 bitcoins, depending on the exchange where the future is traded. (CBOE and CME, respectively.)
A traditional futures contract obligates the parties to carry out the exchange/transfer at the agreed upon price - this is distinct from an option, which gives one party the right to transact at a given price, and the counterparty the obligation to transact at that price, if the first party elects to exercise their option.
Since the CBOE BTC futures are apparently settled in cash, that means that holders of the futures won't get an actual BTC, they'll get USD equivalent to the settlement price. So someone who paid $17,000 for a BTC future whose value on the settlement date was $11,000 would receive a deposit of $11,000 USD. And if someone paid $11,000 for a BTC future contract, and BTC was worth $17,000 when the settlement amount was determined, that person would get a deposit in the amount of $17,000.
I don't know how CBOE is handling this internally - but it's possible (likely?) that the people who are actually selling the futures (e.g., agreeing to deliver a USD amount equivalent to the value of 1 BTC on a date in the future) are purchasing BTC on the open market at the time the future is sold; and they're selling the BTC on the open market on the settlement date (perhaps a little before or after) so they will have the cash to meet their obligation to deliver USD equivalent to the settlement price.
So my hunch is that it means that there's a little extra selling happening on settlement days - but it looks like the volume of contracts (1,907 on January 9, per the article) is small enough that it shouldn't be moving the market a lot. That's roughly 21 million USD compared to a daily average trade volume of about 9 billion USD.
I think the title is a little aggressive - it presupposes that an ICO buyer received a "tip" with inside information. While that's not an unreasonable thing to consider with respect to an angel (or larger) investor who has substantial contact with the company/people behind the ICO, arbitrary retail-level speculators who are just throwing money at anything using the word "blockchain" or "ICO" aren't likely to be punished by the SEC for having too much information.
Instead, they'll be punished by the market for being idiots. But that's a different sort of thing.
>The issue starts from the 13 DNS root zone servers, which servers from many public/private internal connected networks connects to these 13 DNS root zone named authorities. The following link shows all corporations that exists at Securities Exchanges Commission, which doesn’t include there are 45508 companies listed in stock exchanges around the world (List of Companies at SEC)(2017). According to reports, The latest article that researchers found named “Neira Jones” reported the U.S Largest Databreach on Paper.li site that reports large to midsized databreaches (Hackbusters Reports Largest Databreach in History)(2017). Root Servers. The authoritative name servers that serve the DNS root zone, commonly known as the “root servers”, are a network of hundreds of servers in many countries around the world, which permissions were replicated on internal servers exposing massive amounts of sensitive forbidden documents. They are configured in the DNS root zone as 13 named authorities, as follows.(INTERNET ROOT SERVERS)(2017). These are listed companies. The number of formal unlisted companies would be a wild guess as there is no central quantified effort to build an international registry. So taking a different approach, in countries like USA, there is one company for every 11 people. In some others, there are 0. A rough extrapolation based on economic freedom and worldwide business numbers from UN reports would mean that there is a company for every 60 people on the planet. That brings us to ~115 Million companies.
If you are connected to the author/publisher, you might encourage them to rewrite it and/or enlist a good editor.
In particular, it's helpful to make a distinction between brute-forcing a cipher, and brute-forcing a particular file. If I GPG-encrypt my plaintext with a weak RSA key, or a weak passphrase with conventional encryption, that particular ciphertext may be revealed through a brute force attack; the attack wasn't on the cipher, it was on my key.
Also, the fact that it's impossible/infeasible to exhaustively search the keyspace doesn't mean that the key won't be found - 50% of the time it'll be found in the first half of the keyspace that's searched (assuming a linear search), 1% of the time it'll be found in the first 1% of the keyspace that's searched, and so forth. Success via brute force isn't at all likely, but it's not impossible, even though an exhaustive search is practically impossible.
I'm not sure about the provenance of the statements apparently attributed to Musk.
However - assuming he said that stuff - I don't think it's particularly interesting or shocking that he wasn't hired at Netscape, especially if Netscape was at a point in the evolution of their company that they were hiring based on resumes/degrees/buzzwords, versus productivity or personal relationships or whatever.
SpaceX and Tesla probably ignored some resumes this week from people who will go on to found amazing companies. And from people who will never do anything interesting.
The fact that Musk turns out to be a good entrepreneur doesn't mean he's the right fit for any job. Would I hire him if I needed someone to run a startup, or scale up a startup? Yes, he's proven he's good at that. Would I hire him to clean my house or mow my lawn? No, I'm pretty sure he'd get bored/frustrated and leave to find a more interesting project. Would I hire him to work in a bakery, or as a glassblower, or a bus driver? I don't know, he might or might not be a good fit for those jobs.