Note: BlackBerry is NOT a cyber security company. They are a security company. Revenue does not care about your AI driven autonomous machine learning EV car with DDs. People are using these terms loosely. A quick lookup for interviews with John Chen would prove that he explicitly avoids these terms as they do not define nor matter to the products/revenue of BlackBerry. QNX revenue does not depend on any of these terms, it's on installation on any device. This includes the space station, of which there is 1 of with obviously non-recurring revenue. Buying based on these basis would be gambling. Bull:
Business transformation: BlackBerry is now a software company, starting the transformation in 2015. The focus is security, the general term.
5 Products:
QNX: Embedded system OS.
Multi-OS housing: It has the capability to allow for multiple OSs on a single chip.
Real-time availability/software prioritization: Not all pieces of software operate on the same priority. Steering/braking would be higher priority than media, and QNX allows for that. Even if the thread/core is shared with other applications, when high priority software is requesting a resource it will be prioritized to ensure reliability.
Resource sharing: CPU, RAM, and GPU resource sharing between different applications capability. Two applications can share the same CPU core and bump each other based on prioritization.
Why not Linux? QNX has the highest certification for security available. Linux does not. CEOs would want to avoid liability and this certification allows for that.
Device agnostic: It can be installed on any device, not just cars. Any IoT and offline device can use QNX.
QNX Hypervisor: Consolidate multiple OSs on a single SoC using virtualization
SoC: System on a chip. Instead of using multiple ECUs, which is what car manufacturers currently do, they can use one single chip to run multiple high priority applications and multiple OSs. This is what Tesla does now.
Virtualization: Running an OS in a virtual environment. Think Linux environment inside of Windows. This helps with debugging for developers without having to have the actual hardware.
IVY: Scalable cloud-connected software platform for vehicles.
What is it a solution for? When a vehicle manufacturer wants a way to transmit the QNX/OS data safely, normalize it, and visualize it/interact with it. It also allows car manufacturers to own the data, unlike other OSs.
Scalable: AWS servers are capable of handling the load from many endpoints.
Software platform: There is currently no centralized software ecosystem for vehicles. IVY is providing that.
Non-BB developers would be able to use an SDK to develop applications on IVY for infotainment/general apps/others. IVY will also use ML to gain insight on unrecognized patterns by developers. An example of this is detecting if a car slipped, without having the developer connect multiple sensors to figure out if that event happened.
50/50 joint effort on revenue and effort to develop the ecosystem. Using AWS's knowledge in AI/ML for calculated sensors (slip, driver on seat, etc)
Usage by other vendors: A city can connect to the data from vehicles and detect when ice/slipping is happening. If brakes are getting overheated coming from a high elevation area. If a car had an accident, etc. An insurance company can provide an app to give discounts similar to the currently implemented OBD-2 readers. A maintenance provider can also connect to this data and check if an error is specific to maintenance, malpractice, or general misuse.
Spark: Endpoint management. Basically API security. Did not delve far into this, basic info.
Unified Endpoint Security: This is the endpoint where a laptop/phone/IoT device hits. It provides encryption and security around that. Continuous authentication is a part of it, where a device is learning the user behavior using ML and continuously checking if the behavior matches the original owner; if not, lock the device.
Unified Endpoint Management: Basically managing your API for devices.
Zero trust: I think this is specifically talking about continuous authentication. Basically, it's not an authenticate once and forget it. It's constantly tracking behavior to verify the user is the authenticated user.
AtHoc: Non-enterprise communication system.
Target customers: Government, healthcare, education, etc.
Solution: A communication system targeting non-enterprise businesses; specifically for Event management, cross organizational communication/collaboration, mass notifications.
Who does this benefit? You've seen the hacks in healthcare/educational/governmental sector. This is specifically for them.
SecuSUITE: Phone application to allow employees to use work related data in personal devices without cross communication (between personal and work data).
End to end encryption.
Separation of concerns between personal and work data. Employers CANNOT access your personal data.
Used by NATO; doesn't carry much value in my book but maybe in yours.
Customer oriented solutions: As you've seen in the products above, some products overlap and are just names to target specific customers. It allows customers to easily understand what product could solve their issue. Continuous authentication is a great example of this: Their customer complained that they kept re-authenticating, so they designed a solution allowing them to authenticate once and using ML they learned their behavior and can continuously check if the user is the owneauthenticated user. This kind of passion in leadership is good for business.
Liability: QNX has the highest security rating available. Most CEOs want to avoid liability when it comes to security, using QNX would help them avoid that in a similar way cloud services help them avoid being blamed for hacking.
Leadership: BBs leadership isn't one to play on famous words to drive the stock up. John Chen explicitly states this in his interviews and says they are a security company. Not cyber, doesn't mention AI or whatever. He explicitly avoids meme words and understands what the point of BBs business is.
Where I think growth can be made:
QNX in more cars. They can capitalize on the idea of less ECUs = less cost for OEMs + security.
IVY usage by OEMs along with QNX.
IVY ecosystem. Maybe application billing?
Professional services (support) for the products listed.
AtHoc increased market share in more governmental/healthcare/educational entities.
SecuSUITE for more enterprise customers with the idea being saving employers money from purchasing work phones for employees, and worrying about securing them.
Bear:
Revenue: It is not yet based on a subscription/usage basis. You can only produce so many cars, and they don't give an insight on how much do they charge per car for QNX. Anywhere from $2 - $20 is what was mentioned in transcripts. This is a growth area, but not at a trajectory that's excellent. IVY does work on a subscription/usage basis, but IVY can be used WITHOUT QNX. I'm worried about this, but still see it as an area that will generate revenue in the range of $400 MM - $600 MM at the price of $20 per 30M cars. The 30M per year is based on the listing of their customers and their yearly production rates. Keep in mind I stated any device, this does not include trucks or other IoT devices.
Market share: These are relatively new products. J.P. Morgan pointed this out as a priority for growth. This could end up not working out and growth never happens. This is a relatively low risk due to QNX and IVY providing SO MUCH value for car manufacturers Vs. other products in the market.
Patent revenue: They sold a chunk of their no longer relevant patents to Huawei. This makes up a small (<= 32%) of their revenue and is a one time sale. The coming quarter could be equal or less to the last quarter revenue due to either other sales making up the lost revenue from patents, or coming up short. It could come higher if they sold more services, but due to COVID and knowing that many car manufacturers have lowered their production due to chip shortage, the next quarter will most likely be lower.
VW.os: VW is making their own OS. VW.os is what they're calling it. They're currently using QNX, but that revenue could potentially stop. Personally I don't believe VW is capable of doing that. It's a marketing hype. Their companies are not capable of good collaboration or good implementation based on what I've read and researched (can't find article right now), but it's something to be concerned about.
QNX success: While IVY could be using QNX, it does NOT depend on it. There is potential for OEMs to use IVY without QNX. I think this is a low risk, but still risk. 19 OEMs are already using QNX.
Lack of Answers: I can't get much out of their earnings call. They don't delve into pricing for QNX, how they plan to grow it besides getting more car manufacturers and more cars post Corona. How they plan to do recurring revenue. A breakdown of each revenue segment would be helpful, but I don't see that either and there is hesitancy to delve into it.
Prediction: I think QNX can become a $1B revenue per year alone. $2B revenue per year as a company is not far fetched. Without a subscription/usage based model, it is difficult to see how growth can go beyond that. BB is good in 2-5 years, not this year. I can see their revenue growing to potentially $2B - $4B revenue per year. They did mention trying to figure out a subscription/usage based billing, if done then the revenue would be much higher. I think $18 is a fair price on the high end. It could grow further than that, but expectations would be HIGH. Resources:
Position: 1,500. Disclaimer: I don't know everything, I may be incorrect about some things. This is based on what I've researched and to the best of my ability. Do your own DD. Obligatory this is not an investment advice. Edit: This is the only sub with a lot of discussion. I appreciate y'all. 🚀 🚀 🚀 🚀 🚀 🚀 🚀 🚀 🚀 🚀 🚀 🚀 🚀 🚀 🚀 🚀 🚀 🚀 🚀 🚀 🚀 🚀 🚀 🚀 🚀 🚀 🚀 🚀 🚀 🚀 🚀 🚀 🚀 🚀 🚀 🚀 🚀 🚀 🚀 🚀 🚀 🚀 🚀 🚀 🚀 🚀 🚀 🚀 🚀 🚀 🚀 🚀 🚀 🚀 🚀 🚀 🚀 🚀 🚀 🚀 🚀 🚀 🚀 🚀 🚀 🚀 🚀 🚀 🚀 🚀 🚀 🚀 🚀 🚀 🚀 🚀 🚀 🚀 🚀 🚀 Edit 2: One day later, marked closed $18.03. Crazy.
SoFi (IPOE) - Jack of All Trades, Master of None? A Sorely Needed Bearish DD
Reposting because last post didn’t seem to go through due to network errors. Disclosure: I have no position in IPOE, nor will I ever initiate one. Disclaimer: Not a financial advisor. Do your own DD. Note: I did this write-up for a friend; it’s obscenely long. If nobody here reads it, I won’t be particularly upset. But I’m posting it on the off-chance someone will find it interesting. I have seen a significant number of comments, in the daily threads and elsewhere, in which people call SoFi their “long-term fintech hold” or otherwise declare their intention to hold IPOE/SoFi significantly longer than a trader playing SPACs typically would - in some cases, all the way through merger and into the great unknown. Heck, I’ve even seen some commenters describe it as a “forever hold.” If that describes you, I would strongly suggest you think twice about that decision. For months, the #1 piece of advice on this sub, beyond all else, has been to buy pre-rumor, post-Bloomberg rumor, or on an LOI - as close to NAV as possible - and sell shortly after the DA bump. Additionally, SPACs that have seen significant declines in their share prices in the days/weeks/months following a DA, as most do, could often be ripe for buying in anticipation of a run-up to the merger date. Buying after a huge run-up, with intentions of holding for the “long-term,” is hardly a strategy that can reasonably be expected to generate good risk-adjusted rates of return, especially in such a wildly speculative corner of the market. In other words, it seems the players are becoming consumed by the game, and forgetting the rules in the process. Fascinatingly, this is an almost universal characteristic of frothy, speculative market bubbles. During the initial phase of the dot-com bubble, most retail investors were buying into pre-revenue, cash-incinerating companies at IPO, believing - often correctly - that hype would build for the company (it just has so much potential!!!) and that, as a result, they could subsequently flip those shares to another buyer at a significantly higher price. For a while, they were right. So what went wrong? Retail traders started to truly believe. It was no longer a case of playing the “greater-fool” game. They no longer bought shares and held them until other people started to believe in the potential of those companies; they started to genuinely believe in the narratives those companies were crafting and the vision of the future they were presenting to their investors. Instead of selling the sales pitches, they began falling for them. Eventually, the pool of capital sitting idle waiting to be deployed into the next “game-changing” company dried up…and the rest, I suppose, is history. Which brings me to SoFi. Specifically, why their nosebleed valuation is not particularly attractive and the downside risks are, at least on this sub, massively under-appreciated. To begin, let’s take a brief look at the history of the company, something that most posters on this sub seem to have surprisingly little knowledge of. In the aftermath of the Great Financial Crisis, the big banks massively de-leveraged their consumer lending portfolios. Student loan debt was one of the primary targets during this de-leveraging campaign, because, despite being non-dischargeable in bankruptcy proceedings (at least for now), it is, like most non-collateralized loans, quite risky for lenders. As such, the big banks became quite hesitant to issue new student loan debt - or refinance existing debt - at reasonable interest rates. Enter SoFi. SoFi, founded in 2011, attempted to capitalize on this opportunity. By offering to consolidate and refinance student loans, especially for high-earning recent college graduates, at reasonable interest rates, SoFi began putting together a large customer base that it believed it could easily cross-sell other financial products to - home loans, banking services, wealth management services, and the like. Backed by some of the most prestigious VC firms and investors, it looked like a sure winner. And, briefly, it was. Even as their marketing budget exploded, in early 2017 SoFi, believe it or not, actually expected to turn a profit of $200 million on $650 million in revenue. The same year, SoFi entered M&A talks with Charles Schwab, but ultimately talks fell apart when Schwab balked at the $8-10B valuation SoFi was seeking. Nonetheless, things were looking very good for the company. And then everything went very, very wrong. SoFi, which had made a name for itself by offering student loan refinancing to prime borrowers from elite schools with very high incomes, saw its loans start to massively underperform expectations. Nonetheless, despite a massive $200M write-down in Q2 on underperforming loans, it still managed to book a $126 million profit on $547 million in revenue, though company guidance indicated that they expected further deterioration in the performance of their loan portfolio in the coming year. Those dire expectations seem to have been borne out; by 2018, the company was deep in the red, with EBITDA of -$227 million for the year. Their cross-selling model, which they are still describing as a key part of their business strategy, seems to have failed catastrophically - by early 2018, SoFi’s home loans were losing the company an astounding $10,000 apiece, on average. And thus began the company’s long and hard dive into the red, from which it has not yet recovered. The decline was - to put it bluntly - catastrophic. Revenues collapsed, with 2018 revenues declining over 50% YoY to $241M. Desperate to save their rapidly-failing business, investors determined that they would need to start buying growth - at almost any cost. The company’s marketing and advertising spending shot through the roof, culminating in a deal to buy the naming rights to the LA Rams/Chargers stadium for an eye-popping $400 million. So how much growth has the >$500M in spending since then actually bought them? Let’s see. To take a look at where things currently stand, let’s take a look at their shockingly amateurish investor presentation. (As a brief aside - for anyone still doubtful that the company is selling hype, just take a quick glance through their investor presentation. It’s littered with the logos and names of the most egregiously overvalued tech companies currently on the market (why on Earth should the name “Tesla” appear anywhere in their pitch deck, other than under an executive’s name??). And ”AWS of fintech?” Seriously?). Interestingly, their presentation claims that the company is targeting “high earners not well served (HENWS) ages 22+ predominantly earning $100,000+.” Sound familiar? It’s precisely the strategy that monumentally failed the company, beginning in Q2 2017. And, perhaps most intriguingly, it’s a strategy the CEO disavowed just last year, when he promised SoFi’s investors he would allow trading in fractional shares to target individuals who “can’t afford to buy their first stock”, and therefore, as the WSJ reporter notes, would be “unlikely to have expensive degrees from fancy schools.” In other words, SoFi was going to additionally target a completely different - and much less valuable - client base for their brokerage platform. But what’s the issue, you say? After all, shouldn’t companies be nimble, and rapidly adjust their strategy to reflect changing conditions in their target markets? And maximize market share at almost any cost? Perhaps. Or perhaps not. In my opinion, SoFi, in their investor presentation, is now attempting to massively oversell the value of their current client base. Their user growth does, admittedly, seem somewhat impressive. But it appears to come at an incredibly high cost. Their financial services segment, where presumably most recent user growth has been generated, is obscenely unprofitable. Last year, it reported a $133M loss on $11M in revenue. It’s also quite clear that the growth there is decidedly inorganic, and therefore the staying power of those gains is questionable at best. That said, the biggest problem here is the shockingly low revenue figures, which I believe indicate that SoFi is acquiring massive numbers of “low-value” customers, and paying out the nose to do so. I know everyone here (myself included) loves to hate on Robinhood, but...in the 2Q 2020, their trading platform generated $180M in revenue, just from selling order flow. IN A SINGLE QUARTER. I really hate to admit it, but that’s incredibly impressive. On an annualized basis, RH is generating an incredible $55 ARPU by selling order flow. And it’s important to remember that SoFi’s user base is incredibly small, in comparison. In 2020, their “SoFi Invest” platform had a paltry 334k users. RH had over 13 million. SoFi, however, projects 150% YoY growth for their brokerage platform. To be completely honest? I think that’s bullshit. The massive influx of retail traders into the market due to COVID has already happened. And, to put it bluntly, Robinhood won. Sure, there may be something of a minor exodus from the platform due to their incredibly poor handling of the whole meme stock fiasco. But, seriously...you think those disgruntled traders will be going to SoFi? A platform with very limited capabilities (they still don’t have options trading?!) and a clunky UI that doesn’t even offer margin trading?! “But not everybody trades options! Surely at least some of the Robinhood exiles will land at SoFi!!” Yes, this is probably true. But, unfortunately, options traders are the real cash cows for these discount brokerages. Of the $180M in revenue RH generated in Q2 last year, $111M was from selling order flow on options. That’s an absolutely massive 62%. And those traders now only have 2 choices: they are either going to forgive RH and stick with them, or move to a big-boy broker like TDA, Vanguard, Fidelity, or IBKR.The reality is this: only the least valuable Robinhood customers are likely to land at SoFi. Acquiring the more valuable customers further down the line will be incredibly expensive, if not outright impossible. But SoFi is more than a brokerage firm, so let’s stick a valuation on that portion of their business and move on. Robinhood is planning a $20B IPO; let’s say the market triples that and gives it a 60B valuation. Robinhood, as of EoY 2020, has roughly 40x as many users, and their users are MUCH more valuable based on ARPU figures. But let’s be incredibly generous and value SoFi Invest at $2B. Let’s see what else SoFi has to offer. The vast majority (83%, to be exact) of their revenue comes from their lending platform, which offers primarily student loan consolidation and refinancing and personal loans. Because both types of loans are non-collateralized, let’s treat them as identical. So how much are other student loan providers worth? Turns out, not a whole lot. Navient, for example, trades at just 6x earnings. At that multiple, SoFi’s lending operations would be worth just $500 million. But they’re a tech company, right!! So let’s multiply that by a factor of 10 for no reason whatsoever and agree that SoFi’s lending operations are worth $5B. Finally, we have Galileo, their “technology platform.” What is Galileo? It’s primarily a payments processor, but it also provides bank account infrastructure services. Last year, it generated $103M in revenue; that same year, it was acquired by SoFi for $1.2B. Let’s assume, for no good reason, that SoFi underpaid by a factor of 3, and value Galileo at $3.6B. (Note that this is 36x revenue; another payment processor, Payoneer, just announced a DA with FTOC. At the current trading price, the market is valuing Payoneer at roughly 10x revenue.) At Friday’s closing price, the implied valuation of SoFi is roughly $20B. Even with the silliest assumptions I could stomach, that’s at least double what I came up with. Yes, there have been a number of very positive changes at the company over the last 2 years. Their home loan business appears to at least generate them a small profit, and their unsecured debt portfolio appears to be much less risky that it was when things turned south in mid-2017. But rectifying some of their previous failures can hardly justify their massively bloated current valuation; even with ridiculous, completely unjustified multiples like the ones I arbitrarily chose above, there’s simply no way that kind of valuation can be justified. Which brings us full circle. I don’t have a clue what the short-term price action of IPOE stock will look like. If I did, I would have opened a position in it last Friday. But I can assure you that the current implied valuation is completely nonsensical. Maybe you will buy the stock, and find a “greater fool” to sell it to at a much higher price sometime in the near future. Perhaps you will double your money overnight. Maybe you will hold it for 10 years, and by then SoFi will have eclipsed even JP Morgan. Despite the decidedly unexceptional nature of all of their offerings, maybe the “one-stop-shop” approach to personal finance will make them an unstoppable juggernaut. But understand that you’re making a gamble. A huge gamble. On a company that is attempting to execute a solid turnaround strategy, but has not yet succeeded. My advice? Stick to the tried and true strategy of this sub. As difficult as it may be sometimes, do not forget the rules of the game. In almost all cases, once you stop playing the game, the game plays you. GLTA.
A Look at the FDA Approval Process and How it Affects Your Investments
I’ve been wanting to do a post like this for a long time now. Now that healthcare has basically been the hottest thing for the last year (and somehow still getting even hotter), I thought it would be a good time. Many people try to buy into pharmaceutical companies around FDA approval targets without truly understanding what they’re getting into. Full disclosure, I am a doctor, but I will try to write this in layman’s terms as much as possible. If I get anything wrong, I’ll be sure to edit the post. To the best of my knowledge, everything I am about to say is researched (and therefore correct). I’m going to go through the entire FDA approval process as a timeline, and then at the end, talk about other things to consider when investing in pharmaceuticals (i.e., more nuanced stuff that requires/applies healthcare understanding). One caveat here is people use “phases” in multiple ways. The way I will use it is the way I see most often being used in press releases and DD on pennystocks. Preclinical: to begin, you must submit a proposal that basically states why you think a biologic compound will work. Without getting too technical, the preclinical is basically where you demonstrate a proof of concept. Here is a very generic example: Let’s say that HIV binds to GME receptor on cells. I have been doing petri dish experiments on a compound I created that prevents anything from binding to GME (this is in vitro if you ever see that term tossed around). I submit this evidence to the FDA and say that I think my compound will work in theory. TONS of things work in vitro and never progress beyond that. At this point, the FDA says, “okay we think your compound might work too, you can start human trials.”
Investor takeaway: the results of this phase mean absolutely nothing. If a drug failed in this phase, that would truly mean the company is incompetent in both their ability to assess the science, and in their ability to provide meaningful news to generate investor buzz.
Phase 1: Anything that passes preclinical is ready for human trials. We are talking very small trials, like less than 100 people. For smaller companies, this is their chance to get some hype about their pharmaceutical. For anyone who understands the process, this is truly meaningless. Again, working in vitro does not (and likely will not) translate to working in humans. This phase typically lasts several months and is primarily designed to ensure that the drug is safe. Here is a real life example, one that has already garnered a lot of attention: Atossa Therapeutics (ATOS) and their new breast cancer drug. Here is where medical knowledge (or solid research) can really help you. Their new breast cancer drug is called endoxifen. There are already multiple analogues (drugs that work in exactly the same way with minor differences in their chemical structures) on the market. Given the number of safe analogues on the market, it is likely (but not certain) this drug will be safe for human use. It is important to note here that phase 1 trials may be done on healthy participants without any disease, solely to test for safety. Accordingly, passage through phase 1 still may not demonstrate proof of concept on humans who have a particular disease. Let’s say that ATOS had announced its intention to start testing breast cancer treatment and initiate phase 1 trials. Like I said, the likelihood of success is pretty high given the success of previous analogues. On the other hand the downside is huge. Companies can essentially go bankrupt at this stage if their “sure thing” drug or medical device fails. Always be sure to look at risk vs reward. A drug that enters phase 1 only has around a 14% likelihood of making it all the way to FDA approval. Certain categories of drugs like those that treat cancer have even lower success rates (3.4%). While FDA drug approval does appear to be increasing more than 80% of drugs that enter this stage will never see market.
Investor takeaway: the road from here is super long and passing this phase really can’t tell you anything about its success in further stages. Many drugs are analogues and breeze through this phase, it is important not to get too hyped on them for that reason.
Phase 2: Unlike phase 1 that focuses on drug safety, phase 2 tests the efficacy of the drug you are studying. This phase will typically have less than 1,000 participants, but they will all have the disease of interest. In this phase, we are looking to ensure that the drug works (provides statistically significant improvement) and is relatively safe as far as side effects. To limit research bias, sometimes we will divide the participants and give some the drug and keep some as the control group (they may get a placebo or no drug at all). This is a pretty straightforward stage and lasts anywhere from months to years. It really depends on the drug being studied. I would never really expect a mainstream drug to get through this stage in under 6 months. The only conditions in which that would be logically feasible are either:
COVID (solely because of the politicization of the process) or
drugs treating conditions with extremely high mortality (because people won’t survive more than 6 months).
Lots of companies like to start releasing press releases close to FDA review of phase 2 results. Always be wary of those results. If my breast cancer drug was successful in 600 people and failed in 300, then while the numbers look good, the data may not be there. There is a lot that goes into statistical analysis and it isn’t quite as simple as more people did well than did poorly. It’s also important to realize that side effect profile is really important. Let’s say the aforementioned breast cancer agent ends up prolonging life in 80% of the study participants that received the drug. However, there’s also this nasty little side effect of developing a pulmonary embolism in 15-20% of people. That’s not insignificant and it is up to the FDA to decide whether or not the risk outweighs the benefit. Sometimes the FDA will order companies to redo this phase if the data are inconclusive. With cancer agents, this is common because the drugs are so toxic to so many parts of the body, so it really is about risk/benefit analysis. The important thing to look at in this phase when comparing the results of the treatment group to the control group is what is called the p-value. For those of you who took stats, you should know what this is. For those that didn’t, just know that in healthcare, results with a p-value >0.05 are considered insignificant. It’s also important to note that clinical and statistical significance are also key things to remember. Sometimes the benefit of the drug is so minimal that the side effect profile outweighs the benefits and the FDA will prevent the drug from moving forward. It’s also important to remember that if this is a drug entering a market where there are competitors, the FDA will look and see if this drug provides enough benefit over existing drugs before making a decision. One more nuance that pharmaceutical companies love to do is change the primary target. In the statistics world, that’s a pretty big no-no. If my initial proposal was that the breast cancer agent would prolong the life of my patients, and then suddenly I start talking about how it actually increases their pain-free time, this is a huge red flag. You can deduce that they likely didn’t meet their primary target and pivoted to something else they could meet. In any study you can find specific characteristic that makes you look good.
Investor takeaway: this is the first phase that companies can really release “meaningful” information. Because of this, many companies try to raise funds at this time to capitalize on the hype, be wary of the words used in their press releases and marketing.
Phase 3: Phase 3 is basically a repeat of phase 2, but bigger. It’s used to determine real efficacy of a drug. In raw numbers, we are looking at about 300-3,000 participants and up to 4 years of data. Phase 3 looks at the exact same things as phase 2: efficacy and side effects observed among a treated group (and sometimes compared to a control group). Statistical significance, that is, the thing that tells you whether the drug worked, is based heavily upon power. If you want to increase power, you can increase the sample size. In phase 3, the FDA is giving the drug a chance to sink or swim. They are once again looking to make sure you don’t discover any new, obscure side effects and to ensure that the phase 2 results were not a statistical anomaly/the drug really does work. Beyond sample size, the biggest difference between phases 2 and 3 is that we are observing a longer period of time for adverse events. Note the maximum time differences: up to 2 years for phase 2, and up to 4 years for phase 3. There are side effects that don’t manifest within the first 2 years. A very simple example is, actually cancer agents that cause cardiac fibrosis or pulmonary fibrosis after years of use. These are things that may have been masked in the phase 2 study because the duration. The other thing is that we may discover rarer, more deadly side effects in this phase. Let’s say in phase 2, we found that 2 of our 1,000 participants developed brain cancer. The phase 2 data may show that this was statistically insignificant and cannot be attributed to the drug (remember, sample size is very important). Maybe the phase 3 study will suddenly show that another 8 people developed brain cancer and it was due to the drug.
Investor takeaway: many drugs fail here, and not because they don’t work. They fail because they aren’t significantly better than what is available or the benefit is not enough to outweigh the risks. FDA approval isn’t simply contingent upon a drug working, there are many, many factors that come into play.
Phase 4: this is the big phase, thousands of participants, possibly multiple hospitals around the country/world. This phase further increases the power of the data and shows that the drug really, really does work and is actually safe. Getting to phase 4 is actually a pretty big deal. At this point, the company will apply for FDA approval including all of the information they have gathered at this point. In this stage, we are considering not only efficacy and safety, but also simplicity of use, and drug abuse potential. Drug abuse potential is a pretty hot topic right now because, well, opioid epidemic. Many opioids in the last few years have not received FDA approval solely because they are too easily abused. This entire application process takes 6-10 months for the FDA to review all the evidence and decide what happens. It is not uncommon for the FDA to request more data before approving a drug or further review. Many times they will request the company conduct a new study of x to determine y. This is normal but can seriously impede the approval timeline of a drug. This is where you have to remember opportunity cost. After approval it goes to market, yay!
Investor takeaway: you may think once the drug receives FDA approval that you are out of the woods in terms of your investment. You would be wrong.
Making it to market: When a drug finally hits market, there are two major things for investors to consider. Let’s start with the scary one, removal from the market. Remember how many times I’ve mentioned power, and sample size above? That becomes super relevant here. Depending on the drug, when it finally reaches market we may have many-fold more “participants” with which we can study the side effects of the drug. Sometimes drugs are pulled from the market because certain side effects emerge that flew under the radar during clinical trial phases. Sometimes the FDA sticks a black box warning on the drug (which really makes doctors stop prescribing it unless they have to). In either care, share prices tend to drop. They will plummet, though, if the FDA removes it from market. Market earnings: The last “opportunity” for investors in the approval process is the sales data after the first quarter of marketing. This is where the company shows their revenue from the sale of the drug. If you have medical knowledge, you can really thrive here. If you don’t, you are likely to get screwed because you probably won’t understand the nuances in what drives physicians to prescribe drugs and avoid others. Just because a drug works super well doesn’t mean it will ever be used. Examples of that are ACRX’s new sufentanil agents. Those will likely see poor sales data because from a clinical perspective, even though they are approved, and work, they will almost never be used. You would not know that without understanding the specifics of post-operative pain management. And finally, a disclaimer. Anything I said here, I can be totally wrong. Sufentanil could become the most popular agent on the market for reasons I don’t understand or couldn’t fathom. Maybe ACRX will have an insanely good marketing team. I am simply talking about making the best decision based on the available knowledge. Stock prices are fickle beasts and they don’t always respond the way we expect. A message to those who tend to hold on to their bags to gamble on FDA approval:
Yes, this really is gambling. Look at the statistics of how often drugs make it past each stage. You lost 40% on ATOS, you know what would be worse? Somehow their drug fails and now you have lost 80%. You see a drug running before FDA decision deadline, don’t buy it. No one knows how the FDA is going to respond and you are just as likely to lose your money than you are to make it. Honestly, you are more likely to lose money because there are three outcomes, and two cause you to lose money, one of which will potentially bankrupt your position. The FDA could either approve the drug (yay!), outright reject the drug (oof), or ask for more information. That last one is kind of misleading because it may not mean the drug has failed, but it definitely will destroy the hype built up and tank the share price. The extra information requested could take forever to get and you would, once again, have to consider opportunity cost.
If there is anything else you think I should have discussed, just let me know and I will try to add it. If this was helpful, please let me know. If so, I can start posting regular medical-based DD on the trending healthcare tickers from this sub!
DDDD - How r/wallstreetbets Created a Financial Weapon of Mass Destruction
Inspired by the recent events in wallstreetbets causing $GME, $BB, and $BBRY, among other historically highly shorted stocks to surge just to spite some rich people in wall street, I've decided to come out of retirement from wallstreetbets and publish a new edition of DDDD (Data-Driven DD) covering the exact mechanics that made this possible. I’ll also introduce those of you that are unfamiliar how wallstreetbet’s favorite gambling device, stock options, actually work and how they can be used by this subreddit as a weapon of mass destruction against hedge funds like Melvin - all dumbed down to a fifth grade reading level so that the average person in this subreddit will mostly understand what I’m talking about. Disclaimer - This is not financial advice, and a lot of the content below is my personal opinion. In fact, the numbers, facts, or explanations presented below could be wrong and be made up. Don't buy random options because some person on the internet says so. Do your own research and come to your own conclusions on what you should do with your own money, and how levered you want to be based on your personal risk tolerance.
Shorting
How It Works Most traditional (i.e. boomer) investors usually try to make money by going long - i.e. “buy low and sell high”; this is when you buy a stock thinking it will go up in the future (bullish). Shorting is the opposite of this, you “sell high and buy low”, thinking the stock will go down in the future (bearish). This is usually done through the broker, where the prospective short seller would “borrow” the shares from them, and they would need to pay back these shares in some future date by “covering their shorts” - or buying back the exact same quantity of shares they owe the broker. For example, imagine that there were only 10 Surprised Pikachu Pokemon cards in the world. Because nobody wants to deal with taking physical possession of these cards and risk losing their Pokemon card in their laundry or something, everyone pays a Pokemon card dealer a small fee to store it for them. Through their dealer, you can buy and sell these Pokemon cards as well. A 🌈🐻 realizes that maybe Pokemon cards are dumb and borrows 2 Surprised Pikachu cards (who has a prearranged agreement with some institutional Pokemon card hoarder to loan them out for interest) and sell them for $420 each, thinking that they're actually work $100 at most, and plans to buy the Pokemon cards back at that price to repay his Pokemon card loan (i.e. covering their shorts) - this is a short sale. Since no one actually wants to physically hold these Pokemon cards, these cards physically stay with the dealer who could then lend out these exact same Pokemon card if the buyer also has an agreement to allow them to do so. This means that you can actually have people owing more than the total number of Surprised Pikachu Pokemon cards in existence (i.e. short interest > 100%). Replace “Surprised Pikachu Pokemon card” with stocks and “Pokemon card dealer” with “broker” and you have a short sale of shares. Interestingly enough, this also applies 80% to how banks work as well. Short Squeezes So when does a short seller need to cover their shorts? Well, either when a) The short seller wants to, either to take profit or to stop a loss, b) Their broker forces them to through a margin call, or c) The broker forces them to as the broker has recalled their loan, usually for a hard to borrow stock - they get “bought in”. Today, we’ll focus on C) because this is how short squeezes happen. So, what does a broker recalling their loan mean? Well, to go back to the Pokemon card example, imagine that the dealer only has 6 Surprised Pikachu Pokemon cards that he’s legally allowed to loan out. Some more 🌈🐻 short sells all the 6 remaining Pokemon cards until the dealer has no more available on hand. So what happens when someone wants to buy a Surprised Pikachu Pokemon Card and doesn’t want the dealer to lend out their cards? He’ll have to force one of those 🌈🐻 to buy back the card that they owe them so the dealer can give it to the prospective buyer. But who can the 🌈🐻 buy back the card from? The dealer. But the dealer doesn’t have any cards to sell, so they need to force another 🌈🐻 to cover so that the former 🌈🐻 can cover their shorts. This vicious cycle repeats and leads towards a sudden surge in demand for Surprised Pikachu Pokemon cards and a spike in prices for it - a short squeeze. The Institutional Factor One thing alluded above was that shares can only be borrowed from *some* share holders, but not all. So who exactly can and does a broker typically borrow these shares from? These are usually margin accounts of either institutional and sometimes (although much less frequently) retail investors. Usually, when an entity signs a margin agreement, which allows them to borrow either cash or shares from the broker, they give permission to the broker to also lend out their shares in the process, and thereby also give up their voting rights - in case you’ve ever wondered who actually the share *actually* belonged to in shareholders meetings. Since almost every institution except Warren Buffet uses margin to a certain extent, and not that many retail investors do, especially given that retirement accounts are forbidden to use margin, and it’s much easier to “find” one big source of TSLA shares from one big institution with a margin account rather than find thousands of smaller margin retail accounts who hold TSLA shares, so most of the time, these shares are being borrowed from an institution (i.e. pension fund, hedge fund). This means that shares that are almost disproportionately held by retail investors are much harder to short because they’re harder to borrow from the broker, and retail-heavy stocks like HTZ, GME, NIO, and NKLA, which virtually no institutions actually hold, will demand high interest rates when shorting and the sellers can much more easily be forced to cover during a short squeeze.
Stock Options
What are Stock Options A stock option is a contract between the writer and whoever holds it that gives the option holder the right to buy (call option) or sell (put option) 100 shares of the underlying stock on or before the expiry date at a specified strike price. So for example, buying a GME 1/29 $1000c gives whoever the holder of this contract is the option to buy from the writer of this contract 100 shares of GME at $1000 / share on or before 1/29. Obviously if GME is lower than $1000 before that date, the holder would be an idiot to exercise this option to buy GME shares for more than their current market value, so they expire worthless. This effectively provides the option holder an immense amount of leverage, and provides the opportunity for them to 10x or even 100x their original investment if the underlying asset moves the right way - for example because a subreddit declares war on a hedge fund and pumps up a stock to make them go bankrupt, while limiting their losses to the cost of the option. The option writer will in return receive a premium for the option, potentially risking an infinite amount of money, but with a high likelihood of making a small profit. These writers would either be
Theta gang - who are looking to generate a tidy income source from those option premiums and pray that the stock doesn’t move in the wrong direction too much
A market maker - who writes the contract when they see an arbitrage opportunity between the market value of an option and the theoretical value of it, and hedging their contract they wrote by buying / shorting the underlying assets so they effectively don’t actually take a position in the market.
We’ll go over how 2) works and how this mechanism can be used as a financial nuclear bomb, but first you need to learn some greek. The Greeks The greeks in finance is a set of factors that can affect the price of a stock option / group of options Delta - Change of the option price as the stock price changes Gamma - Change in Delta as the stock price changes Vega - Change in the option price as volatility of the stock changes Theta - The decay in the option price as the expiration date gets nearer Rho - Change of the option price as the interest rate changes; Most people ignore this Looking at the greeks of the gambling tickets you buy is very useful to analyzing the ways you can make or lose money on them. Think TSLA will go up a modest amount? Buy a high-Delta call. Think GME is going to 🚀🚀🚀 1000% more? Look for a high Gamma call so your Delta gains accelerate as GME 🚀🌕. Do you feel like a vampire and want to have a steady income source from degenerate wallstreetbet gamblers on a stock you think will go flat (relative to historical volatility) over the next few months? Join theta gang and sell a high-Theta and high-Vega option! Market Makers The Black-Scholes model is a fancy mathematical model that describes a “perfect price” (a lot of caveats here) for a stock option. This is done by showing how every option written can theoretically be perfectly hedged by a series of purchases or short sells on the underlying stock. This means that theoretically, if there is a large gap between the theoretical price from Black Scholes and the actual price for an option, there is an “arbitrage” opportunity - this is where market makers come in. Market makers are companies that provide liquidity to a market by offering to be counterparty to trades. This is especially useful in stock options, where a single ticker can have thousands of options, and there might be someone who wants to buy a GME 1/29 $1000c but no one is actually actively selling it. However, this option might be listed anyways and Citadel will sell you the call if anyone tries to buy it and then immediately hedge it. In fact, when you buy an option chances are you’re not actually buying it from its previous owner selling an option they already own, but from a market maker like Citadel (who is responsible for over 99% of all options volume in 3000 stocks). So what happens when someone buys an option from a market maker? Since the market maker typically can’t (and probably don’t want to) take a position, meaning taking a directional bet if a stock goes up or down, they’ll immediately hedge the option they just conjured out of thin air by buying or shorting the equivalent number of shares such that the Delta of those shares is the same as the Delta of the option they wrote to remain Delta-neutral, so if the stock goes up or down their position value doesn’t change - this is called Delta hedging. Furthermore, as the stock price moves up (calls) or down (puts), they’ll need to buy or sell even more of those shares to remain Delta neutral since the Delta will change due to the option’s Gamma - this is called Gamma hedging.
Putting It All Together - How options can be used as weapons of mass destruction against short sellers
Now we have the tools to understand how these two financial concepts put together can make billion-dollar hedge funds go bankrupt. Through Delta and Gamma hedging of market makers, buyers can have the effect of buying shares dozens of times the value they actually spent buying their option; a XYZ 4/20 690c can cost only $100 in premiums but causes the market maker to buy $2000 in the underlying stock to hedge against it. If you get enough retail investors to do this, they'll have the impact of billion-dollar whales on the market despite their small stimulus-check-funded portfolios. Now, you do this on a stock that is heavily shorted, and with very little institutions actually holding real shares of these - making it harder for brokers to find shares to borrow, and you have yourself a weapon of mass financial destruction capable of making billions of Melvin’s money disappear in a single day and potentially have GME 🚀🚀🚀 to a trillion dollar market cap. HowwallstreetbetsControls the Stock Market The one thing that’s interesting about all of this is wallstreebet’s unique position in being able to facilitate this weapon of mass financial destruction because
Most rich people or institutions too risk adverse to buy large amounts of out of the money options (unless you're Chamath or Elon)
This can only really happen on stocks that very few institutions (i.e. rich people) actually own, meaning it needs to be held / bought on mass by retail investors
In any other scenario where 1 and 2 happen to be true, this would be classified as market manipulation and be immediately shut down by the SEC
My Positions wallstreetbets veterans may recognize me as the 🌈🐻 who wrote those long-ass 2000 word essays about how the stock market is in a bubble and loaded up on VIX calls last time you heard from me. Although I still stand by my thesis and stocks like GME, TSLA, and NKLA is just proof that we've reached the euphoria phase of it, I learned my lesson that I'm idiot trying to short it (for exactly the reasons described above) and got the fuck out of my position when VIX shot up back in Sept. Most of my "real money" has since been moved to gold and crypto, but because I'm a degenerate gambler, I still have a bit of money playing with /ES and a calls onhighly-shorted stockswith meme-stock potential (i.e. vast majority held by retail investors). Now that I'm busy with work again, I probably won't be posting as frequently as I have had in the past, but you'll see me around from time to time :).
A Look at the FDA Approval Process and How it Affects Your Investments
I’ve been wanting to do a post like this for a long time now. Now that healthcare has basically been the hottest thing for the last year (and somehow still getting even hotter), I thought it would be a good time. Many people try to buy into pharmaceutical companies around FDA approval targets without truly understanding what they’re getting into. Full disclosure, I am a doctor, but I will try to write this in layman’s terms as much as possible. If I get anything wrong, I’ll be sure to edit the post. To the best of my knowledge, everything I am about to say is researched (and therefore correct). I’m going to go through the entire FDA approval process as a timeline, and then at the end, talk about other things to consider when investing in pharmaceuticals (i.e., more nuanced stuff that requires/applies healthcare understanding). One caveat here is people use “phases” in multiple ways. The way I will use it is the way I see most often being used in press releases and DD on reddit. Preclinical: to begin, you must submit a proposal that basically states why you think a biologic compound will work. Without getting too technical, the preclinical is basically where you demonstrate a proof of concept. Here is a very generic example: Let’s say that HIV binds to GME receptor on cells. I have been doing petri dish experiments on a compound I created that prevents anything from binding to GME (this is in vitro if you ever see that term tossed around). I submit this evidence to the FDA and say that I think my compound will work in theory. TONS of things work in vitro and never progress beyond that. At this point, the FDA says, “okay we think your compound might work too, you can start human trials.”
Investor takeaway: the results of this phase mean absolutely nothing. If a drug failed in this phase, that would truly mean the company is incompetent in both their ability to assess the science, and in their ability to provide meaningful news to generate investor buzz.
Phase 1: Anything that passes preclinical is ready for human trials. We are talking very small trials, like less than 100 people. For smaller companies, this is their chance to get some hype about their pharmaceutical. For anyone who understands the process, this is truly meaningless. Again, working in vitro does not (and likely will not) translate to working in humans. This phase typically lasts several months and is primarily designed to ensure that the drug is safe. Here is a real life example, one that has already garnered a lot of attention: Atossa Therapeutics (ATOS) and their new breast cancer drug. Here is where medical knowledge (or solid research) can really help you. Their new breast cancer drug is called endoxifen. There are already multiple analogues (drugs that work in exactly the same way with minor differences in their chemical structures) on the market. Given the number of safe analogues on the market, it is likely (but not certain) this drug will be safe for human use. It is important to note here that phase 1 trials may be done on healthy participants without any disease, solely to test for safety. Accordingly, passage through phase 1 still may not demonstrate proof of concept on humans who have a particular disease. Let’s say that ATOS had announced its intention to start testing breast cancer treatment and initiate phase 1 trials. Like I said, the likelihood of success is pretty high given the success of previous analogues. On the other hand the downside is huge. Companies can essentially go bankrupt at this stage if their “sure thing” drug or medical device fails. Always be sure to look at risk vs reward. A drug that enters phase 1 only has around a 14% likelihood of making it all the way to FDA approval. Certain categories of drugs like those that treat cancer have even lower success rates (3.4%). While FDA drug approval does appear to be increasing more than 80% of drugs that enter this stage will never see market.
Investor takeaway: the road from here is super long and passing this phase really can’t tell you anything about its success in further stages. Many drugs are analogues and breeze through this phase, it is important not to get too hyped on them for that reason.
Phase 2: Unlike phase 1 that focuses on drug safety, phase 2 tests the efficacy of the drug you are studying. This phase will typically have less than 1,000 participants, but they will all have the disease of interest. In this phase, we are looking to ensure that the drug works (provides statistically significant improvement) and is relatively safe as far as side effects. To limit research bias, sometimes we will divide the participants and give some the drug and keep some as the control group (they may get a placebo or no drug at all). This is a pretty straightforward stage and lasts anywhere from months to years. It really depends on the drug being studied. I would never really expect a mainstream drug to get through this stage in under 6 months. The only conditions in which that would be logically feasible are either:
COVID (solely because of the politicization of the process) or
drugs treating conditions with extremely high mortality (because people won’t survive more than 6 months).
Lots of companies like to start releasing press releases close to FDA review of phase 2 results. Always be wary of those results. If my breast cancer drug was successful in 600 people and failed in 300, then while the numbers look good, the data may not be there. There is a lot that goes into statistical analysis and it isn’t quite as simple as more people did well than did poorly. It’s also important to realize that side effect profile is really important. Let’s say the aforementioned breast cancer agent ends up prolonging life in 80% of the study participants that received the drug. However, there’s also this nasty little side effect of developing a pulmonary embolism in 15-20% of people. That’s not insignificant and it is up to the FDA to decide whether or not the risk outweighs the benefit. Sometimes the FDA will order companies to redo this phase if the data are inconclusive. With cancer agents, this is common because the drugs are so toxic to so many parts of the body, so it really is about risk/benefit analysis. The important thing to look at in this phase when comparing the results of the treatment group to the control group is what is called the p-value. For those of you who took stats, you should know what this is. For those that didn’t, just know that in healthcare, results with a p-value >0.05 are considered insignificant. It’s also important to note that clinical and statistical significance are also key things to remember. Sometimes the benefit of the drug is so minimal that the side effect profile outweighs the benefits and the FDA will prevent the drug from moving forward. It’s also important to remember that if this is a drug entering a market where there are competitors, the FDA will look and see if this drug provides enough benefit over existing drugs before making a decision. One more nuance that pharmaceutical companies love to do is change the primary target. In the statistics world, that’s a pretty big no-no. If my initial proposal was that the breast cancer agent would prolong the life of my patients, and then suddenly I start talking about how it actually increases their pain-free time, this is a huge red flag. You can deduce that they likely didn’t meet their primary target and pivoted to something else they could meet. In any study you can find specific characteristic that makes you look good.
Investor takeaway: this is the first phase that companies can really release “meaningful” information. Because of this, many companies try to raise funds at this time to capitalize on the hype, be wary of the words used in their press releases and marketing.
Phase 3: Phase 3 is basically a repeat of phase 2, but bigger. It’s used to determine real efficacy of a drug. In raw numbers, we are looking at about 300-3,000 participants and up to 4 years of data. Phase 3 looks at the exact same things as phase 2: efficacy and side effects observed among a treated group (and sometimes compared to a control group). Statistical significance, that is, the thing that tells you whether the drug worked, is based heavily upon power. If you want to increase power, you can increase the sample size. In phase 3, the FDA is giving the drug a chance to sink or swim. They are once again looking to make sure you don’t discover any new, obscure side effects and to ensure that the phase 2 results were not a statistical anomaly/the drug really does work. Beyond sample size, the biggest difference between phases 2 and 3 is that we are observing a longer period of time for adverse events. Note the maximum time differences: up to 2 years for phase 2, and up to 4 years for phase 3. There are side effects that don’t manifest within the first 2 years. A very simple example is, actually cancer agents that cause cardiac fibrosis or pulmonary fibrosis after years of use. These are things that may have been masked in the phase 2 study because the duration. The other thing is that we may discover rarer, more deadly side effects in this phase. Let’s say in phase 2, we found that 2 of our 1,000 participants developed brain cancer. The phase 2 data may show that this was statistically insignificant and cannot be attributed to the drug (remember, sample size is very important). Maybe the phase 3 study will suddenly show that another 8 people developed brain cancer and it was due to the drug.
Investor takeaway: many drugs fail here, and not because they don’t work. They fail because they aren’t significantly better than what is available or the benefit is not enough to outweigh the risks. FDA approval isn’t simply contingent upon a drug working, there are many, many factors that come into play.
Phase 4: this is the big phase, thousands of participants, possibly multiple hospitals around the country/world. This phase further increases the power of the data and shows that the drug really, really does work and is actually safe. Getting to phase 4 is actually a pretty big deal. At this point, the company will apply for FDA approval including all of the information they have gathered at this point. In this stage, we are considering not only efficacy and safety, but also simplicity of use, and drug abuse potential. Drug abuse potential is a pretty hot topic right now because, well, opioid epidemic. Many opioids in the last few years have not received FDA approval solely because they are too easily abused. This entire application process takes 6-10 months for the FDA to review all the evidence and decide what happens. It is not uncommon for the FDA to request more data before approving a drug or further review. Many times they will request the company conduct a new study of x to determine y. This is normal but can seriously impede the approval timeline of a drug. This is where you have to remember opportunity cost. After approval it goes to market, yay!
Investor takeaway: you may think once the drug receives FDA approval that you are out of the woods in terms of your investment. You would be wrong.
Making it to market: When a drug finally hits market, there are two major things for investors to consider. Let’s start with the scary one, removal from the market. Remember how many times I’ve mentioned power, and sample size above? That becomes super relevant here. Depending on the drug, when it finally reaches market we may have many-fold more “participants” with which we can study the side effects of the drug. Sometimes drugs are pulled from the market because certain side effects emerge that flew under the radar during clinical trial phases. Sometimes the FDA sticks a black box warning on the drug (which really makes doctors stop prescribing it unless they have to). In either care, share prices tend to drop. They will plummet, though, if the FDA removes it from market. Market earnings: The last “opportunity” for investors in the approval process is the sales data after the first quarter of marketing. This is where the company shows their revenue from the sale of the drug. If you have medical knowledge, you can really thrive here. If you don’t, you are likely to get screwed because you probably won’t understand the nuances in what drives physicians to prescribe drugs and avoid others. Just because a drug works super well doesn’t mean it will ever be used. Examples of that are ACRX’s new sufentanil agents. Those will likely see poor sales data because from a clinical perspective, even though they are approved, and work, they will almost never be used. You would not know that without understanding the specifics of post-operative pain management. And finally, a disclaimer. Anything I said here, I can be totally wrong. Sufentanil could become the most popular agent on the market for reasons I don’t understand or couldn’t fathom. Maybe ACRX will have an insanely good marketing team. I am simply talking about making the best decision based on the available knowledge. Stock prices are fickle beasts and they don’t always respond the way we expect. A message to those who tend to hold on to their bags to gamble on FDA approval:
Yes, this really is gambling. Look at the statistics of how often drugs make it past each stage. You lost 40% on ATOS, you know what would be worse? Somehow their drug fails and now you have lost 80%. You see a drug running before FDA decision deadline, don’t buy it. No one knows how the FDA is going to respond and you are just as likely to lose your money than you are to make it. Honestly, you are more likely to lose money because there are three outcomes, and two cause you to lose money, one of which will potentially bankrupt your position. The FDA could either approve the drug (yay!), outright reject the drug (oof), or ask for more information. That last one is kind of misleading because it may not mean the drug has failed, but it definitely will destroy the hype built up and tank the share price. The extra information requested could take forever to get and you would, once again, have to consider opportunity cost.
If there is anything else you think I should have discussed, just let me know and I will try to add it.
Some of you may know me from my previous posts, many of which are among the most upvoted of all time on this subreddit. Just kidding, I’ve never posted here. I’m coming up on day 70 of SR and I figured I would make a post detailing what I’ve discovered. Introduction I began whacking off when I was 12. The negative effects were immediate. I went from a popular and liked individual to a member of the untouchable class. Never knew what caused that. Now I do. At 13, I started working as a blackhat internet marketer. In other words, I was a scammer or con artist. I had immediate success and became “kid rich” in high school. From there, I continued ripping people off until I was 24. (You can read about all of my various scams and schemes in a 255-page book I wrote about my life, and how I changed my life, here. It's free.) And we're back. Along the way, I became a drug addict. At 14, I discovered weed. At 16, I discovered psychedelics. At 17, I discovered MDMA and other stimulants. My home life sucked (divorced and depressed parents), so I dove straight into the world of drugs. Overall, from the time I became a teenager, my life revolved around drugs, video games, and scamming people. I also whacked off very generously, considering it to be normal and healthy. I thought it was a waste product. Not an uncommon story. Accidentally Discovering SR About a year ago, I hit rock bottom, which you will read about if you decide to read my book. In essence, I was completely broke and living at home, with no friends, and my girlfriend had just dumped me. Coincidentally, I was also whacking off a ton during this time. Go figure. A string of wild synchronicities led me to read the book Outwitting the Devil by Napoleon Hill. Think and Grow Rich was the catalyst that led me to get “kid rich” in high school, so I basically just followed Mr. Hill’s recommendations on how to outwit the devil to the letter… and it worked. I became genuinely happy for the first time in my life. I was crying tears of joy every morning when I woke up. Frankly, at the time, I was not convinced that lust was a bad thing, because getting attention from women made me feel so good. Still, since the rest of the formula for outwitting the devil was working so well, I decided to completely repress my lust. I even managed to quit drugs under the guise of considering them to be gluttonous. Life was good. The results were unbelievable. I moved to a new city. After being antisocial my entire life, people were going out of their ways to converse with me. I had tons of friends. Very attractive women were going out of their way to make themselves known to me. I didn’t know what on earth was happening, but my life was better than it had even been before, despite the fact that I was more broke than I had ever been before. Turns out money doesn't equal happiness. Who knew? After about two months of completely repressing my lust, I decided to have sex. With all of this new attention from women, my lust then spiraled out of control. Repression doesn’t work. Knowledge is the key. Knowledge allows you to want to retain. At the time, I had the belief, but not the knowledge behind the belief, which inevitably led to a lack of faith. Fast forward a couple months and I was back to where I was before: scamming, doing drugs, etc. Lust truly is the root of all sin. Lose control of your lust and you’re probably going to lose control of the rest of your life to some extent. Whoops I once again hit rock bottom in October 2020. I took a big gamble on a big adventure, and it failed. In fact, I came within a minute or two of certain death, and my plans were ruined. Now, I had $300 to my name, no car, no housing situation, and no more possessions than I could fit into a large backpack. I crashed at a friend’s house and spent two months mostly moping around. At the end of November 2020, I read a random Reddit linking to montalk dot net and had a bout of gnosis. Here is where things get interesting. Randomly, I messaged a random Reddit user, and he linked me to The Practice of Brahmacharya. I was sold. I started doing SR, controlling my passion, and being careful to remember that pleasure comes but never stays, the human body is only clay, and everything will pass away. This was the knowledge I needed to WANT to control my lust. Before, after reading Outwitting the Devil, I was doing it almost against my will. Results Magnetism. The point of SR, to me, is not to attract women. But there’s no doubt that doing SR will attract women. In fact, it will attract everything and everyone. But the attraction is mostly mental. People subconsciously sense your high vibration and they look at it curiously. You’ll get a lot of love, but also a lot of hate if people are comfortable enough to confront you. Your thoughts begin to influence reality more than ever before. Invisibility. This is mostly a joke, but I swear it’s real. When you’re vibrating at a very high level, you become invisible to others. Not literally. But I’ll give you an example. I’m walking down this road and the air is completely still. Two women are approaching, gossiping in a negative tone. As they pass, I say hello. They jump, completely startled, and looked at me as if I had just appeared out of nowhere. I was in their field of vision for, like, a minute. They should have noticed me. This has happened a couple times. I’m aware this bullet contradicts the previous one. Calm. I used to be an explosively angry person. In fact, I used to get violent fantasies. I used to really hate the sheep. I didn’t understand how they couldn’t see through the lies! May as well exploit them. Now, I love the sheep, even though they still chirp at me occasionally, especially with all of this asinine /\/\@$K usage. (I’ve taken a hardline stance and will not put one on for even a second. Since I’m still self-employed as a copywriter, it’s possible to do since my workplace (read: bedroom) doesn’t require it. I’d recommend doing the same if you are sick of the bullshit. We need your help.) Ability to disconnect emotion from thoughts. Emotions come and go. The error is when you let external influences affect your thoughts. There will be times when you are tense or sad. For example, it’s hard to feel totally good emotionally if you are tired. In the past, I let these emotions go straight into my neural network, which would lead to entire days full of bad emotions, which I masked with drugs. Now, I relax into the emotions, meditate on them, and they pass quickly. I usually learn something in the process. The thought of being able to control my emotions without drugs is awesome. Ability to heal trauma. If you are not powered by your semen (lol), you’re not as strong and solid as you could be. This makes it nearly impossible to face the trauma of your past, before you woke up. Now that I have healed my trauma, at least to an extent, my life is just wonderful. I’m a complete stranger to my past scammer self, which is fantastic. IMO, the point of life is to realize your trauma, heal it, then link up with the Holy Ghost, Sophia, and help others heal theirs, too. If you’re doing SR but still not loving life, consider reflecting on uncomfortable moments from your past. Don’t repress them, just like you don’t repress your lust. Loving life, man. If you ignore the ethics of my blackhat marketing, I was always rich in comparison to my peers, and I barely worked. I was also pretty jacked. I happened to be born with a conventionally attractive face and am quite tall. Despite these intrinsic advantages, life always sucked. Now, life always rocks, no matter what is happening. Do I still get down sometimes? Sure. You can’t feel euphoric always. But now I realize that stumbling blocks are part of the equation, and I take them in stride. I get excited for bad moments because I realize I’m about to learn something big which will make my life even better in the long run. Difficulties / Relapse I have not yet physically relapsed. But I have definitely let my mental state get out of control before, to the tune of looking at Instagram models, etc. This has happened twice. It SUCKED! Felt crappy for days afterwards. When I feel it bubbling up nowadays, I take a deep breath straight into my cranium and hold it for a few seconds. It dissipates. I also channel it into my third eye if it’s a lesser urge and I feel like I can actively control it. Learned these two tricks from posters on here. If I'm out in public, I straight up look away. I never really looked, considering it to be disrespectful. But man, don't feel bad about looking off to the side if there's an attractive woman walking in front of you. IMO, the mental leads to the physical, and not the other way around. It’s the same as any other addiction. You can’t physically force yourself to stop if you don’t want to stop, because your mind controls your body. So, work on your mind instead of putting all of this effort into repression. Books can provide the knowledge you need to want to stop. Once you want to stop, it’s easy to do so. Summary As far as other aspects of my life go, the past two months have been a wild ride, as I’ve healed an absolutely massive amount of trauma in that time. One night, I did the karma meditation on ascensionhelp dot com and ended up screaming at the top of my lungs for two hours, uncontrollably, almost involuntarily. Scamming people for a decade, then realizing all of that karma in a short span of time, will do that to you! This post has been all over the place, but I just wanted to let everyone know that SR is a very key part to living a good life. Better financial circumstances? SR can help with that. You want peace? SR. Happiness? SR. You want to stop scamming people, even though you’re damn good at it, it’s easy, and there’s no one to stop you? SR. (Side note: I did get sued by Perkins Coie when I was 17 due to one of my early scams, and I was also visited by a 3-letter agency for a particularly illegal scam, but nothing ever came of either of those instances. I’d like to say I talked my way out of them, which I did, but looking back, it was blatant intervention from my Higher Self which allowed me to talk my way out of them in the first place. Thanks, dude!) SR is not the end-all-be-all to success in your chosen realm, but damn does it ever help. I really like this community because you guys understand the physical, but a lot of you are well-versed in the metaphysical realm too. If you want to do SR to get ahead in the physical world, that’s cool, but understand that the real power of SR is allowing yourself to access the metaphysical and spiritual concepts of this world that are hidden to the masses. Many posters here can give me a run for my money, which I very rarely experience in real life. Peace! EDIT: Turns out I can't reply to comments on this post since I have no less than 25 karma on here. To u/UniqueUsername203: Fair question. This is an epic trollzor account, minus this post. I've had to branch outside of poker since I'm banned there for 30 days. If I really wanted to scam people again, I know of better avenues than spamming and pretending to be a girl, though I did that in an automated fashion circa 2010. Didn't work that well, only made like $20 - $40 per week and it was weird as fuck (even though I never directly talked to any of my victims).
"I think I've lived long enough to see competitive Counter-Strike as we know it, kill itself." Summary of Richard Lewis' stream (Long)
I want to preface that the contents of this post is for informational purposes. I do not condone or approve of any harassments or witch-hunting or the attacking of anybody.
Richard Lewis recently did a stream talking about the terrible state of CS esports and I thought it was an important stream anyone who cares about the CS community should listen to. Vod Link here: https://www.twitch.tv/videos/830415547 I realize it is 3 hours long so I took it upon myself to create a list of interesting points from the stream so you don't have to listen to the whole thing, although I still encourage you to do so if you can. I know this post is still long but probably easier to digest, especially in parts. Here is a link to my raw notes if you for some reason want to read through this which includes some omitted stuff. It's in chronological order of things said in the stream and has some time stamps. https://pastebin.com/6QWTLr8T
Intro
"The last month has convinced me, that we are going to be heading into a dark place for Counter-Strike esports in 2021."
"I think I've seen the scene essentially kill itself."
"For the past 5 to 6 years, we've basically been in a holding pattern of people coming into our game wanting to run it, wanting to run all of the esports and wanting to profiteer and its been sort of a concerted effort to drive them off and push them away."
"We're spread way too thin."
"If Riot don't get involved and stop the scumbags that have moved over to Valorant from getting their feet under the table, Valorant is going to have real problems."
RL thinks too much has happened all at once for us to do anything except watch it play out, like:
Recent CSPPA strike against BLAST
ESIC failures and them not being supported enough
Teams cheating i.e. coaches/bugs
Widespread match fixing
The Pandemic
"People who try to hold bubble events are so incompetent and fuck up and people get the 'rona and its their fault."
"People who say Flashpoint is a bubble is full of shit and is a lie and people are now suffering for that lie."
"To save money they let people go home and break the bubble for a week."
"Not just Flashpoint peoples decision, they have a partner that handles the production." (hinting FACEIT)
"People are trapped in hotels essentially under house arrest because of COVID restrictions and has fucked peoples lives up."
"It's all too much, all of this incompetence, all of this greed, maybe we ride it out."
RL says he has talked to the Riot devs (the ones working on Valorant) and says, "They are so cognizant of all the fuck ups and all the problems we have in Counter-Strike."
He continues to say that this is factored into their business plan and that we never had a competitor, but just so happens to have one coincide, when we are at our worst.
CSPPA - Counter-Strike Professional Players' Association
"Who does this union really fucking serve?"
RL believes that the CSPPA is a mockery.
He points out the hypocrisy that they wouldn't strike for the pros who were kicked out of ESL Pro League, or for Jamppi or dream3r.
He also says ESL paid CSPPA and are racketeering and many other TOs have to pay them to get their "seal of approval"
He says they would strong-arm TOs saying "well if you don't give us the money, these guys are so we'll just have to commit to playing their event."
Also points out that they will strike against a competitor they are not in agreement with (Flashpoint)
RL: "It's what it says about every other time you haven't done it and it's about every time you don't do it now moving forward." "The issues they've chosen to ignore this year alone are embarrassing."
Then he points out that there was no strike for Valve qualifiers even if we have no major but Jamppi and dream3r can't play in them.
"and Valve have said 'Oh yeah we know actually their stories are accurate, Jamppi didn't cheat, now in a legally binding document. Yep dream3r did have his account hacked in a LAN café', but they still can't play. Where is the fucking solidarity? Gone. Doesn't exist. It's not important [because] it doesn't affect you." "That's what the union does right now, it looks after all the tier 1 people."
He says the CSPPA doesn't represent all players all the time and has driven a divide where you have the haves and have-nots
"We have a tier of players that operate with impunity and do not help their tier 2 or tier 3 players out at all." "If you are not a tier 1 player you do not matter, they don't event ask your opinion."
He tells chrisJ to admit and own the fact that the reason he didn't speak up during the ESL Pro League debacle is because it didn't affect him
"They are looking after some players at the expense of other players. How the fuck is that a union?"
He says the BLAST situation is a reasonable dispute and supports the players but is not the right time for a strike and have not even identified the correct enemy
He thinks players are lashing out now due to previous incidents and are upset that BLAST are working with ESIC
He stated that CSPPA shouldn't beefing with ESIC and they should be working in harmony
He says what they need to do is talk with the teams/organizations that have sold that right to BLAST
RL: "Your employers, the people who pay you that massive exorbitant salaries, when you don't stream and you don't do interviews and you offer no value beyond your ability to click heads and you get 25k dollars a month." "Why don't you talk to them about it? Oh right. You're happy to take away BLAST's paper, but you don't want to risk your own."
"I am seeing such unbelievable cowardice from the players here with the battles you choose."
"Where was the strike action when in the qualifiers for the world championship, there were teams and players engaged in huge conflicts of interest?" "Where was the strike action when your image rights were taken and sold to every league you've ever been in every union type organization you've ever been associated with like, WESA, to your org every time you sign a contract, to the leagues you play in."
"Your image rights are essentially worthless now, there's about 10 fucking separate parties that have them, and how many of them are giving you anything for it? Not much pretty much your org by the way."
"That's a big issue. Your image is you, your image is your brand. What are you doing about that? Nothing."
He is also angry at SirScoots who is "popping off" at people on Twitter who all want the same thing, which is 'A unified Counter-Strike scene for everybody, that works for everybody, that has a sustained ecosystem that nourishes everybody.' "We don't have that now."
He also says their rankings are a joke
"Just so happened, oh look TACO, that very important prominent member of the board, we pushed his team artificially up when they weren't even in the fucking top 20, not by a long shot."
He also says the ineptitude of the CSPPA cost Flashpoint a monitor sponsor
"Is it really a player association or is it like a fucking agency at this point"
ESIC - Esports Integrity Commission
"They have been put in an impossible position."
RL says that Ian Smith, the founder of ESIC and who was done work in mainstream sports, is a good and honorable man who has dedicated his life to integrity and sports. He takes on both sides, ensuring match fixers are punished, but also doing appeals and ensuring those punishments were fair.
"ESIC is a tiny organization" and are in need of money, "They didn't run a grift like the CSPPA did."
"Saying 'you want our support and you want the players to turn up you better pay us.' They don't do that."
"Had startup seed money from MTG and since then they've been pecking shit with the hens."
Ian Smith made sure that the money given by MTG (Modern Times Group, parent company of ESL, ESEA, DreamHack) was nothing more than startup money and wouldn't be in debt to them
Ian Smith sat down with other TO's not part of MTG and wanted to partner with them. They declined and called ESIC "ESL spies and we will never align ourselves with you"
"They only were just able to afford, hiring a PR guy on a full time salary to deal with the press and send out those releases you've seen, this year."
"They have a tiny group of staff investigating these things and they have taken on the biggest problems in our scene: the cheating, the match fixing."
ESIC have had "unprecedented levels of cheating to deal with, because there's something wrong with our scene ever since we went online. There's something wrong with it, everyone's lost their fucking pride and self-respect and they got no passion for it anymore, so they think fuck it, what's in it for me?"
He calls out coaches who are talking about players rights when they would rob and steal from them.
Also says more coaches being banned are coming
He also points out flaws in community's reaction to the punishments to coaches bans: "Half of the cunts still have jobs and some of the cunts got new jobs. We didn't even shun the cheating coaches."
ESIC have "found I think another 2 or 3 exploits like that one and they are investigating them all right now, it's going on right now."
"I know that there are going to be more names getting banned, again."
"So they're doing that on a skeleton crew while, investigating 3 continents worth of match fixing in MDL and semi-pro level CS." "They're doing this with half a dozen people." "They don't have any money or any help. People barely even fucking cooperate with them, they are treated like pariahs. It's ridiculous."
"Why are the CSPPA popping off at ESIC on my Twitter timeline, when you should be working together." "because its all about what's in it in for me." "2020, the online era of CS: 'What is in it for me?' How can I cheat, how can I get my paper, how can I bleed this scene one last time before I fuck off and play shooty shooty bang bang Riot Games babys first fps."
RL says that in the CIS region, teams have gone to tournaments and have been eliminated multiple times by the same team. We found out they were cheating and those players who lost, have been cut from their roster, careers ended because of cheaters.
Stream Sniping
"They're all at it in the online era, they're all at it, they're all cheating, they're all using exploits, probably that see through smoke bug got used a bunch of times"
RL talks about how there is no integrity from dead (the player), always denying when caught doing something
On the topic of 'BLAST never said we couldn't stream snipe': "Lies, BLAST never said you could do that, they had to sort of retcon it." "because what happened after that they fucking started snitching and squealing"
"Suddenly you had like, 10 of the top 15 teams in the world, staring into the abyss of being banned for 6-12 months in line with ESIC recommendations."
He says that ESIC was put in a tough situation and couldn't enforce the bans because it would have resulted in killing CS. What resulted was, BLAST, ESIC, and teams came together and gave them a warning and told them, in RL's words "don't do this again or you're gonna get got."
He then says the top teams brushed this off and didn't give a fuck
The new MiBR team playing Flashpoint, that wasn't involved in the previous incidents are doing it again (stream sniping). He gave credit to Flashpoint for the quick resolution and punishment and respect for cogu's response to the situation.
"ESIC came out and said, once more, 'Guys, zero tolerance from now on.'" RL then got upset at community's reaction calling ESIC "pussies" for their non enforcement and said if we want competitive CS we cant ban the top 10 teams.
He points out how players have no integrity and will do anything for an edge as long as they won't get detected or banned or it's within a grey area.
"All of this shit was mad avoidable, even in the pandemic era."
He talks about why aren't we filming them. Why aren't there representatives for leagues and tournaments making sure players aren't cheating?
Match Fixing
"How many years have we let our scene be fucking pillaged by these greedy cunts?" "We just let it happen."
RL says that gambling and skins betting which existed in moderation was "accelerated and blown up by the Call of Duty greedy fucks."
"Never forget TmarTn was on the board of EnVyUs." "His website, CSGOLotto, they had a bunch of off-the-books sponsorships." "NBK promoted them. People forget."
"Those people who had access to the skins, go to the players" "Even people like s1mple, best player in the world, even he scammed knives and skins off fucking fans."
Owners of skin casino sites would approach pros and lend them skins to use in tournaments and possibly keep them after reaching a deal
Players would tip off inside info about matches and teams in exchange for skins. Info such as: roster changes, how they played in scrims
They would use this info to bet and subvert the odds on their sites. "That happened religiously, I can't even tell you how many times it happened."
"I had access to the biggest database of information, from an inside betting circle in NA, and it would take information and screenshots from other pro players, who were feeding them info in exchange for money or skins."
"Some of these players are still playing." "Incredibly, there are players still in the CSPPA today, complaining about the BLAST recordings, that were embroiled in this murky shit back then."
RL also says that there were tournaments where teams contrived with each other, who should throw, who should win.
"There's a handful of people that are trying to fucking clean it up, and you think you get something over the line and you see something like the CSPPA and it's run by corrupt fucking chuckle heads, and now you've got another corrupt body you have to fight on a fucking daily basis, it's demoralizing."
"It's too far gone. Our entire semi-professional scene is compromised."
"It's rife guys, I'm not going to lie any more. It's not just China, it's not just Russia, it's here, it's NA, it's Europe, it's Australia, so much more than you think, so much more than we can prove."
"I get sent chat logs all the time […] and they're morons, these players, short-sighted, amateur, morons and they're doing it on WhatsApp." People would get cut from the bets because they want to make more money, then they leak the logs. He says, from the chat logs, they spread "little" bets across every site they can (400 to 1k dollars) to prevent shifting odds
He says the scumbags who've fucked off to Valorant will do the same there if Riot doesn't do something and says Valorant "is an esports scene heading for a very early fall based on the sheer volume of scumbags that are already there."
"That's tier 2 CS in a nutshell these days. They know they're never going to play in a major, so what's the punishment?"
"All of these tier 2 fucks that are fixing games now they are like the fucking mafia compared to iBuyPower" "These guys are working with organized criminals to fix entire seasons worth of games. That's what's going on in your tier 2 CS."
"I'm literally being told that there are players fixing games at all levels of Chinese esports and motherfuckers with guns are turning up to team houses and stuff."
North America
"Everyone in NA has left we've lost a continents worth of support during this pandemic and Valve haven't said a fucking word."
RL says the Call of Duty "goblins" that destroyed CS for years are the same people who are now trying to leave CS. "The nerve to treat a game where the fans, and the community, and the TO's were nothing but good to you." "To just kick the players out now and go and leave and say 'It just doesn't make financial sense.' Oh you'll slither back when we have a major though for them stickers won't you."
There's a cascading effect in NA where people don't bother with CS anymore and people like Chaos suffer.
He says NA team owners are incompetent for always wanting it easy and always wanting a guarantee on their investment without skill or nuance.
RL says he would be able to market a team correctly and would have a good ROI and also points out how TSM wouldn't even be bothered to tweet that their team, which was one of the best in the world, was playing at the Major.
He also says not all NA owners are like that, compliments and respects Jason Lake who nearly lost everything to keep Complexity going.
He then calls out the incompetence in Infinite Esports when they acquired OpTic Gaming and bought an Indian CS team.
He says HECZ is not to blame here and that they couldn't tell forsaken was cheating when it was so obvious.
They measured his reaction time to the likes of dev1ce and s1mple
When an enemy showed up on his screen he won that duel something like 44% of the time
"was like the number 1 player in the world statistically"
He brought a laptop to their bootcamp and refused to use the high end PCs that hey provided
He respects Andy Miller (NRG CEO) and HECZ but says that the attitude of not being able to easily monetize their teams is "piss weak" and there needs to be a risk.
He says Chaos EC shouldn't be cutting their roster and should be competent enough to be able to figure out how to make money off their team.
He says there are still opportunities in NA and people are panicking and pulling out, and says Valorant will be the same if not worse.
He also says "bums" who couldn't even get out of groups in NA competitions, are making crazy money in Valorant and says it will continue to inflate.
He also said that he heard rumors that EG (Evil Geniuses) are done.
He also thinks that the rumors of a Valve franchised league from before was sparked up from "these lazy fabled weak NA fucking team owners basically trying to see if Valve would bite at the hook if it was dangled and they didn't"
Slasher says NA team owners are really in favor of franchised leagues because they want to make more money. "Most of the powerful team owners right now are on board with ditching this third party organization structure, or they are trying to play this power politics with all the TOs, and that is contributing to a lot of the problems there"
RL says that Riot has proved they can run a franchised league (LCS) and will be profitable in 2021 which is what a lot of team owners care about and says the competition will only serve to snatch people away from CS.
RL continues to say, "I am so sick and tired of what we have done to this scene, I am just exhausted with it." "I think we have legitimately fucked it, I really think we have. I think we're staring into almost like a CGS (Championship Gaming Series) wasteland in NA." "Counter-Strike esports is a fucking joke."
Talent
"TO's have treated CS talent like absolute human garbage for years now."
RL says that people like Sean Gares and ddk switching over to Valorant isn't for financial reasons because they are making less over there.
He points out that TO's can't even give talent a 3 month in advance calendar.
Because of the pandemic TO's won't hire certain people and some people are working more hours for the same money.
He says we as a community don't respect journalists enough which is why we don't have good journalists.
He also says DeKay is leaving the scene soon and that Thorin is close to leaving also
He says he had to talk a caster down from quitting and was struggling to find reasons.
He says that DreamHack told Vince they would hire him but not if he wants to stick with dusT and says that this is the norm in esports. "Constant leveraging of people against each other." and says this is why we don't have a talent union.
New gen casters are getting put into shit situations and the community's reaction to them is adding fuel to the fire
He says the reason Moses left was because of the terrible conditions
He says that Anders had to constantly leave his family and kid because someone fucked up or broke promises and had to constantly tell his kid to their face that "daddy can't be home this weekend."
He says that esports has always been a lie to sell you this dream, "Meanwhile there's about 2% of the cunts getting all the checks."
Valve
"Anything that Riot does, is better than Valve's inaction"
Slasher says that the larger aspect of esports as a whole compared to other entertainment mediums and Valve's lack of inattention are the bigger problems. He continues saying that the fact that Valve let their game be ran as an esport, they need to take on the responsibilities of it.
Both Slasher and RL wants Valve to take control but not on the level of Riot Games, there needs to be a balance.
In case it was ever a question: Gabe Newell has been to 0 CSGO Majors.
RL calls Valve out saying they could have done something during the gambling era.
He says Valve used to come to the majors, but doesn't think they do anymore.
RL had met with Valve at the Cluj-Napoca Major and had tried to appeal iBP's indefinite punishment and had also gave Brax's life story:
A recent family member passed away, they had lost a lot of income, they had to live in trailer, iBuyPower did not pay any salaries, and was pressured by family to make money who didn't support his career.
RL said that Valve told him, "How dare you try and make us feel guilty." "We shouldn't feel bad about enforcing the only thing that matters that we need to make players afraid of: cheating and match fixing"
RL also tried to share other info about match fixing and nothing came of it
RL points out that Source 2 or a new engine is not something you will want based on the experience of transitioning from CS 1.6 to CS:S. "Valve's track record with brand new engines being launched, not fucking great from what I remember."
Slasher says "If there is anything the community should do, is pressure Valve to hire a community manager."
They say that we need a commissioner, a community manager (not the person who runs the Twitter who posts memes all day), then we need to have a circuit
RL reiterates that Valve doesn't care about CS esports and says they need to change the culture at Valve to make them care about CS esports
Slasher says a systemic problem is making it so working on CSGO would be a bad decision for you as an employee for Valve
He also hasn't talked to Valve in ages and have sent over bugs and cheats and doesn't get emails back anymore
Slasher says we should be directing attention at the developer leads, pointing out Ido Magal, if he even is still the project lead
RL thinks that Ido and Brian are the only people that "vaguely even give a fuck about CS" and were the only people that RL recalled that actually read Reddit and paid attention from time to time
"It is really fucking precarious. Somebody has got to step the fuck up and start giving a shit"
Slasher suggests org owners, with CSPPA, with ESIC, with TOs have a concerted effort against Valve
"Riot Games are doing better things than Valve in the esports space" which is something RL didn't think he'd say.
"People who used to be talent, working with unions, arguing with other talent, when the unions fucked them over, can't understand their perspective, TOs fucking over broadcast talent, broadcast talent wanting to leave and go and work for orgs, orgs having no money, Valve might take coaches away because all the coaches are cheating, ESIC has about 4 people in a fucking call doing the investigations, everyone thinks they're spies for ESL, ESL are just the evil fucking overlords wanting to rule the scene and will just somehow, like cockroaches outliving a nuclear bomb, and Valve are in a fucking holiday in Hawaii thinking about the next Dota character because they don't give a fuck about us."
Closing Statements
"We've peaked. If we want to sustain and exist, now is the time to figure it out. No esports lasts as long as this, we've already done 8 years. We've already broke the records. We have got to figure out a way to coexist and drive the negative forces out and we need to do it as a collective and we're not doing that."
RL compared the Counter-Strike scene to the people on the Titanic who ran around with guns robbing people while the boat was sinking.
"We have given up on being a respectable esports scene." "We are now a conduit to make money for those who want to just milk it, just have one last ride, one last roll of the dice. It's done." "What a fucking mess. What have we done to our fucking scene?"
"There's just too much self-interest driving all of this." "I don't see a way we stop the dominoes." "When it's that bad, when there's that many dishonest people that ESIC have to come out and say that if we punish them all there's no one left. What does that tell you?"
"How many opportunities have we had to clean house? How many times have we said, 'this must never happen again', and another scandal." "The entire skins betting operations was the biggest criminal conspiracy in esports ever executed and no one has been punished for it." "The people who could be driving that don't want to."
"Right now people are fans of those organizations because the scene has value. It is worth being a fan of Astralis because they are excellent at Counter-Strike. It is worth being a fan of s1mple because he is the best player in Counter-Strike, maybe the exception of ZywOo. If the scene is devalued, if the scene loses its meaning, those things lose its meaning too, and people will leave, people will stop tuning into the games. I have seen it happen in multiple esports, this is not my first time at the rodeo. I am getting big Brood War vibes right now and I don't like it."
"The role you play in all of this as fans, as viewers, as listeners, as consumers of esports content, it's absolutely imperative that you know who the good guys are. It's absolutely imperative that you use your voice. It's absolutely imperative that when things are bad, you know who, at least, is trying to make them good, and you have to apply your criticism to the right targets."
He continues saying it's no good in continuing to attack ESIC and saying how they are bad, ESIC have it hard
He says CSPPA are on the right side of the argument on BLAST but have been on the wrong side of many arguments many times.
"If you are not willing to stand along side the weakest member of the union, with the least amount of influence, and the least amount of power, then it is not a union at all and you shouldn't pose as one." "You wanna serve a bunch of special interest do it, everyone else in esports fucking does, but do not pose as something you are not." "We love the players. I've been fighting for players rights for as long as I've been able to, but the CSPPA is not what we needed."
"They are not applying the pressure to the right people, they are not fighting the right battles, they are not helping their weaker members."
He says what orgs have done by keeping or hiring coaches is bad. "When you give up on holding an appreciable standard, you've lost the scene" "Competition matters, rules matter, punishments matter, achievements matter, excellence matters" "If you start stripping that away, you have nothing" "You guys need to take that knowledge and apply it sensibly."
"Valve has sold you all down the river, they sold everyone in the esports scene down the river, tournament organizers are selling their talent down the river. Don't hate on them for sounding tired after a 16 hour day. Don't hate on them because the hype for a matchup they've seen for the 20th time in the past 3 months, they can't be as excited or it sounds contrived. Support your guys, they're there for you, these are your people."
"This community has got to start acting like one for the first fucking time. Just put the petty shit away, let's try and fix this fucking scene while we still have one to save."
"You can't rely on Valve, you can't rely on ESL, you can't rely on the CSPPA, you can't rely on anyone." "Once again, it's gonna be the likes of us, the amateurs, the people who give a fuck, rolling up our sleeves and grafting." "I'm old and tired and I don't want to have to do it again. People need to pick up the torch and do it."
"Like Michal did, like Dudenhoeffer did. You see something wrong, fix it. You see somebody doing something wrong, call it out. If you think something could be better, let people know."
"Vote with your wallets if you're not happy with the direction Valve goes in. If when we do get to the Major, they serve up another subpar, same old bullshit stickers and signatures package again, do not buy it."
"You're a powerful block and if you use it correctly we can fucking avert this disaster."
"I'm not doing another year in this broken, bust-up fucking scene, where everyone is miserable, everyone is broke, everyone is tired, and everyone is trying to fucking rob everyone else, blind, while the fucking people who are meant to be protecting you, are just fucking enhancing it and lining their own pockets."
"I'm not doing it anymore and you shouldn't want to do it either."
"I stand by every fucking thing I said. I mean it, because this game fucking matters to me, this scene fucking matters to me. I put my life into this, my adult life, and to see it in this state is fucking sad."
Also on my blog with better formatting, cute footnotes and inlined images. Note that not much here is new material, mostly rehashing existing points.
Disclaimer
This article started out as research for my betting against Bitcoin on the stock market. This isn't financial advice. As a matter of fact, I encourage all readers you to not buy or short crypto, through any market or derivative. Use your money for productive uses. Here's a TL;DR:
The current parabolic price increase in Bitcoin is a bubble that has started popping.
A stablecoin called Tether is either one of the largest frauds or money laundering operation in history, and is providing most of the liquidity in the cryptocurrency ecosystem.
Proof of concept: No argument here, but now that the market cap of cryptocurrencies is closing in on a $700B, this seems moot.
Cheap Payment Network: Nonsense, since BTC transactions are currently >$10 and this worsens the more people use it.
Anonymous Darknet Currency: I'd have said "no argument here", but apparently it's surprisingly easy to trace BTC nowadays. However, crypto ecosystem as a whole seems to do a decent job at laundering money as we'll see later.
Reserve Currency for Crypto: Since a reserve currency should be useful as a means of exchange, and I wrote several thousand words on how BTC is not that, my position is pretty clear. Also, the fact that a cryptocurrency indexed to the US dollar has trounced BTC as the main means of exchange in the crypto ecosystem speaks for itself.
Programmable Shared Database: You know what's programmable, shared and a database? The database we use at work. Just learn to implement access control lists on your SQL server.
Uncorrelated Financial Asset: Given BTC crashed just like the rest of the market when COVID showed up, this doesn't hold up
The stupidest version of the "uncorrelated asset" argument I hear is "Bitcoin is a great hedge for inflation!" You know what's a good "hedge for inflation"? Literally anything. The definition of inflation is "the price of money". If the price of money goes down (inflation) then everything else has a positive return by comparison. People who say "bitcoin is a good hedge for inflation" shouldn't be trusted to manage their own money, let alone give financial advice to anyone.
Censorship Resistant e-Gold: This is a roundabout way of saying "BTC is a store of value"! Which, again, can only be said by people who've never read the definition of "store of value" in a textbook.
I already went into detail into this, but BTC is a terrible store of value because it's volatile. Assets that can lose 20% of value overnight don't "store value". BTC is a "vehicle for speculation". The only way price is sustained for BTC is that you can find some other idiot to sell it to. Just as a reminder, 50% of Gold is used for things that aren't speculation, like Jewelry, so you'll never have to worry finding a seller there. Here are some real uses for bitcoin:
Gambling is fun. You buy BTC, the price might go up! Or down! This is exciting.
Hackers, money launderers and other criminals certainly find cryptocurrencies useful.
Reminder: BTC is an ecological scourge The current cost to mine a BTC is around $8000 in electricity. This electricity mostly comes from subsidized coal in China. And given the current amount of BTC generated each day, we're using about equivalent to the electricity from all of Belgium, largely in coal, to keep this going. I don't mind wasting time on intellectual curiosities, but destroying our planet for glorified gambling is not something I'm happy about. I want cryptocurrencies to go away entirely on this basis, philosophically.
Current BTC prices are a bubble
Before we go into tether, reminder that at the time of writing, the plot of BTC price against the S&P500 looks like this BTC price has increased by ~800% since March. Still, no one uses it for anything useful since the last bubble in 2017, or the other one before that in 2013. This is another bubble however you put it. BTC is not "new technology" 10 years the internet became popular, Google and Amazon already existed. We're 8 years after the popular emergence of deep learning and it has already revolutionized machine translation, computer vision and natural language processing in general. You could argue that deep learning and the internet existed before their emergence, but so did cryptocurrencies. Look up b-money and hashcash for instance. Bitcoin has existed since 2008 and emerged in popularity around the same time as deep learning did, yet we're still to find actual uses for it except speculation and criminal uses. It's a solution waiting for a problem. Institutional investors are also idiots The narrative this time is that "institutional investors" are buying into BTC. This doesn't mean it's not a bubble. Many of the institutions were buying through Grayscale Bitcoin Trust. Rather, many of them were chasing the premium over net asset value that hovered around 20%. Basically, lock money in GBTC for 6 months, cash out and collect the premium as profit. Of course, this little Ponzi couldn't last forever and the premium seems to be evaporating now. Similarly, totally-not-a-bitcoin-ETF-wearing-a-software-company-skinsuit Microstrategy (MSTR) trades at a massive premium over fundamentals. There will always be traders chasing bonuses from numbers going up, regardless what is making the number going up. The same "institutional investors" were buying obviously terrible CDOs in the run-up to 2008.
Tether is lunacy
Tether is a cryptocurrency whose exchange rate is supposed to be pegged to the US Dollar. Initially this was done by having 1-to-1 US Dollar reserves for each tether issued. Then they got scammed by their money launderer, losing some $800M, which made them insolvent. Anyway, now tether maintains their reserves are whatever they want them to be and they haven't gotten audited since 2017. You know, normal stuff. There's a problem to backing your USD-pegged security with something that isn't US Dollars. Namely, if the price of the thing you're backing your US Dollars against goes down, you're now insolvent. If you were backing $10B in tether with $10B of bitcoin, then the bitcoin drops by half, you're insolvent by $5B. And then this spotlessly clean company they somehow added $20B to their balance sheet in the second half of 2020 Reminder: one side of that balance sheet is currently floating around the cryptocurrency ecosystem. Cryptocurrency traders own it as an asset and sell it to others. The other half of the balance sheet is whatever tether wants. There are only two possibilities that explain tether's growth:
It could also be a happy mix of both. One particularly interesting date is 30/8/2020, where tether added $3B to its balance sheet overnight. This is interesting because it predates the subsequent movement in bitcoin price and large movements in other cryptocurrencies. The story from tether and tether's bank's CEO is that this money largely comes from foreign nationals through an OTC desk which implies the transaction goes as following:
That OTC desk converts the money to USD and sends it to tether's correspondent US bank. The OTC desk gives tether to the foreign national.
Wait tether has a correspondent US bank?
Oh, I forgot to mention, no bank wants tether as a customer because they obviously break KYC/AML compliance. So tether first boughtinvested in a bank called Noble which then lost its relationship with Wells-Fargo when they realized tether were lying to them about AML. Poor tether lost its legal access to USD. Tether has been banking in the Bahamas with a bank called Deltec since. First they had a money launderer called Crypto Capital Corp to send funds to customers, who stole the $800M from them and subsequently went to jail. But worry not! Tether found a way to get banked in USD afterwards. Curious coincidence, an executive at Deltec was randomly blogging about buying small US community banks in 2018. You know, that thing money launderers do. So tether's story is that in 2020, they took in roughly twenty billion USD of shady foreign money into the small community US bank their deltec bankers bought. These transactions are necessarily breaking KYC/AML. The foreign parties to those transactions wouldn't take such a rickety route to convert billions into cryptocurrencies if they weren't laughed out of the room in serious banks. But of course, Deltec will say it did KYC on tether. Really solid KYC, clearly, since they're the last bank on earth taking tether's business. Tether says they do KYC on their customers (the large OTC desks). And I'm sure the OTC desks would be shocked, shocked if the cash money they get in Russia and China turns out to be dirty. So everyone can pass the buck of responsibility down the road and claim "We do KYC on our customers". Sure you do, tether. If you did such great KYC, you wouldn't have such problems finding banking relationships. I mean when even HSBC is not doing business with you you're apparently more obviously moving criminal money than fucking drug cartels. And, according to tether's people, this money is what's backing tether's reserves. Money that will get frozen the instant a prosecutor even looks at it. Reminder: the above is the charitable, positive case for tether. The less charitable case is that they took crayons and added zeros to their balance sheet, and that there's a couple billions waiting to burn a hole in the crypto ecosystem. Anyway, the $25B garbage fire that is tether will make a great book/netflix series at some point and their hilariously stupid CTO going on podcasts while flinching on questions about how BTC ended up on their balance sheet will be a fun part of it. But I'm not here to write a book, I'm here to make money by shorting all of this. For my purposes, even in the positive case tether is a ticking time bomb waiting to burn a hole in the crypto ecosystem, because...
KYC and AML are coming for cryptocurrencies
If you listen to "crypto news", all incoming crypto regulation is just great, because that means crypto is becoming legit. However, companies investing in crypto are very angry about them. This is because crypto transactions break the FinCEN travel rule, where KYC information should "travel" along transactions, to prevent money laundering obfuscation schemes. Of course, according to the crypto industry this is "stifling innovation". A more reasonable take is that by being leaving the crypto industry outside normal financial regulations, we're enabling a "race to the bottom". As we saw with shadow banks in the 2000-2007 era this leads to "creative banking". I don't want my bankers to be creative, I want them to be solvent.
Tether's effect on the crypto ecosystem
When tether implodes, it's taking most of the crypto industry along for a fun ride. Tether can implode in one of a few ways:
A BTC price crash triggers it. If
Regulators decide they've had enough of AML avoidance and regulate them.
The NYAG investigation, which is waiting for an update in a few weeks, finds something and shuts them out.
Let's assume tether falls to $0 for simplicity. The analysis is the same directionally if tether significantly "breaks the buck". This doesn't happen instantly, but it happens quickly. The peg breaks, and most people holding tether will try to sell it for other crypto (BTC, ETH, etc.). This puts downward pressure on the price of tether, incentivizing even more people to "pass the buck". Automated inter-exchange arbitrage bots might try to exploit emerging gaps in bid-ask spreads, only to end up with worthless tether instead, as their operators rush to pull the plug. Then, we have a small village of cryptocurrency enthusiasts being out some $24B. With the trading bots turned off and the trading lubricant (a dollar pegged asset) gone, the bid-ask spreads blow up. You get a predictable flight to safety -- that is, to real money. This puts downward pressure on BTC. While all of this is happening, there are all sorts of fun second-order effects happen. A lot of DeFi derivative products are priced in cryptocurrencies, so having normally stable prices shuffle around (eg. USDC price moving above $1 in a flight to safety) triggers a tsunami of margin calls. Some exchanges might insolvent (they're the ones redeeming tether for USD after all).
If BTC price drops below $8000, fun things happen
Currently, the price to mine a BTC is roughly $8000. Most of the mining comes from huge mining farms using subsidized coal in China, and mining costs more the more hardware there is to mine it. Since the price of BTC hasn't substantially dropped below cost to mine we're in for a fun experiment if the price drops below this threshold. Most of these farms should turn off so that the price to mine comes back to breakeven in a case of prisoner's dilemma. But if too much hardware turns off, this leaves mining hardware idle and the door becomes wide open to a 51% attack. It's not clear at what price below breakeven cost to mine a 51% attack becomes a serious threat, but once this threshold is crossed, we're in the "irreparable harm to BTC" risk zone. And for a person like me, who just wants to see crypto disappear forever this is very exciting. Maybe those mining farms could be replaced with nice forests soaking up all the carbon they emitted for posterity. One can hope.
How do I bet against all of this?
Microstrategy (MSTR) is, at this point, a bitcoin ETF wearing the skinsuit of a dying software company. Michael Saylor, MSTR's CEO, is quite the character. I wrote a lot about his lack understanding of what a currency is, but it's on another level to look at the early stages of a bubble pop and decide this is a good time to buy $10M more of the stuff, as seen here However, this bubble is tame by Michael's standards. Look at the historical stock of his company What's happening on the left is that Saylor pumped the numbers with accounting fraud then the SEC took issue with the fake numbers. The stock dropped 90% practically overnight. Their accountants, PWC, paid $51M in fines. Saylor and friends paid fines, partly with company stock. You could also short GBTC, but when Mr. Saylor provides you with an options market instead, why not use it? Shorting on crypto exchanges that might become insolvent in the very event you want to happen with this bet is a bad idea, on the other hand.
Mike can't cash out
The bitcoin market is illiquid and leveraged when it comes to real money coming in and leaving the ecosystem. Buys in the $10M-$100M seemingly move the price of BTC by upwards of $1000 in the last weeks. This means hundreds of millions of real money means tens of billions in movement in BTC market capitalization. Now imagine what cashing $1.1B of BTC into real money would mean for the price. And this is purely in market terms, before the PR damage from bitcoin's demigod abandoning ship would have second-order effects. Saylor has painted himself into a corner. Even if he wanted to cash out, he can't.
MSTR fundamentals: Why it should be valued below $10
In early 2020, MSTR was a slowly dying business. The EBITDA has been rapidly evaporating in the last 5 years At that point, MSTR a stock price of $115 meaning a market cap of $1.1B. This included some $560M of cash they were sitting on. I presume the remaining $550M was an implicit sales premium for the inevitable private equity firm investors expected was going to relieve them of this stock and make the business profitable again. Of course, they didn't sell. Instead, they took the $560m they were sitting on and bought $400m of BTC at prices $11k and $13k in late summer 2020. Then, in early December, they took on $600m of debt to buy BTC with at $23k. They also bought $10m more in January at a price of $30.5k. At this point, we can mostly value MSTR like a trust.
Price the underlying software business as being worth $600M, as the market did before the bitcoin nonsense. If BTC went to $0, this is what we'd value it at, and the MSTR stock should be around $65.
But wait! MSTR took on $650M in debt in December. Their actual value with a BTC priced at $0 should be much, much lower than $65 depending on how you value the debt. You could make an argument it should be in the single digits.
They hold 70,784 BTC. At current prices ($32,000) this is worth roughly $2.2B. With the current market cap of MSTR ($577 stock price), this means MSTR is currently priced at an eye watering $3B premium over fundamental value.
GBTC's 20% premium-to-NAV is a joke compared to the MSTR premium.
Elon Musk's tweets about bitcoin are only helping the pump and dumpers of bitcoin while making himself rich. Drawing the world into a cashless society.
The internet is a funny place honestly, we have the greatest amount of hypocrites on this platform, last week it was all about screwing the rich bastards on Wallstreet, attacking those billionaires who rob from the little guy while getting rich, but the same fools who are on that anti-Wallstreet bandwagon completely turn a blind eye to the deception, corruption, manipulation which are the exchanges of cryptocurrency and bitcoin, completely turn a blind eye to that who also rob from the little guy, Who are those little guys I am talking about? Those mom and dad investors who get caught up in the hype-train of bitcoin. They are the ones who are losing on bitcoin because they get caught up in the hype of it, every year its the same routine, bitcoin makes the news, social media rounds, people get drawn into it like its a get rich quick scheme, the little guy thinks to himself "Hmmm ill put a $100 or $1000 on it, gamble a bit and maybe ill get rich, small risk big reward". A couple of days later he loses it, sells his initial purchase as a loss. Oh, you might think big deal $100-1000 who cares, move on. Right that's exactly what they want you to think, they want people to have that mentality, actually, they want tens of millions of people around the world to have that mentality when the hype-train arrives, so they can invest and lose it, which millions of people do. It's those microtransactions that they want, which the majority of the capital of bitcoin is based on. Just go look at the timeline of when bitcoin makes the rounds on the news in the past 5 years, have a look, and look at the timeline of bitcoin prices, as soon as the media articles die out bitcoin takes a dip as well, The media does its part in pumping the price of bitcoin and selling the hype to mom and dad investors when it dips and dies out, the investors sell at a loss, the pump and dumpers buy back at a small price, wait another year and do the same thing over and over again, but that game is dying out and people are no longer buying into the mainstream media hype of bitcoin, this is why Elon Musk is now the poster boy for bitcoin. He is now drawing more investors to it, the perfect poster boy for this generation and that type of tech, A Billionaire who doesn't act like a regular billionaire, who understand the people's needs and wants, who invests in futuristic tech and uses social media, goes on the Joe Rogan podcast and smokes a blunt, while fanboys listen and obey every single word he says. All marketed, all fake. Now we have Elon Musk hyping this bitcoin up while making himself rich. Yeah come on, honestly you think a person like Elon Musk doesn't have a piece of the bitcoin? You are a complete fool if you think he has no invested interest in bitcoin. Is Elon Musk aware that the communist party of China has such a big investment in bitcoin? That majority of the bitcoin farmers in this world are Chinese? Is he not aware that the communist party throws people into concentration camps? So when he sends tweets about bitcoin he makes those bastards rich, not just him but other dictators and regimes in the world rich while taking those mom and dad investor's money + Making those hedgefund bastards on Wallstreet rich as well, oh yes they have been in this game for a very long time, the hedgefund bastards live and breath money, generation after generation. They come from Generation who BUILT the financial system, BUILT IT. The majority of bitcoin was farmed out before it started to actually rise up in price, they were in this game for a very long time. Yes, they were. But they used this anti-media, anti-establishment narrative to make people think that this is something that goes against the system and which is independent of its own. They had the same dirty Wallstreet bastards going on media outlets talking about "How bad bitcoin is" making people think that these guys are going to lose all their money and that a revolution was going to happen, little did people know those same guys who are saying don't buy it, already bought into it. They were just drawing you into it, do you actually believe these people are not aware of the mentality of the anti-establishment? Do you think they live in a bubble? They are smart and when it comes to money they are on top of the game. The anti-establishment was their selling point and no greater deception is to have those same bastards which the world hated at that time come on and speak up against bitcoin. That just made people buy into it more, and they still do. Anyways I can go on and on and on, but I will leave you something to ponder over. during the 2009 financial crisis, there was this chatter about a cashless society which people hated, hated it, they knew cash had its freedoms especially for small business so the idea of removing cash from society was not a good thing, (Again one of the bitcoins selling points that it was private, untraceable) - to a degree that is true but it is a load of bull. If you have a society that is no longer cashless, that means every single transaction you do, is known. Every single dollar you transfer from your account is known, every single dollar that you earn is known, meaning that you don't even need to do a tax return, small businesses are going to lose big time because they rely a lot on cash payments, but once a cashless society happens, you will no longer need to lodge in a tax return everything will be automatically calculated and all it will ask you is for some "deductions", what a joke. You might think "hey that's all good what's the big deal about that?", well when the government wants to raise taxes, and they will. There will be nothing you can do about it, you will be forced to pay it and every year they will just raise it higher and higher, you can't escape that in a cashless society, and don't think the same sort of privacy will apply to you in a cashless society like the likes of bitcoin, no no no no, they know everything. Just look at America now and all the debt they are in, from all these loans they got and most of the western nations are on the same boat, they badly need a system to collect taxes to pay their debts off - Hence a cashless society where you can monitor all transactions which leave no room for a person to avoid a single dollar of tax collection. The mentality of humans from the year 2009 to 2021 has changed all because of this deception of bitcoin. It made people buy into the idea of a cashless society. So yeah I am pretty sure Elon Musks knows about this, a billionaire who wants to implant chips into people's skulls, you think a person like this gives a damn about you? LOLLLL, this man knows the power he has the influence he has, I am pretty sure this dude bought a tone more of bitcoin before he sent out that last tweet. What's going to stop him honestly? He is built and driven around money. So be careful of this guy's tweets, he is taking the world for a ride while making himself even richer and his Wallstreet buddies as well.
Streaming options for Week 5 - Who are you guys streaming next week? Here are my thoughts.
Row, row, row your teamGently down the STREAMFantasy, fantasy, fantasy, fantasyTitle's not a dream In these crazy times, fantasy GMs need to be flexible and quick to react. Plenty of games are being postponed, and plenty of fantasy lineups are remaining unfilled. This is where streaming can come in handy and fill those holes left by poor schedules or game postponements. Here are my thoughts on the fantasy basketball streamers for Week 5. Just one word before we go deep into next week. I've been getting some amazing replies to my posts in the past few weeks, and thank you guys so much for this! I just wanted to let you know that the whole RotoBaller crew is working hard to help fantasy GMs out, and there is a ton of quality stuff on plenty of topics on our website, so if you're looking for information about something else as well, you can probably find it here: https://www.rotoballer.com/category/nba-fantasy-basketball-advice
NBA Schedule Guide - Week 5
Very obvious week for streaming. Tuesday with two and Thursday with three will be the days we focus on. All other days have between seven and 13 games played so fantasy GMs should have less difficulty filling up the lineups there. Here's the low-down: Teams with 4 games: Atlanta Hawks Brooklyn Nets Dallas Mavericks Detroit Pistons Golden State Warriors Houston Rockets Memphis Grizzlies Miami Heat Milwaukee Bucks Minnesota Timberwolves New York Knicks Orlando Magic Phoenix Suns Portland Trail Blazers San Antonio Spurs Toronto Raptors Teams with 3 games: Boston Celtics Charlotte Hornets Chicago Bulls Cleveland Cavaliers Denver Nuggets Indiana Pacers Los Angeles Clippers Los Angeles Lakers New Orleans Pelicans Oklahoma City Thunder Philadelphia 76ers Sacramento Kings Utah Jazz Washington Wizards Teams with 2 games: None Number of teams playing each day: Monday: 20 Tuesday: 4 Wednesday: 22 Thursday: 6 Friday: 26 Saturday: 14 Sunday: 16 Back-to-Backs (beware of older or banged-up players who might rest): Monday/Tuesday: - Tuesday/Wednesday: - Wednesday/Thursday: GSW Thursday/Friday: MIL, NYK Friday/Saturday: BKN, CHI, DAL, DEN, DET, HOU, MIA, MIN, PHI, PHO Saturday/Sunday: - Sunday/Monday the following: BOS, CHA, CLE, IND, MEM, OKC, ORL, POR, SAC, SAS, TOR Days with SIX or fewer games: Tuesday: 2 games Thursday: 3 games Teams playing on both Tuesday and Thursday: New Orleans Pelicans (3 games - Tue, Thurs, Sat) Utah Jazz (3 games - Tue, Thurs, Sat) Teams playing on Tuesday: Denver Nuggets (3 games - Tue, Fri, Sat) New Orleans Pelicans (3 games - Tue, Thurs, Sat) Oklahoma City Thunder (3 games - Tue, Fri, Sun) Utah Jazz (3 games - Tue, Thurs, Sat) Teams playing on Thursday: Golden State Warriors (4 games - Mon, Wed, Thurs, Sat) Milwaukee Bucks (4 games - Mon, Thurs, Fri, Sun) New York Knicks (4 games - Mon, Thurs, Fri, Sun) Los Angeles Lakers (3 games - Mon, Thurs, Sat) New Orleans Pelicans (3 games - Tue, Thurs, Sat) Utah Jazz (3 games - Tue, Thurs, Sat) Teams with a GOOD START to the week (three games from Monday to Thursday) Golden State Warriors (4 games - Mon, Wed, Thurs, Sat) Teams with a GOOD END to the week (three games from Thursday to Sunday) Milwaukee Bucks (4 games - Mon, Thurs, Fri, Sun) New York Knicks (4 games - Mon, Thurs, Fri, Sun) Teams with a POOR START to the week (one or no games from Monday to Thursday) Boston Celtics (3 games - Wed, Fri, Sun) Charlotte Hornets (3 games - Wed, Fri, Sun) Chicago Bulls (3 games - Mon, Fri, Sun) Cleveland Cavaliers (3 games - Wed, Fri, Sun) Denver Nuggets (3 games - Tue, Fri, Sat) Indiana Pacers (3 games - Wed, Fri, Sat) Los Angeles Clippers (3 games - Wed, Fri, Sat) Oklahoma City Thunder (3 games - Tue, Fri, Sun) Philadelphia 76ers (3 games - Wed, Fri, Sat) Sacramento Kings (3 games - Wed, Fri, Sat) Washington Wizards (3 games - Wed, Fri, Sat) Teams with a POOR END to the week (one or no games from Thursday to Sunday) None
Baller Streaming Strategy for Week 5
Absolute stars of this week will be players from the New Orleans Pelicans and the Utah Jazz. Although both teams have just three games this week, they play on both two-game Tuesday and three-game Thursday, along with Saturday which has the next fewest games with seven. Furthermore, streaming players from these teams potentially allows you to have a five-game week from the streaming spot. Now, this is in an ideal situation, but you could have a guy play on Monday, then cut him in favor of a player from NOP or UTA, keep him until Saturday and then drop for another player who has a game on Sunday. Keep in mind though that you're probably not the only one streaming in your league so these players won't just wait around for you to pick them up. So it might be worth more to pick one of these guys up before Tuesday if you think they could be gone by then. There are two more teams that play on Tuesday (Denver and Oklahoma City with three games apiece this week), and four more that play on Thursday (Golden State, Milwaukee and New York with four games and LA Lakers with three). We will be taking a look at their players as well. One important thing to remember here though is to always check whether any new games have been postponed before adding a player based on his schedule.
Streaming Options for Week 5
Shallower League Streaming Adds for the Week (Rostered in 25-75 % of Yahoo leagues): Josh Hart, SG/SF, NOP, (27% Rostered) - Strong Cats: 3PM, REB, STL Bojan Bogdanovic, SF/PF, UTA, (71% Rostered) - Strong Cats: 3PM, PTS, FT% Jordan Clarkson, PG/SG, UTA, (67% Rostered) - Strong Cats: 3PM, PTS, FT% Will Barton, SG/SF, DEN, (56% Rostered) - Strong Cats: 3PM, PTS, a bit of everything Paul Millsap, PF/C, DEN, (40% Rostered) - Strong Cats: REB, FG%, BLK/STL Darius Bazley, SF/PF, OKC, (54% Rostered) - Strong Cats: REB, BLK, a bit of everything Hamidou Diallo, SG/SF, OKC, (37% Rostered) - Strong Cats: 3PM, PTS Luguentz Dort, OKC, (25% Rostered) - Strong Cats: PTS, REB George Hill, PG/SG, OKC, (25% Rostered) - Strong Cats: STL, AST, FT%, 3PM Donte Divincenzo, PG/SG, MIL, (70% Rostered) - Strong Cats: 3PM, STL, REB Bobby Portis,PF/C, MIL, (60% Rostered) - Strong Cats: 3PM, REB, STL Elfrid Payton, PG, NYK, (60% Rostered) - Strong Cats: AST, STL Alec Burks, PG/SG, NYK, (44% Rostered) - Strong Cats: 3PM, PTS, FT% - buyer beware: still hasn't returned from injury at the moment of writing this Nerlens Noel, PF/C, NYK, (30% Rostered) - Strong Cats: REB, STL/BLK - buyer beware: plays very limited minutes Marc Gasol, C, LAL, (27% Rostered) - Strong Cats: REB, BLK Kyle Kuzma, SF/PF, LAL, (41% Rostered) - Strong Cats: 3PM, PTS
Shallower League Add
Jordan Clarkson, PG/SG, UTA, (67% Rostered) Strong Cats: 3PM, PTS, FT% If by any chance you're in a league shallow enough that Clarkson is still sitting on your waiver wire, in case you need some help in threes, points and FT% and don't care too much about turnovers don't waste too much time pondering whether to pick him up or not. Clarkson is the offensive leader of Utah's second unit and is averaging 13.4 field goal attempts per game (6.9 from beyond the arc). He is using his 25 minutes a game quite effectively with averages of 17.1 points, 2.9 3-pointers, 48.4% from the field, 93.3% from the line, 4.8 boards, 1.8 dimes, 0.9 steals, 0.3 blocks and 2.1 turnovers. This has him ranked inside the top 80 on Yahoo. These stats are not too much out of the ordinary for Jordan, although he is rebounding a bit more, but is also turning the ball over more than usual. Therefore, he should be on a similar level next week as well, and with games on such scarce days, he could prove vital to you winning your matchup. Furthermore, Utah plays two games against the Pelicans and one against the Warriors. Neither of these teams have had trouble with Covid so there is less risk of the games being postponed.
Deeper League Add
Royce O'Neale, SF/PF, UTA, (23% Rostered) Strong Cats: 3PM, REB, a bit of everything First of all, if someone told me that I would be recommending O'Neale as a pickup at the start of the season, I would have thought that Utah would have to have seven games that week, and he would still be in the "Insanely Deep" category. But lately, we are witnessing crazier things happen than O'Neale playing some of his best ball so far, so why the hell not? His role on the Jazz team is that of a three-and-D role player who usually just sits in the corner on offense and waits to launch a three, occasionally running down the court for a transition basket. Rarely is the ball in his hands to try to create a scoring opportunity for himself or others. The fact that he is playing close to 32 minutes a game and is averaging 5.0 shot attempts says it all. And that is completely fine, just not that attractive for fantasy purposes. Now, things didn't change drastically with Royce's role, but he is doing everything he does just a little bit better. Averages of 7.3 PTS with 1.8 3PM on 50.0 FG% and 62.5 FT%, 7.4 REB, 2.3 AST, 0.8 STL, 0.4 BLK and 1.1 TO are enough for him to be ranked at #103 in Yahoo leagues. If you like what O'Neale brings to the table, which is a little bit of everything, you could do worse in deep leagues. And with such a low usage rate, he is a pretty safe bet that he won't hurt your fantasy team too much even on an off night.
Insanely Deep League Add
Immanuel Quickley,PG, NYK, (9% Rostered) Strong Cats: 3PM, AST, FT% Immanuel could prove to be both a streaming, but also a season-long pickup. Elfrid Payton is the designated starter at the PG position in New York at the moment, and we all know how much their coach Tom Thibodeau likes to play his starters plenty of minutes, but Quickley has been outplaying Payton in their last two games. Even Thibs said that everything is under consideration, so if Quickley was to take over the starting role and get 30 minutes a night, that would be huge for him and his fantasy value. His upside was flashed quite brightly in the previous two contests with him scoring a combined 42 points (16-of-32 from the field, 4-of-5 from the line) with six 3-pointers, along with seven boards, seven dimes, two steals, a block and just one turnover in 25 minutes a game. With four games (one of which is on the scarce Thursday) next week, Quickley is worth a gamble in deep formats and could pay dividends on this investment for months to come.
Other Deep League Options for the Week (Rostered in less than 25% of Yahoo leagues)
Jaxson Hayes, C, NOP, (4% Rostered) - Strong Cats: FG%, REB, BLK Nickeil Alexander-Walker, SG/SF, NOP, (21% Rostered) - Strong Cats: 3PM, PTS - buyer beware: could see a drop in minutes upon Lonzo Ball's return J.J. Redick, SG, NOP, (12% Rostered) - Strong Cats: 3PM, FT%, PTS Royce O'Neale, SF/PF, UTA, (23% Rostered) - Strong Cats: 3PM, REB, a bit of everything Joe Ingles, SG/SF, IND, (2% Rostered) - Strong Cats: 3PM, AST, a little bit of everything - buyer beware: missed his previous couple of games due to Achilles soreness Georges Niang, SF/PF, UTA, (0% Rostered) - Strong Cats: REB, 3PM - buyer beware: should see a drop in minutes upon Joe Ingles' return Derrick Favors, PF/C, UTA, (11% Rostered) - Strong Cats: REB, BLK, FG% - buyer beware: plays just 16 minutes a game so far this season Gary Harris, SG/SF, DEN, (18% Rostered) - Strong Cats: 3PM, STL, a bit little of everything - buyer beware: missed his previous couple of games due to personal reasons Monte Morris, PG/SG, DEN, (20% Rostered) - Strong Cats: AST, FT%, 3PM P.J. Dozier, PG/SG, DEN, (1% Rostered) - Strong Cats: REB, 3PM JaMychal Green,PF/C, DEN, (16% Rostered) - Strong Cats: 3PM, REB, STL/BLK Facundo Campazzo, PG, DEN, (1% Rostered) - Strong Cats: AST, 3PM Mike Muscala,PF/C, OKC, (2% Rostered) - Strong Cats: 3PM, FT% - positive circumstance: more minutes while Al Horford is out Theo Maledon,PG, OKC, (1% Rostered) - Strong Cats: 3PM, AST - positive circumstance: rookie factor Isaiah Roby, PF/C, OKC, (2% Rostered) - Strong Cats: REB, 3PM, FG% - positive circumstance: more minutes while Al Horford is out Aleksej Pokusevski, SF, OKC, (1% Rostered) - Strong Cats: 3PM, REB, BLK - positive circumstance: rookie factor Kenrich Williams, SF/PF, OKC, (0% Rostered) - Strong Cats: 3PM, REB - positive circumstance: more minutes while Al Horford is out Kevon Looney, PF/C, GSW, (2% Rostered) - Strong Cats: FG%, REB, BLK/STL Eric Paschall, SF/PF, GSW, (12% Rostered) - Strong Cats: PTS, REB Kent Bazemore, SG/SF, GSW, (1% Rostered) - Strong Cats: 3PM, STL/BLK, REB Brad Wanamaker, PG/SG, GSW, (1% Rostered) - Strong Cats: FT%, 3PM AST Damion Lee, SG/SF, GSW, (2% Rostered) - Strong Cats: 3PM, STL Bryn Forbes,PG/SG, MIL, (1% Rostered) - Strong Cats: 3PM, FT% D.J. Augustin,PG, MIL, (1% Rostered) - Strong Cats: 3PM, AST Pat Connaughton,SG/SF, MIL, (1% Rostered) - Strong Cats: 3PM, REB, FT%, STL Austin Rivers, SG/SF, NYK, (19% Rostered) - Strong Cats: 3PM, PTS Kevin Knox II, SF/PF, NYK, (2% Rostered) - Strong Cats: 3PM Immanuel Quickley,PG, NYK, (9% Rostered) - Strong Cats: 3PM, AST, FT% Kentavious Caldwell-Pope, PG/SG, LAL, (13% Rostered) - Strong Cats: 3PM, FT%, STL - buyer beware: sprained his ankle on Friday (Jan 1st), no news on his availability yet) Talen Horton-Tucker, SG/SF, LAL, (10% Rostered) - Strong Cats: FT%, REB, STL/BLK Wesley Matthews, SG/SF, LAL, (1% Rostered) - Strong Cats: 3PM, STL Alex Caruso, PG/SG, LAL, (4% Rostered) - Strong Cats: 3PM, AST, STL - buyer beware: is currently in COVID-19 protocols - check his availability before adding Markieff Morris, PF/C, LAL, (2% Rostered) - Strong Cats: 3PM, REB Hopefully, some of these guys will help you win your next week's matchup and get you that one step closer to winning the whole thing!
Some CS:GO sites, listed on gamble-csgo.com, have special badges. They will allow you quickly understand special features of a service. Bonus – sites with special bonuses for gamblers . Promo Code - code for Free coins/skins/deposits. HOT – trendy services that created a resonance in the community. TOP – the best among CS:GO gambling site. Is CS:GO Gambling Legal or Illegal Gambling with ... It’s one of these phrases in English (other languages have them too) which rely on rhyme/word-chime for effect - gamble/ramble (“ramble” is an old word which means to walk leisurely or carefree). At first they are amusing; after about ten seconds they become deeply irritating. “Flipism” - a made-up word - refers to flipping or tossing a coin, a way in some games of making a decision (as if this was a philosophy). Forrest Gump famously compared life to a box of chocolates - you ... British English: gamble NOUN / ˈɡæmbl /. A gamble is a risky action or decision that you take in the hope of gaining money, success, or an advantage over other people. Yesterday, he named his cabinet and took a big gamble in the process. American English: gamble / ˈgæmbəl /. Schoharie County, the upstate New York setting of Mona Fastvold’s The World to Come, takes its name from a Mohawk word meaning ‘floating driftwood’.It’s an apt starting point from which to view the Norwegian director’s sophomore feature, the term keys into the restless stasis of a film – and its central pairing – that struggles to find solid ground. This man come from a good niggah fam’ly — one of the best I knows of, but the p’lice ‘lowed him to loaf aroun’ without workin’, and to drink and gamble, till he just got to be no good ... To gambol means to spring, caper, frisk, romp. etc (nothing to do with gambling, except maybe a description of what you do when you win a big jackpot). Gambol comes from the Middle French word: Gambade. So now you know! It comes from the same roots as Games and Gaming. English Language Learners Definition of gamble. (Entry 1 of 2) : to play a game in which you can win or lose money or possessions : to bet money or other valuable things. : to risk losing (an amount of money) in a game or bet. : to risk losing (something valuable or important) in order to do or achieve something. So what does the Bible say about false teachers, prophets, and pastors? Ultimately a false church leader is just that – false. The theme of their life will be deception, hiding, and lies. They distort the word of God in preaching and they distort the example of Christ in their behavior. They tell people what their itching ears want to hear so that they will receive from the people what they ... SOLUTION WORD: “soda” Here’s a fairly simple example of how different uses of the same word can come into play. “Soda fountain” and “soda pop” conjure up the most familiar ... gamble (Noun) A risky venture. The sailors had taken many gambles with the sea and always won. Etymology: From gamenian 'to play', either via a dialectal survival of gammlen, a variant of gamenen 'to play, jest, be merry', or via a derivative of gamel 'to play games' gamble (Verb) To take a risk, with the potential of a positive outcome.