Here is one that is in widespread used around the world.
It's value is based SOLEY on trust.
Posted on 05/29/2018 1:46:37 PM PDT by MarchonDC09122009
Are the Rothschilds working on own cryptocurrency 'IMMO'?
Mon, May 28, 2018 7:24 AM
A number of reports are currently floating in the media about the Rothschild’s own cryptocurrency project – IMMO.
For the uninitiated, Rothschild & Co is one of the world's largest independent financial advisory groups. The Rothschild family has for ages been considered one of the wealthiest and most influential families in the world and has been at the heart of a number of conspiracy theories.
Earlier this month, Rothschild & Co announced that Alexandre de Rothschild will be appointed as Executive Chairman of Rothschild & Co Gestion, Rothschild & Co's Managing Partner.
Recent reports suggest that the Rothschilds have been taking interest in cryptocurrencies. Alexandre de Rothschild himself has been interested in cryptocurrencies since the end of 2017, writes James Mayer.
Online portal zycrypto noted: “In February, it became known that the Tether accounts of Bitfinex were opened in the Dutch bank ING, owned by The Rothschild Group. At the same time, the profit indicators of this bank have grown significantly. On February 26th, the Fintech company, Circle, the main shareholder of which is Goldman Sachs (also The Rothschild Group), acquired Poloniex, a US-based crypto exchange.”
There have also been rumors that the banking dynasty has begun its work on the IMMO cryptocurrency project around mid-April. The project is reportedly being monitored by Alexandre de Rothschild himself, according to Coindoo.
What is IMMO?
CoinSpeaker speculates that IMMO will be “stablecoin” with its value pegged to the price of gold. The cryptocurrency will be “legally recognized in one of the sovereign countries controlled by the Rothschilds.” The Rothschilds could develop a private blockchain, allowing them to “safely conduct internal transfers thus leaving their descendants the accumulated amount of IMMO tokens.”
However, with very little to no information currently available, all this seems to be pure conjecture at the moment. Is this one more conspiracy theory surrounding the Rothschilds to create a “world currency” [The Economist, 1988]? Or, the dynasty is actually venturing into cryptocurrencies?
The conspiracy theories around Rothschilds’ cryptocurrency control are being heated up by a 1988 publication in The Economist, a magazine controlled by the family.
“Thirty years from now, Americans, Japanese, Europeans, and people in many other rich countries, and some relatively poor ones will probably be paying for their shopping with the same currency. Prices will be quoted not in dollars, yen or D-marks but in, let’s say, the phoenix. The phoenix will be favored by companies and shoppers because it will be more convenient than today’s national currencies, which by then will seem a quaint cause of much disruption to economic life in the last twentieth century...
The biggest change in the new world economy since the early 1970’s is that flows of money have replaced trade in goods as the force that drives exchange rates...
The alternative – to preserve policymaking autonomy- would involve a new proliferation of truly draconian controls on trade and capital flows. This course offers governments a splendid time. They could manage exchange-rate movements, deploy monetary and fiscal policy without inhibition, and tackle the resulting bursts of inflation with prices and incomes polices. It is a growth-crippling prospect.
Pencil in the phoenix for around 2018, and welcome it when it comes.”
The crypto community will never embrace the Rothschild coin. Their reason for being is decentralization. The fact that the Rothschilds feel the need to jump in makes me more bullish than ever
Probably Freemasons in disguise.
https://www.economist.com/node/166471
One world, one money
A global currency is not a new idea, but it may soon get a new lease of life
Sep 24th 1998
IN DIFFICULT times, people are allowed, even encouraged, to think the unthinkable. Some of the economists who propose capital controls as a remedy for recession in Asia claim to be doing this—but they are flattering themselves. Unthinkable? Malaysia just did it. Dozens of countries still use capital-account restrictions. And it is a cliché of the orthodox “sequencing” literature that a variety of such controls should be retained until other reforms are complete. Really, to think the unthinkable, you have to be bolder than this.
So here is an idea: global currency union. Let nobody call it boringly feasible, or politically expedient. Yet, like all the best unthinkable ideas, it has more going for it than you might think—in principle, at least. The idea is not new. Richard Cooper of Harvard University proposed a single world currency in Foreign Affairs in 1984, and he was not the first to think of it. It seemed an outlandish idea, and still does. But much has happened lately to make it worth a moment’s thought.
Advertisement
The usual way to ask whether countries would be better off sharing a single currency—that is, whether they constitute an “optimal currency area”—is to examine the following trade-off. On one side is the undoubted convenience of a single money as a lubricant for trade and cross-border investment. On the other is the loss of the exchange rate as a shock-absorber for times when one or more of the countries face pressures (an abrupt fall in demand for their exports, say, or a sudden rise in labour costs) that the others are spared—a so-called “asymmetric shock”.
In setting cost against benefit, again according to the standard view, the crucial factors are openness to trade and freedom of movement of factors of production. A small open economy has more to gain from the convenience provided by a single currency. On the other hand, if labour (especially) is reluctant to migrate, the need for the exchange-rate shock-absorber is all the greater. Weighing all this, most economists conclude that the 11 countries that are about to adopt the euro are not in fact an optimal currency area. The world as a whole is not even close.
So what has changed? The main thing is the current global emergency. This is so serious a crisis that it is likely to prove a paradigm-shifting event, though straws were in the wind already. The emerging-market disaster poses the question, How is the world to live with globally integrated finance? In addition, it casts doubt on what once seemed a good answer: that floating exchange rates are the best way to stabilise the world economy.
Shockingly unstable
According to the traditional model, a country with unduly high labour costs, and therefore a troublesome current-account deficit, could expect to see its currency depreciate; this would cut real wages, making imports dearer and exports cheaper, thus neatly restoring the economy to equilibrium. But in a world where international flows of capital overwhelm international flows of trade, this does not work. Floating exchange rates destabilise trade and investment by wrenching relative prices away from their fundamental values (that is, from the values that would put the corresponding exchange rates at purchasing-power parity). In the emerging-markets crisis that currently threatens the world economy, exchange-rate movements have not been absorbers of shocks but amplifiers and even creators of them.
Governments of small open economies have long known that it is not an option to “leave the exchange rate to the market”. Monetary policy must always keep at least one eye on the currency. But governments have also learnt, in a second big change, that intermediate exchange-rate regimes do not work either. That was the lesson of the European Monetary System debacle of 1992-93 (and, arguably, of the downfall of the pegged-but-adjustable regimes used in Asia until last year). Semi-fixed systems cannot withstand the assault of integrated capital markets: they are prone to self-fulfilling panics. In other words, they too are destabilising.
But what does that leave? Let’s see. Pure floating is no use. Semi-fixed is no use. So there are two possibilities. One is to turn back the clock on financial integration: then pure-floating or semi-fixed systems might once again be used successfully. That would be enormously costly, especially to the developing countries; and it would be very difficult, because integration is partly driven by technological progress, which is hard to reverse. Still, it is a fair bet that a lot of countries will follow Malaysia’s example and give it a try. Otherwise, it seems, the remaining course is to combine increasing integration with perfect fixity of exchange rates—meaning currency union.
The fashion for currency boards reflects some of this thinking. Exchange-rate flexibility is more trouble than it is worth, advocates say, so abandon it once and for all. Alas, currency boards suffer big drawbacks all of their own. Whereas a currency union has a central bank to act as lender of last resort, a country with a currency board does not. So these regimes are vulnerable to runs on banks. Currency boards are a poor test of the larger idea.
The all-or-nothing, float-or-merge analysis also provides the case in economic logic for the euro: strive for integration, it says, no holds barred. Unfortunately, EMU is a somewhat flawed test as well. It is a political project as much as an economic one, so it will not reveal everything about how well a currency union among independent nation states might work. But it will reveal a lot, and its symbolic importance will be immense. If it fails, not only will that cause enormous political harm to the European Union, but the pressure for global financial barriers will be greatly strengthened. If it succeeds, the case for a global currency union will seem much more interesting.
Fine, you say, but how would the world ever get from here to there? Hard to say, admittedly. Find the answer to that and the idea would be thinkable.
b of a reversed two of my cryptocurrency transactions— something i am not aware could be legally done. i went to the branch b of a office, where for my trouble i was given a lecture on the evils of bitcoin and friends by the branch manager.
Creating your own cryptocurrency - the ultimate in pump-and-dump.
The Rothschilds are the most maligned family in history. Half of the smears against them come directly from an antisemitic film produced in Hitler’s Germany. The rest is a mix of outright lies and theories based on the fact that a Rothschild wore a pagan/Druid headpiece to a 70s costume party.
To be lear, a lot of Rothschilds are Leftists. Leftism in its modern form is sick and evil. But in that sense, the Rothschilds are no worse than Pelosi, Schumer, Obama, Hillary, Biden, etc. etc. They’re all a bad lot—particularly on the issue of abortion.
You just don’t get it.
This is not all about you bit boy “investing” / speculating.
This news details recent efforts by the financial establishment to introduce a world currency which just so happens to have been predicted 30 years ago by the very same financial juggernaut family.
“pegged value” + “private blockchain” = useless. They should go for the trifecta and premine.
Are you in a situation where you MUST bank at the Big Banks? They are the worst! We love our credit union. No lectures, no attitude, no nannies. Just pleasant, smiling, wonderful, and accommodating people ready to help customers.
I suspect the Federal Reserve to eventually start issuing its own FedCoin and outlaw all its competition.
Crypto currencies are a great manipulators speculative market based on vapor (there’s not even ‘trust’ involved’).
Within a few years, they will be irrelevant as quantum computers will break their mechanism (one of the few things those fad things are actually good for)
Manipulation potential unknown — Has anyone heard what OVERHEAD EXPENSES (for running the ‘market’) the people who create the currency earn (the skim) ???
As fads go there are so many similar crypto these days that even that ‘fad’ aspect is losing its potential.
investing in tulip bulbs was sound compared to these scams
And then they’ll get their gov’t lackeys to pass a law prohibiting any other crypto but theirs...same as with the Federal Reserve Note, no competition allowed.
And then after they clean out the competition, they will do away with paper “money” and voila...Gov’t-controlled cryptos will be the only game in town.
to be activated for all good little subjects, and turned off to all who resist the tyranny. Can’t buy, sell, or trade without their Mark.
That is the plan. Nothing better than a bought and paid for govt - if you are an oligarch that is.
Bingo
Read gov’t analyst report about Priject Jasper CADcoin vs FedCoin replacement currency plan.
They’re not keeping it secret.
https://www.coindesk.com/decentralizating-central-banks-how-r3-envisions-the-future-of-fiat/
https://www.r3.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/cadcoin-versus-fedcoin_R3.pdf
Thanks for the links.
I wonder what POTUS thinks about it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.